Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 76 - 90 of 120
View Jody Wilson-Raybould Profile
Ind. (BC)
Madam Speaker, I thank the member from our home province of British Columbia. We need to continue to be very open and very transparent. I look forward to seeing the budget when it comes. Hopefully it speaks to the necessary need for fiscal anchors. We certainly do not have the debt-to-GDP declining fiscal anchor, so we need to be open and transparent and have conversations about it. I believe fundamentally in fiscal responsibility. I also believe in sustainability and support for Canadians, and in having conversations across the House on fiscal accountability.
View Steven Blaney Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate virtually today. I would like to take this opportunity to say hello to my House of Commons colleagues and everyone following our proceedings. I would like to point out that I am taking part in today's proceedings from the city of Lévis, which is currently in a red zone. I want to commend the resilience of the people of Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis who are experiencing the strains of the lockdown.
The purpose of my intervention today is to convey that I cannot support the Speech from the Throne delivered by the Governor General on September 23, 2020.
The role of government and of parliamentarians is to help and support people, to minimize the impacts of the pandemic and to try to make things run smoothly. I simply cannot support the throne speech because there are two fundamental components missing from it, things that would help people in red zones, like the people of Lévis.
Measures need to be put in place immediately to deal with the resurgence of the pandemic. That includes quicker testing and results analysis. For example, the wife of one of my colleagues who works in the education system was tested for COVID-19 and has been waiting for three days now for her results, which means that my colleague also has to wait for the results. That is paralyzing the work of our organizations, despite telework being an option. It slows things down, not to mention the fact that some jobs require staff to be on site.
In our region, there are a lot of manufacturing jobs. These measures are needed immediately to support public health authorities in order to make testing faster, something that is not clearly set out in the throne speech.
Another necessary measure involves providing reasonable and targeted support to businesses and individuals during the pandemic so that the government remains agile and flexible once it is over. Unfortunately, even before the pandemic, the Liberals were already caught in a deficit spiral. Right now we are far from improving our situation.
What is in a throne speech? As my colleague from British Columbia mentioned, we usually expect a throne speech to present a vision.
This vision could have explained how to fight the pandemic and help people right now while presenting a plan for the medium term. However, neither of these elements is in the throne speech. On the contrary, it is chock full of all kinds of promises. Having many priorities means that there are none. It is just a jumble of words. Unfortunately, this does not meet our immediate needs as the pandemic surges and we are experiencing a second wave.
In my view, the best analysis of the throne speech is the one provided by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. His analysis leads us to conclude that the throne speech is not what Canada needs right now to face the pandemic. We should remember that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is an independent officer and he is in some ways the government watchdog. He is there to remind the government that it must stay on track if it wants to prevent problems from arising further down the road.
We have seen the warning signs. Before the throne speech, my old colleague and former finance minister, Joe Oliver, said that it is time for Canada to pick a fiscal anchor.
Of course we need to support people. In 2008, the Conservatives did that through massive infrastructure investments to stimulate the economy. Many projects got built in my riding, including the Lac-Etchemin arena, the Lévis water treatment plant and the Notre-Dame-Auxiliatrice-de-Buckland infrastructure project. Those were measurable outcomes of targeted investments, and the Conservatives also had a plan at the time to balance the budget.
A former Liberal finance minister, John Manley, said it is important to have a fiscal anchor because that shows the financial markets that Canada is supporting people and knows where it is going in the medium term. Unfortunately, the throne speech proves that this government is going in the opposite direction.
According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's economic outlook, it is possible to get through the pandemic and stay on track with realistic fiscal anchors, but that will not be possible if the government engages in new spending.
As my colleague from British Columbia said, the Liberals are interfering in programs that are provincial responsibilities. As the saying goes, they are throwing money out the window. That is not the sound management we expect. Moreover, financial markets are worried. Firms such as Fitch Ratings have downgraded Canada, and credit rating agencies such as Bloomberg and Moody's have warned Canada that if it does not stop spending shamelessly and keeps introducing poorly targeted measures, it is going to crash and burn.
We want to support Canadians, but we want to be able to do that now and in the long term. The measures proposed by the Liberals combined with the government's extravagant spending would threaten the social safety net in the medium term. That is troubling. We are not even close to achieving sustainable development.
According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, there is a risk that the sustainable debt-to-GDP trajectory could be reversed. In other words, if we continue to spend excessively on extravagant and poorly targeted measures, we will be temporarily “doped” by a significant cash injection, but we will have to pay for the damage in the medium and long term, since this is borrowed money.
