Debates of May 6th, 2024

Finance

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we have put forward a budget that invests in the things Canadians need, first and foremost, housing. We are doing that by asking those at the very top to contribute a little more. The good news is that we are doing it in a fiscally responsible way.

People do not have to believe the partisans in any chair in the House. They can talk to the analysts at Moody's, who, last week, reaffirmed Canada's AAA rating, the highest that exists, with a stable outlook. It does not get better than that.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, common sense is chasing the finance minister, and just like in Alberta, she is speeding away from it.

The Liberals have put taxpayers on the hook, and $54 billion of taxpayer money is going to go, just in interest, to the Prime Minister's doubling of the debt. That means more money is going to bankers, bondholders and the finance minister's Bay Street buddies than to doctors, nurses and the health care system.

Why does the finance minister not pump the brakes on hypocrisy, let common sense catch up and introduce a dollar-for-dollar law so that inflation and interest rates can finally come down?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, last week, Moody's reaffirmed our AAA credit rating. These are objective analysts who have pointed out that Canada has the most fiscally responsible plan in the G7.

Let us talk about hypocrisy, Conservative hypocrisy. Last week, the Conservative leader wrote an op-ed asking business leaders to attack our budget. I guess that is because he does not have the courage to come out and say the truth, which is that he stands for those at the top, not regular Canadians.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Governor of the Bank of Canada confirmed what millions of Canadians already know: Liberal spending is making life more expensive. Nine years of NDP-Liberal deficits have led to a lost decade, lowering standards of living, record food bank usage and a housing crisis.

Will the government finally commit to a dollar-for-dollar rule that would allow Canadians to feed their families and keep their homes?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South and he is better than misrepresenting the words of the Governor of the Bank of Canada.

The reality is that the Governor of the Bank of Canada, in testimony since the budget, said, “The budget does respect the fiscal guardrails that the government put in place.” He also said, “Keeping the debt-to-GDP ratio on a declining track, and importantly keeping deficits below one per cent of GDP in future years, the budget...commits to those guardrails...and that is helpful.”

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will quote the governor directly. He said this Liberal budget is “not helpful.”

It is more distraction and denial to cover up the government's record of massive deficits, which have led to over $54 billion in interest being paid in this budget alone. It will spend more in interest that it will collect in GST. We will pay more in interest than we will for health care transfers.

When will the Liberals finally get their deficits under control so Canadians can eat and keep their homes?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true.

I encourage people to read the testimony of the Governor of the Bank of Canada and news reports about that testimony. Here is what he said, and I am quoting precisely: “Keeping the debt-to-GDP ratio on a declining track, and importantly keeping deficits below one per cent of GDP in future years, the budget also commits to those guardrails going forward and that is helpful.” Those are the words of the Governor. People can just take a look at the transcript.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers are struggling. They are being hit hard by mortgage renewals. Mortgage rates are high, mainly because of the Prime Minister's chaotic management of the public purse, with the support of the Bloc Québécois.

Over the past nine years, the Bloc Québécois has supported and voted in favour of additional spending of over $500 billion. That includes a June 2022 vote on $115 billion to be used in part for pipelines. People should take note that the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of pipelines. Will the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois take responsibility for the sharp rise in mortgage rates and the cost of living?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are listening to a party that has no ambition, no vision and no plan. Canadians have a choice. They can choose to listen to a party that has no vision or a government that is investing in youth, investing in growth, investing in housing, and investing in science and research.

On this side of the House, we will continue to invest in Canadians, because, as my colleague was saying, confident countries invest in their people. That is exactly what we are going to do.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has a great vision, a common-sense vision. This government left all that behind nine years ago. On the other side, we have the Bloc Québécois, which is no better than the Liberals. The Bloc Québécois supported $500 billion in additional spending. It always says it is going to vote against the budget, yet it always votes for specific budget allocations, which has led to the struggle that Quebeckers and Canadians face today.

Can the government ask the Bloc Québécois why it always goes along with the government's schemes, that lack all common sense?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians watching the debates at home understand what lacks common sense. What defies common sense is not having any ambition, not having any vision and not having a plan for the country in 2024. We are in the middle of a full-on economic transformation. The people at home understand that. Now is the time to invest in science and research. Now is the time to invest in the next generation. Now is the time to invest in growth.

That is exactly what we are doing. We have the best credit rating in the world. The time to invest is now. We are a confident nation. Together, we are going to build the Canada of the future.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us come back to immigration. On February 12, the House supported a motion giving the government 100 days to convene a meeting of all first ministers to discuss integration capacity. It had 100 days to table a plan for revising federal immigration targets in 2024, 100 days to produce a report on the gap between federal targets and capacity, and 100 days to determine how to financially close that gap to successfully integrate newcomers.