There is another aspect that concerns me. The Speech from the Throne says that interest rates are going to stay low for decades to come. Of course that is unrealistic. The Bank of Canada's key interest rate is currently 0.25%. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's assumption, that rate could remain stable for the next three years, but it is expected to increase by 1% within five years' time. That is five times higher than the current key rate. The rate would remain fixed at 1.25%, but that would still increase the debt by $8 billion. The government seems to be deluding itself regarding easy credit.
The third thing that worries me is the government's poorly targeted measures. People received more money than they lost from their savings. This is borrowed money, though. It belongs to the government.
Canadians' household income went up by 5.4%. That is nice to see, but since this is borrowed money, it will have to be paid back. The problem is that the Liberal government makes poor spending choices and implements measures that hurt the economy. For example, it did not encourage people to stay connected to their jobs or to return to work.
I will not support the throne speech because it contains extravagant expenses, is devoid of any fiscal anchors and does not present short-term measures to combat the pandemic.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the Chair for coordinating the hybrid sitting. This is the first time I have participated.
I will now yield the floor to my colleagues and I would be happy to take questions.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, as we know, in just the last few years the Liberal government is set to triple our national debt. Can the member explain the Liberal plan to balance our budget or does he want to admit that it really does not have a plan to balance the budget?
View Robert Morrissey Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Robert Morrissey Profile
2020-10-06 12:51 [p.610]
Mr. Speaker, one of the great myths is the hypocrisy that often occurs within the Conservative Party when questioning in the House on the balancing of budgets. We can listen to the rhetoric that we hear day after day coming from across the floor or we can look at the actual practice of Conservative governments. We have had two in the past, one in the late eighties that racked up the biggest deficit at the time in the history of the country when facing no extraordinary measures. Therefore, it is a bit ironic for the Conservative Party to lecture this government on balancing books when it barely did it on one minor occasion in about 20 years of governing.
View Dane Lloyd Profile
CPC (AB)
View Dane Lloyd Profile
2020-10-06 13:08 [p.612]
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to once again rise in this House to represent the good people of Sturgeon River—Parkland.
The past six months have been a time of tremendous trial for my constituents and all Canadians. Loved ones have been lost, families have been separated, businesses have shut down permanently and our government has failed to provide a clear plan for a way forward for this country.
Alberta and the other western provinces were hurting before this pandemic. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost, including in my constituency. The Liberals have refused to sign off on new resource projects, costing thousands of jobs and billions in investments. Their infrastructure bank and infrastructure minister have failed to deliver billions of dollars in investments, costing our communities and many more thousands of jobs. Just the other day, Alberta was hurt again with the announcement that Suncor will be laying off thousands of workers, along with TC Energy.
Canadians pulled together to get us through the first wave of COVID-19. We endured lockdowns in the spring that cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and closed tens of thousands of businesses. Yes, we saved lives, but what did the Liberal government do with the sacrifice of Canadians? It dithered.
While our government could have spent the summer procuring rapid testing or planning for an economic recovery, it focused all its energy on shutting down an investigation into its own ethical failures. We have yet to receive the full details of the WE Charity scandal created by the Liberal Prime Minister, and if the Liberals had it their way, Canadians would never know the full truth. That is why we are here today, not even a year since the last Speech from the Throne: Instead of governing the nation through this crisis, the Liberals chose to play political games, prorogue Parliament and shut down any committee investigations into their wrongdoing.
Our Conservative team will not relent. We will hold the Liberal government accountable for its ethical failures. I know that on this side of the House, we are looking forward to sunny ways and sunny days indeed. While many Canadians may be dealing with a COVID pandemic, the government is dealing with an ethical sickness. The Prime Minister has been fond of telling the opposition that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and we have heard him loud and clear. We will be taking his advice and prescribing a full dosage.
There is a pandemic, and everyone out west is talking about it, but it is not COVID-19; it is the joblessness pandemic. It is a disease that has been with us for years before COVID-19 hit us. Unfortunately, rather than working tirelessly to save our struggling energy industry and the western economies, the Liberals looked eager to dance on our graves and declare our economy bust.
Why else would nearly every decision since their election in 2015 appear to be targeted toward undermining our jobs and energy industry, whether it be the pipeline-killing Bill C-69, their carbon tax or now their mega carbon tax that is masquerading as a clean fuel standard? Why is it that whenever western MPs stand up for their constituents, they are accused of only playing to regional interests? Whenever our auto sector or aerospace sector is threatened, all Canadian MPs are called together to stand up to save jobs, yet we hear nothing when our energy sector is suffering.
Alberta was proud to support fellow Canadians in the 2008 financial crisis. We carried this country's economy when the federal government had to bail out an American auto company. We were proud to support our brothers and sisters in Newfoundland and Labrador when their offshore industry was suffering. When the Atlantic economy was struggling, it was the cheques sent home by Atlantic workers working in the Alberta oil patch that kept families going.
Today, Albertans are struggling and Saskatchewan is struggling. The west is struggling. The engine of Canada's economy is facing record unemployment. Where is our federal government to lend us a hand? We have shovel-ready projects that will create tens of thousands of jobs. We do not even need a bailout from taxpayers; we just need the Liberal government to get out of the way.
The Nova Gas Transmission line, which has been waiting for nearly a year for federal approval, would create 5,500 jobs. It is the next generation of polypropylene production in the Alberta industrial heartland. At least 2,500 jobs are on the line, yet the Liberals are pushing forward with their antiplastic manufacturing agenda. With the Liberal mega carbon tax at an estimated $350 a tonne, major players that produce fertilizer to feed our farms and produce fuel to heat our homes are at risk of packing up and moving south of the border. Western Canadians do not need a minister of the middle class and those working hard to join it; we need a minister of the middle class and those working hard just to survive and stay middle class.
The Liberals are promising Canadians a lot of goodies in the throne speech, but nothing that has been promised has not been promised before by the Liberal government. The Liberals will say that this time is different, that they are working with the NDP, which holds the balance of power. We have heard this story before. I have a word of caution to my colleagues in the NDP. They can learn a lot from the B.C. Green Party or the Liberal Democrats in the U.K.: Things never really work out for the junior partner.
The throne speech should be praised for its commitment to recycling. By that I mean recycling old Liberal talking points. The Liberals have promised universal pharmacare and a universal day care system. They have promised universal broadband as well. Yet, they have been in power for five years and have failed to deliver for rural communities.
All of this is happening while the Liberals continue to plow forward with the greatest expansion of government spending and debt financing in modern Canadian history. This is over $400 billion in federal deficit, not counting the hundreds of billions taken out by arm's-length Crown corporations such as the Bank of Canada, BDC, EDC and the CMHC. This is hundreds of billions off the government's books, but hundreds of billions that Canadian taxpayers will still have to pay for if things go bust.
How exactly are the Liberals going to finance this new pandemic debt, while also launching the most radical expansion of the Canadian welfare state in a generation? It is with low interest rates, cries the Prime Minister. We can afford everything, as if we can sustain low interest rates for decades on end without the consequences of massive inflation: inflation that will erode the savings of our vulnerable seniors, inflation that will risk the opportunity for millennials and those in generation Z to buy their first home and inflation that will devalue the hard-earned wages of the working class for the benefit of big business and debt holders.
If the government chooses not to go down that disastrous path, we are left with two alternatives: They will increase taxes to finance this new spending or they will cut spending in other areas to reallocate to these new promises.
Will the Liberals be cutting the child care benefit and child care expenses tax deduction for families so they can pay for their new national day care system? Will families be denied the choice of whether to stay home with their young children or send them to day care? When the Liberals remove the Canada child benefit and tax deductions, that is exactly what they are doing. They are removing choice from parents who want to raise their children at home.
How will the government pay for this new universal pharmacare system? Will they cut health transfers like the Liberals did back in the 1990s? Will they refuse to allow new life-saving drugs like Trikafta, which miraculously saved the lives of those with cystic fibrosis?
If they do not cut spending, they will have to raise taxes. The throne speech talks a bit about this. It talks about raising taxes on digital giants and closing stock loopholes. This is not necessarily something I disagree with, but will these new taxes generate the tens of billions in new dollars that will finance universal day care and universal pharmacare? The fact is that they will not.
We are left with few alternatives. Will the Liberals raise the GST that the Conservatives lowered from 7% to 5%? Will they raise personal income taxes or capital gains taxes? Are they going to raise corporation taxes and risk capital and investment being taken to our neighbour to the south, a low-tax jurisdiction?
It is time for the Liberals to be honest with Canadians about their fiscal plan. Canadians deserve that honesty. Will the Liberals allow mass inflation to destroy the middle class? Will they raise taxes on Canadian families? Will they cut spending and benefits? Will it be a combination of all three? Canadians deserve a real answer.
View Chris Bittle Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chris Bittle Profile
2020-10-06 13:17 [p.614]
Mr. Speaker, the member talked about our neighbours to the south and pointed to their finances and the way they operate in terms of taxation. However, clearly their deficits, debt-to-GDP ratio and deficit-to-GDP ratio are much higher.
Is that a jurisdiction we should model for our taxes and social programs? I am wondering if the member could elaborate on how Canada should run more like the United States.