One hundred days goes by fast. There are now only two weeks left. Have the first ministers received the invitation? Is it in the mail?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should be well aware, I am off to meet with my provincial counterparts this Thursday for precisely this purpose. I am looking forward to the follow-up. In particular, the provinces will be asked to define precisely what this integration capacity is. I am anxious to see what happens next.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in November, the House voted unanimously for the federal government to review its immigration targets in 2024, after consulting Quebec and the provinces about their integration capacity. Even the Liberals recognized that the targets should correspond with housing, health, education, French language training and infrastructure needs.

Even so, Ottawa intends to continue to increase immigration in 2024 and even in 2025. When will the government listen to the reasonable demands of the House and stop blindly increasing immigration?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I think I answered the previous question the same way. This is practically the same question, and I already answered it before.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are going to go far like that.

The federal government is blindly increasing its targets despite the House's calls to adjust the targets in line with integration capacity, despite the House's calls to begin this process within 100 days of meeting with the premiers, despite the negative feedback of the public service, despite the warnings from economists and despite the CMHC figures proving that the housing crisis is getting worse. Despite all of that, the government will not listen.

Why do the Liberals refuse at all costs to find out how many people can be integrated without depriving them of services or ignoring their basic needs?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the member changed his notes between his three questions, but as I just said, I will be meeting with my ministerial colleagues this Wednesday, Thursday and Friday to talk about exactly that. That is our commitment to the provinces. Co-operation is needed. We will see what happens next, but of course we will be reviewing this with the provinces. We have not committed to an increase or decrease, or something in between, but we will see.

Finance

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after nine years, this Prime Minister, backed by the Bloc Québécois, is not worth the cost that Quebeckers are paying for their mortgages, rent, food, gas and taxes.

Every day, there are moving stories of Quebeckers who have to live in their cars and go without food, or of food banks that can no longer feed the people knocking on their doors. It is all because of this Prime Minister's $500 billion in inflationary spending, which the Bloc Québécois supports.

When will the Prime Minister stop this wasteful spending so that, despite the Bloc Québécois, people can have enough to eat?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers need investments in health care and we are making them.

Quebeckers need investments in day care and early childhood centres and we are making them.

Quebeckers need investments in housing and we are making them.

The only thing the Conservatives know anything about are cuts and austerity, because they are afraid to raise taxes on the wealthy.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers are already experiencing the austerity imposed by this government. They can no longer afford housing. They can no longer afford food. That is the reality facing Quebeckers every single day.

After nine years, this Prime Minister seems to have found a partner to help him spend and create even more inflation at the expense of families. He knows that the Bloc Québécois will not vote against his spending because the Bloc Québécois likes this Liberal government.

What does the Bloc Québécois get out of voting for $500 billion in centralizing Liberal spending?

When will the Prime Minister, with the Bloc Québécois's support, stop impoverishing Quebeckers?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague talks about reality, but the reality is that, during his term as minister responsible for housing, the Conservative leader created six affordable housing units, while Quebec municipalities are currently creating 8,000.

The Conservative leader is still calling Quebec's municipalities incompetent, however. He insults everyone. That makes six affordable housing units over his entire term, compared to 8,000 affordable housing units by Quebec municipalities.

Who is the most incompetent?

Employment

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for weeks now, the member from Quebec City has been telling tall tales.

The problem is that, at Université Laval, a grievance has now been filed against him directly because his status changed, allowing him to keep all his benefits.

My question is, did the member from Quebec City request this benefit, which puts him in a conflict or interest, or did he accept an offer made by Université Laval, which puts him in a conflict of interest?

It is a clear question, so I would like a clear answer, please.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the member was better than that.

He knows that Canada has some of the strictest conflict of interest and ethics rules in the world. This minister is a model citizen when it comes to complying with the very strict conflict of interest and ethics rules.

That question surprises me, coming from the member across the way.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other advocates have called on the Liberals to end Canada's rights-violating immigration detention system. This system traumatizes people seeking safety.

Provinces have ended immigration detention in their jurisdictions. Instead of following their lead, the federal government plans to lock up migrants and asylum seekers in federal prisons. They also want to codify this practice into law. This is in violation of international human rights standards.

When will the government stop jailing people who are seeking safety and a better life?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate our hon. colleague's question. I share her concern that the rights of all individuals must be respected.

I think she will understand that there is a very small group of individuals, with perhaps violent criminal pasts or those who may be involved in terrorist activity, for whom releasing into the community would not be an acceptable option because of public safety. We worked for many years with the provinces that kept this very small group of individuals in the appropriate custody, and now we are going to take over our responsibility, while at the same time respecting their rights.