View Dane Lloyd Profile
CPC (AB)
View Dane Lloyd Profile
2020-10-06 13:18 [p.614]
Mr. Speaker, the United States is a completely different jurisdiction from Canada. It is a worldwide reserve currency. When they print dollars, the world is ready to lend the United States money.
Back in the 1990s, there was a time, under a previous Liberal administration, that the world refused to lend Canadians money. We cannot simply allow the Bank of Canada to keep printing money and buying up Canada's debt. There is going to be a consequence to this. We will hit a fiscal wall and have massive inflation, tax hikes, job cuts and spending cuts.
The Liberals have to pick their poison and stop living in this fairy tale world they are making up. There are going to be consequences. They need to come up with a plan because Canadians deserve to know what their fiscal plan is.
View Yvan Baker Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Yvan Baker Profile
2020-10-06 15:11 [p.634]
Mr. Speaker, just before question period, I was speaking about some of the elements of the throne speech that are particularly important and will be impactful to members of my community. I had spoken about how the throne speech proposes measures to protect Canadians and now I want to talk about how we are supporting Canadians through the pandemic.
We all know very well that countless people across Canada, and in my community of Etobicoke Centre, are suffering economically as a result of the pandemic. Many have lost their jobs and incomes have been impacted and declined. There are a number of measures that we have implemented and will be implementing through the throne speech going forward to address these challenges.
The first category is supporting workers and their families. That is why we created the CERB, so Canadians could continue to pay their bills. We are also transitioning to a redesigned EI program, one that allows people to qualify more easily, one that will allow self-employed workers to qualify. A number of other programs we are launching shortly will support Canadians who need help through this pandemic.
Through the throne speech, we are also taking measures to create jobs. There is a plan to create one million jobs and part of that is an extension of the wage subsidy to help those companies that continue to struggle to keep their workers or hire their workers back so those people continue to have incomes and jobs.
Supporting businesses is another important component of this is. To those businesses that employ folks in my riding and across Canada, an extension of the wage subsidy is a big component of that. Many businesses have taken advantage of the wage subsidy and of course we will continue to provide that through to next summer. We are also improving the business credit availability program because providing credit is one of the key mechanisms in which we support businesses trying to get through this difficult period.
I often hear from some of my constituents saying these are great programs, but what about their finances and fiscal sustainability of this plan. One of the things the throne speech speaks to is that very issue. Obviously, these are costly programs, but I believe it is true and many economists believe it is true, that we would be much worse off fiscally and economically if we had not taken the steps we are taking and if we do not take the steps proposed in the throne speech. It is incumbent upon those members across the aisle who continue to talk about fiscal sustainability, who continue to talk about our economy, if they are going to support that, to vote for—
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I will be splitting my time with my good friend from Humber River—Black Creek.
Like other members, I have been out and about with constituents and others. The general pattern of the conversation is to lament the progress of this pandemic and then the conversation tends to move toward how we will pay for this. The programs the government has put in place are generally well received, very welcome and are life rests to people in real desperation. It is quite right to say that the government has made its balance sheet available to Canadian citizens. Nevertheless, there will be a day of reckoning.
I will focus a bit on the necessity of fiscal anchors, but before I do, I want to point to the central truth of the Speech from the Throne, and that is that we need to do all we can to restore the nation's health. This is the pre-eminent priority of the Government of Canada and should be the pre-eminent priority of the Parliament of Canada. Without the restoration of the nation's health, there simply will not be any restoration of the nation's wealth. The saying that the first wealth is health has never been more true than it is today.
In 1993, The New York Times nominated Canada as an honorary member of the third world. Our debt and deficits had risen to unsustainable levels, vulnerable to inflation, runs on the dollar and other economic shocks. In 1997 through to 2006, the Chrétien and Martin governments paid down the national debt by something in the order of $100 billion, taking the debt-to-GDP ratio from north of 65% to somewhere in the order of 25%. Fiscal discipline and a robust economy allowed Canada to exit its honorary status as a third world nation and become the envy of the G7, the G20 and other OECD economies. We have been living on that legacy ever since.
The emergence of COVID-19 has driven our debt-to-GDP ratio much higher and it is now in the range of 49%. Recently the Parliamentary Budget Office issued a fiscal update. It has made three sobering assumptions: first, that there will be no widely available vaccine for the next 12 to 18 months; second, that current response measures will be withdrawn on schedule; and third, that the Bank of Canada will maintain a prime rate of 0.25% through to 2023 and further maintain its program of quantitative easing.
Between December 2019 and June 2020, Canada's real GDP collapsed by 13.4%, and the PBO does not expect it to recover to the December 2019 levels until March 2022. As the GDP goes, so also go the revenues of the government.
I appreciate the PBO's candour and recognize that all projections, whether they are from the Department of Finance or the PBO, are subject to some very significant caveats.
Canada is a trading nation. It is both a strength and a vulnerability. Our most significant trading partner has been in turmoil for the last four years. We might all hope that November 3 might bring a more stable and predictable relationship, but we cannot count on it.
Our number two trading partner, China, seems to be determined to turn Canada into a vassal state, kidnapping Canadian citizens, making arbitrary trade decisions, practising a hectoring diplomacy and introducing mass surveillance, all of which make the Chinese Communist Party an unreliable partner. The pandemic has woefully exposed our dependence on any supply chain that runs through China. In addition, our third-largest trading partner seems to be consumed yet again by Brexit discussions.
In this gloomy context of unreliable trading partners, an unpredictable virus and unsustainable spending, what is a finance minister to do? Ultimately, the finance minister is the Dr. No of cabinet. However, it is helpful when saying no to attach the no to a stated rationale.
I, for one, would like to see a joint statement from the Department of Finance and the Parliamentary Budget Office giving their best projections on the GDP of the nation. In addition, I would like to see some effort to reconcile any differences. It would be in the national interest to have a common understanding of our fiscal and economic picture.
Second, I would like to see a fiscal anchor or series of fiscal anchors. If there is no fiscal anchor, the ship of state will inevitably go in dizzying circles. There are plenty of anchors to choose from. A stable debt-to-GDP ratio has the advantage of being widely accepted and easily understandable. The disadvantage is in the short run: It will deteriorate very quickly, as both the numerator and the denominator are going in opposite directions.
Another fiscal anchor is a balanced budget. At this point it is an unrealistic fiscal anchor, as implicitly acknowledged by my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, who recognized that balanced budgets may be more than 10 years away. By the way, I was pleased to see him in the House and look forward to his being Her Majesty's leader of the official opposition for many years to come.
Another fiscal anchor is inflation. Some say we should let inflation be the only anchor, or otherwise simply let programs expand. Still others propose a cap on spending. The disadvantage of a cap on spending is that it is entirely arbitrary and lacks flexibility.
David Dodge, the former deputy minister and former governor of the Bank of Canada, suggests a fiscal anchor tied to the cost of the national debt. He suggests that the cost of servicing the national debt should not exceed 10% of government revenues on an annual basis, and that, in addition, we should eventually reduce annual deficits to no more than 1% of GDP. Mr. Dodge also wants all government investments, all programs, tied to an increase in productivity. Canada has for quite a number of years now been a laggard in productivity.
My purpose here is to urge the government to pick a fiscal anchor or anchors to recognize that the Government of Canada is not the economy of Canada. At some point Dr. No has to say no, because to say otherwise would be to cut the ship of state from “wise and prudent management”.
Canada is not like the U.S. It can do wild and crazy fiscal things and get away with it because it is the world's currency. The Canadian dollar is a small currency in a very large pool. If either inflation or a run on the dollar occur, all the presumptions of cheap money are out the window. At this point we do have cheap money. Let us hope that it continues, because a number of the assumptions are based upon this.
With that, I hope the government will commit to fiscal anchors and we can have a realistic conversation about the program mix.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2020-10-06 16:02 [p.641]
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for a shockingly sensible speech, a speech I would not have expected to hear from any member of the government caucus.
He made a lot of very good points. He quite rightly gave credit to the Chrétien and Martin government for adopting balanced budgets and reducing our debt. He quite rightly pointed out that in the early 1990s this country literally ran out of money when finance officials went to lending markets and could not find a single person on earth willing to lend a dollar to the Government of Canada for fear it could not pay the money back. At that time, our debt-to-GDP ratio was 66.6%. A half-year ago, it was 30%. In other words, we had about a 36% buffer of space between where we were and where we could expect to go bankrupt.
Today, it is at 50% of GDP. In other words, the government has more than eliminated half of the buffer that existed between where we were and where we go off the cliff. That means the trajectory we are on is not sustainable. The problem with cliffs is that while one approaches them gradually, one falls off them suddenly, and once off the cliff, it is too late.
Does the hon. member agree with Her Majesty's loyal opposition that a firm and clear fiscal anchor is necessary and necessary now?
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, one always has a degree of trepidation when one is being complimented by the member for Carleton. However, his numbers are accurate, and I was trying to make the case that we need to articulate a fiscal anchor or anchors. Without fiscal anchors, we will simply pile up debt.
We have seen this movie before. When the Chrétien government took over in 1993, we were in an unsustainable position. We need to get back to some position whereby we can sustain the necessary programs.
The government rightly put the government's balance sheet in the service of desperate Canadians. However, in the words of the great philosopher Wayne Gretzky, we need to know where the puck's going, not where the puck is.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, my colleague said at the end of her speech, “this is not necessarily the time for austerity”.
I am trying to understand what the government's working definition of “austerity” would be, because every day, every week, we see new expanded spending announcements push the deficit up higher and higher. At what point would that spending be too much?
If the government were spending a deficit of $500 billion, $600 billion, $700 billion, at what point would the member say to hang on a second because we need to slow down that spending? If we were spending a little less than we are now, say, a $300-billion deficit instead of $343 billion, would that be austerity? Would spending $250 billion in deficit be considered austerity? Where are the actual cut-offs in terms of the member's concept of what would be too much spending, and what would qualify as austerity?
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, it is great to see my colleague back in the House.
Let me say that I wish we did not have to spend one cent of this money. I wish we never had this coronavirus pandemic, but we have it. I am so proud of the fact that the Government of Canada took on the task to meet the needs of Canadians. We did not turn our backs on people and say that we spent $100,000 and cannot spend anymore. None of us wants to be spending all this money, but the reality is that if we do not help Canadians now, then when do they need a government? They need a government now when we have a pandemic and that is exactly what we are doing. We are going to do whatever is necessary to help Canadians survive this terrible pandemic.
View Ken Hardie Profile
Lib. (BC)
View Ken Hardie Profile
2020-10-06 17:08 [p.651]
Madam Speaker, our government's throne speech and this debate come at a time when Canadians, and certainly those of us in Fleetwood—Port Kells, are paying more attention than usual to their governments. Of course, this is because these are exceedingly unusual times. These are times when we are experiencing a great reunderstanding of the role of government in the lives of our citizens.
Starting about 50 years ago, people in western Europe and most of the Americas looked for a new balance of influence, one that leaned toward smaller governments. This was after a long period during which those living through the Depression, the world war and recovery had seen national governments calling the shots on how the human, material and financial resources of the nation would be directed.
Now we find ourselves here, at a time when flaws in the free market and the weakness of globalization have shaken the ability of governments to maintain the resiliency needed to deal with the social and economic shocks of the pandemic. These have all combined to have us once again looking to government for leadership, ideas, the willingness to act and hope. That is what our government's Speech from the Throne intended to deliver.
We in Canada have certain advantages that have helped us manage the challenges this year has thrown at us. One of them is that, by and large, Canadians tend to believe in the power of the common good. We are generally prepared to set aside self-interest and assume some duty to act selflessly to help our neighbours. We know that when it is necessary, we draw lines in the sand and stand up for our values, principles and ideologies, because we honestly believe they represent the best direction for the country, but we have also demonstrated the good sense to set that all aside and pull together when efforts toward a common cause are needed.
Our colleagues in the opposition have disagreed with some of the steps this government has taken in response to the social and economic damages inflicted by the pandemic, but when it really counted, the whole lot of us have worked to make our national response to the pandemic better. When so many countries have been torn by partisan political conflict, which stalled action in the public interest, Canadians have been able to count on us to act quickly. They understand the need to make course corrections as we go.
Another advantage we have is the lessons history has taught us in supporting Canadians in times like this. The economic shock we experienced this year looks very much like the sudden and drastic shock of the collapse of the stock markets in 1929, but our response this time is different. In the early 1930s, prime minister R. B. Bennett looked to Conservative ideology and decided that austerity was the right strategy. That served only to deepen the breadth and depth of the misery Canadians experienced in the so-called Great Depression. My parents lived through it and, believe me, there was nothing great about it.
In 2008, unchecked excesses in our financial markets had the world teetering on economic collapse. This time, though, the Canadian government and prime minister Stephen Harper reacted in an un-Conservative way, going into deficit to stimulate the economy and take up some of the economic slack.
There are, however, some things to learn from that experience, too. While Canadians escaped the kind of suffering experienced by our neighbours to the south, the malaise was not cured. Indeed, by the summer of 2015, Canada was still technically in a recession and unemployment was stubbornly high. Mr. Harper had reassumed his conservatism and believed that balancing the budget was what the country needed. His stimulus was too little, and it ended too soon.
This time, the government has had the benefit of those experiences, and what we have learned, we have applied, but more than that, the strategies we brought to government in 2015 have served as a major advantage for Canada. Those deficits we recorded from 2015 to 2019 were not a response to an economic emergency. They were funding investments and, like all good investments, they delivered dividends. The total deficit in the first term was about $60 billion. Canada's GDP grew by just over $180 billion. If we like, we could claim a 300% return on that investment.
Unlike the Conservative stimulus package in 2008-09, which funded projects across the country, the deficits in our first term were divided between infrastructure expansion designed to increase Canada's productivity and the economic well-being of Canadian families.
Our income-tested Canada child benefit delivers help to the families that need it the most, the families that shop at the local stores and boost the local economy. We should not overlook what the Canada child benefit has meant to families in these tough times.
Our economic performance from 2015 to 2019 included the creation of over a million new jobs, real wage growth for the first time in a decade or more, hundreds of thousands of people lifted out of poverty and, by the way, a lift in government revenues, all without raising taxes and the program cuts that define the Harper years.
Something else we learned coming into the pandemic is that growing the economy and working to share the wealth more equitably means families and governments alike can do more. The things we learned, the things we proved prior to and after the pandemic shutdown in March, are now helping Canadians through another round of tough times, so let us recap them.
First, from the response to the stock market crash in 1929, we know this is not the time for austerity. Members may recall this being mentioned in the throne speech. From the response to the financial collapse in 2008, we learned we have to commit to doing what it takes to help Canadians and to take the country through recovery and beyond.
We have proven that support focused on helping middle-class families and the families struggling to get to the middle class does more to deliver well-being, confidence and hope than tax cuts for big business and the wealthy. A strong middle class is good for everybody.
All of us in this place have proven that when the welfare of the country is on the line, we are all team Canada, where a good idea does not care who has it. The quick delivery of benefits is critical. We cannot let perfection be the enemy of good. We have learned that while globalization has done much to lift the prospects of people across the world, we cannot count on it when nations act in their own natural self-interest and fail other nations that depend on them for vitally needed products, such as masks, gowns and gloves. Sovereignty means self-reliance.
We knew that ignoring the problem of conditions in long-term care facilities would come back to haunt us. Some lessons are hard to learn and come too late. As a government, we know that our ability to fund the support Canadians need at historically low interest rates is far better than the ability of families that would have no alternative to credit card debt.
Even adding on the borrowing for pandemic supports, low interest rates today mean Canada's annual debt servicing costs are billions of dollars lower than they were last fall. We can and have locked in these historically low rates for decades, and this makes sense for the nation when families would pay 19% interest on credit card balances.
We know that, with some notable exceptions, Canadians will do what is necessary for the sake of their neighbours and the good of the country. Social distancing, wearing masks and not holding big parties are not onerous gestures.
There is one other thing we know. We have an opportunity, one that this government believes we must take now, to reformat our post-pandemic economy. We are wasting too many valuable human resources in Canada with so many of us working precariously in the so-called gig economy. We can do better than re-establishing those conditions. We cannot pass on the opportunity to build and bolster in a number of sections.
That includes the low-carbon economy. The major oil companies get it. They are leading the transition in many cases. Our government's support for Canada's energy sector must build on that for the sake of good jobs in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and northeast B.C., and for the sake of our climate and the future of life on this planet. This too was incorporated into the Speech from the Throne.
Help will be on the way for our tourism and hospitality sectors. Our commitment to a national pharmacare program still stands. Family reunification is a priority, more important than ever in such an uncertain world.
Like all throne speeches, the one we heard last week provided the country with a strong commitment to deal with the challenges of the day and a high-level vision for where we think the nation needs to go. Day by day, the details are emerging on programs that signal our commitment to do what it takes to protect the health of Canadians, our communities and our economy.
The next step is to build on the foundation we have laid over the past five years to realize the full value of our natural national advantages. If members listened carefully they would have heard the essential elements of leadership, creativity, collaboration, flexibility, resiliency and thoughtfulness. These are not the exclusive property of the party in power. This is what Canadians have a right to expect from all of us in this place.
Yes, we will have different ideas about what to do and how to do them. Canadians will benefit from a healthy exchange of ideas, but the signals we send to our citizens must unfailingly give them not just the hope but also the confidence that their Parliament will work as a community of purpose for their common good.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2020-09-30 17:41 [p.366]
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.
I am most pleased to speak on the throne speech. I do believe this throne speech, and the legislation and policy that will flow out of it, will put Canada on the right track going forward.
We are in a pandemic that seems to be gaining ground again. This is the time for leadership. The Prime Minister has shown leadership day after day. Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition said, the Prime Minister and his government were in communication with all members of the House, and having meetings at night in conference calls with the bureaucracy. Everybody put in ideas, but the government showed that it was willing, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, to make changes that would improve policies for individuals, businesses, organizations, provinces and territories, day in and day out since the pandemic began.
The Prime Minister developed the programs. He worked with the provinces, and the provinces have congratulated the Prime Minister, time and again, on his willingness to work with them during this pandemic.
He has certainly shown leadership in terms of working with all Canadians. I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that he only wanted to work with some. No. The Prime Minister has worked with all Canadians, with all organizations and with all provinces. The Prime Minister is showing he is the leader that is needed in this time for this country to move forward. This is the direct opposite of what the Leader of the Opposition had to say.
This throne speech sets out a blueprint for where we need to go in the future. There really is no shortage of ideas. The purpose of a throne speech is to lay out the blueprint in the House of Commons and to have other ideas and criticisms come forward, certainly. I believe that, in the way that Parliament is structured, other ideas can come forward to improve on the blueprint that the government has laid out, although it is a very good blueprint.
The finance committee, in fact, heard hundreds of suggestions from Canadian organizations and individuals between April 3 and the end of June. I want to qualify that. This was a criticism that I do not believe was valid. I want to qualify that a key point made by witnesses before the finance committee is that, while future spending is essential, it must be done in a fiscally responsible way, and the Minister of Finance should certainly, at the earliest opportunity, lay out an economic growth plan. That is what witnesses were saying. I agree with that approach, and I think that would show Canadians how we are going to get there in terms of meeting the needs of the pandemic but also meeting the needs of the economy going forward.
Witnesses before the finance committee, and in my own riding and across Canada, spoke very favourably about several programs that will be continued as a result of the throne speech and the legislation flowing out of it.
The Canada emergency wage subsidy offered a 75% subsidy for businesses, and it will be extended right through to next summer. Although it is a wonderful program, I would note that it needs some tweaks. Many new businesses, start-ups, or expanding businesses that are buying out other businesses and therefore have different business account numbers with the CRA, do not qualify for the program. We have to fix that problem. Those businesses are important to our economy. They are the backbone of our economy, and we need them.
The second major program announced in the throne speech is the Canada emergency response benefit. It was very important to ensure that families had the funds to put food on the table, and had some security for their families, after jobs were lost as a result of COVID-19.
That program is rightly being rolled into an improved EI program, and is absolutely necessary, going forward. That is a commitment made by the Government of Canada in the throne speech. In fact, legislation has already been put in this House through Bill C-2 and Bill C-4 that ensures that the benefits of CERB will remain as we work to restart our economy.
For those in the tourism industry who were only able to find limited work this summer, the reduced hours, as announced, that will be required to gain EI is extremely important. The throne speech mentions it and legislation passed through here once on the Canada recovery benefit to support workers who are self-employed or not eligible for EI, the Canada recovery sickness benefit for workers who must self-isolate due to COVID-19, and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit for Canadians who must take care of a child and are unable to work. That is extremely important for people, moving forward, to help them out.
Another area we heard a lot of positive feedback and comments on is CEBA, the Canada emergency business account. The throne speech states:
This fall, in addition to extending the wage subsidy, the Government will take further steps to bridge vulnerable businesses to the other side of the pandemic by:
Expanding the Canada Emergency Business Account to help businesses with fixed costs;
Improving the Business Credit Availability Program;
And introducing further support for industries that have been the hardest hit, including travel and tourism, hospitality, and cultural industries like the performing arts.
It is important we do that, and we welcome that program, but I want to also put a slight caveat on CEBA. A number of us from all parties have been saying that the Canada emergency business account must allow personal accounts to qualify, not just business accounts. When I was farming I did not have a business account with a bank; I had a personal account and I was running about a $2-million operation. I can give an example of an individual in my riding. This construction guy with a $900,000 operation puts out three T4s and can show income tax going back years, but he does not qualify for CEBA. That is wrong. It should not just be through the bank business account. We had to fix that so that the people with a personal bank account qualify as well.
As an aside, there was the regional relief and recovery fund, established through the regional development agencies, that is basically the same as CEBA but is in the rural areas for businesses that may not qualify through the banks system. That program has run out of money. I am asking the Minister of Finance and the government as a whole to put some more funds into that RRRF so that people who actually deal with those agencies can qualify. That needs to happen.
I understand time is running down for my remarks, but I want to say I am looking forward to the work of the Government of Canada in accelerating the universal broadband funding. This is critical. We have seen through the pandemic that it needs to be done.
I am encouraged by what the throne speech said about the Atlantic loop in terms of energy between Atlantic Canada and Quebec, and how that may flow throughout the system.
We really used Canadian resources to help Canadians and build Canadian industries. I am really pleased on the environmental side that the throne speech outlines a number of opportunities for retrofitting homes and businesses, and more.
We have learned through this pandemic that we have to supply ourselves locally, and we need to move forward on that as well.
Results: 76 - 90 of 120 | Page: 6 of 8

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data