Business of Supply

This sitting under Government Orders (Business of Supply) centred on the cost of living and government spending. The Bloc Québécois promoted a bill to raise Old Age Security pensions for seniors aged 65 to 74 and increase the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption, asking whether the Conservatives would support it; a Conservative member said seniors’ incomes have not kept pace with costs and pointed to his party’s proposal to let working retirees keep part of their wages tax-free. Conservative members said government deficits, debt interest and foreign contracts are driving up living costs and hurting young people, and questioned a $200-million investment in the Canso spaceport by comparing it to Norway’s $45-million stake in a similar project; Liberal members defended the government’s approach, including its stance toward the United States and a $2-billion energy-saving program they said would save families $1 billion a year, and said defence-sector stakeholders consider the spaceport investment essential. Some members also described cost-of-living concerns from surveys and door-knocking in their own ridings.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

9 statements

Gabriel Hardy, Montmorency—Charlevoix

Conservative
“The government is spending too much money and running huge deficits. It spends more money paying interest on its debt than it sends to provinces for health care. Young people are paying the price. Life is so expensive that many young adults still live with their parents and cannot afford homes. The government also sends billions of dollars in contracts to foreign companies instead of supporting Canadian businesses. The government needs to stop running up debt and start spending tax dollars responsibly.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off. While families are counting every dollar, we must ask ourselves a question about public finances: Is the Liberal government holding itself to the same standard it expects of our youth? I would remind the House that the Prime Minister told young people that they should tighten their belts. Let us look at this together. The federal government’s spring economic update projects a $65.3-billion deficit for the 2026-27 fiscal year. That is on top of last year’s $67-billion deficit. We are talking about an average of $60 billion per year for the next five years, which means we are running a deficit year after year. I understand that we need to invest and that there is necessary infrastructure, essential services and decisions that cost money. We know that, but the money must be spent for the good of the future. Simple questions should be asked about every investment. How much will it cost? How much will it bring in? Who will foot the bill? There is a situation that we cannot ignore. This year, the government expects to pay $58.7 billion in interest on the debt. That is more than the $57.4 billion in health transfers. I want members to think about that. The government is paying more on the debt than it is transferring to the provinces to help our citizens stay healthy and heal. When we run up deficits, we are obviously also committing part of the following years’ revenue. Who is going to have to live with the consequences of these decisions? It is our children and grandchildren, those who have not even started working yet, who have not even gotten their first paycheque, their first apartment or their first home. I also want to talk about young Canadians. I believe that they are the ones who are going to have to live with the most troubling consequences of the cost of living crisis. For generations, parents worked with a very specific goal in mind: to give their children access to a better future. They made sacrifices to put their kids through school. They saved up money to buy a home. They built businesses and helped our regions and communities grow. They are not asking for their children to be ultrawealthy. They just want them to have the means to build a life for themselves. Today, as reported by Statistics Canada, the reality is that 40% of young people aged 20 to 34 are still living at home with their parents. Young people do not stay home because they want to, but because they are unable to save enough money. Home ownership feels increasingly out of reach for them. In fact, 40% of renters say they have given up on the idea of ever owning their own home. When a young person has to spend all of their income on housing, food and transportation, there is nothing left to launch a business, start a family or achieve their goals. When we talk about the cost of living, we are also talking about mental health, confidence and hope. We are talking about young people putting off important milestones in their lives, not because they want to, but because they do not see how they can afford their future. I think we need to collectively ask ourselves what this means for the future of our regions, our language, our culture and our country. We need young people who can fully participate in our society, young people who have a hope of achieving this, young people who can start a family and keep the Quebec and Canadian nations alive by having enough children to ensure births outnumber deaths every year. Our young people must not be condemned to wait for economic conditions to improve while decision-makers play politics with the future of our nation. Our young people should not have to put their future on hold. I would like to take a moment to talk about our entrepreneurs. We cannot build an affordable economy without businesses that can create jobs, innovate and generate wealth here at home. I am thinking of young people aged 18 to 20 who start their own business. They take risks, work 60 hours a week, create jobs and pay their suppliers, all while trying to set aside a little for their future. We need to give them the opportunity to succeed. We also need to consider the role we assign to these Canadian businesses. This week, an analysis by the Toronto Star reported that U.S.-controlled companies have received $7.8 billion in federal contracts over the past 16 months, a 50% increase. All of this is happening at a time when the Prime Minister is telling us that we are in a trade war with the United States, and at a time when the Liberals walked away from the negotiating table without offering a single explanation, neither to the House of Commons nor to the public. We also need to clarify a few things about some of these companies here in Canada. They employ Canadians, but the problem is that they siphon profits overseas. The Prime Minister tells us that investment in the country has never been higher, but we need to clarify something: About 50% of that investment consists of takeovers of Canadian companies that are being sold to foreign interests. This raises a legitimate question, in my view. When we want to invest public funds, we have to ensure that we are contributing to the sustainable development of our own capacity, our own businesses, and our jobs. We must demand efficiency when it comes to major projects. Here is an example. The spaceport in Nova Scotia represents a $200-million investment over 10 years for a lease. We agree that developing our space capacity is a good thing, but we need to be able to explain why this approach was chosen and why it was better than the others. What are we getting for our $200 million? When we realize that Norway’s spaceport, which is similar to ours, costs $45 million, not $200 million, and is 90% owned by Norway, we have to wonder. I want to circle back to the case of the nurse from Charlevoix. She worked and contributed to the company for 38 years. She honoured her contract and now she worries that she might not be able to retire. The thousands of messages that I have received tell different stories, but one thing keeps coming up all the time. Will all the efforts being made actually get something built? I believe we have a responsibility here, in the House of Commons, the people’s House, to take these concerns seriously. We have a responsibility to make decisions that we can explain and justify and, above all, to preserve for coming generations the opportunity for them to build their own future. A country is not built solely on programs and announcements. It is built by people who work, people who take initiative, people who care for others and people who start families and pass something on to their children, and working hard should still make it possible to achieve that.

Tim Watchorn, Les Pays-d'en-Haut

Liberal
“People in my riding trust the Prime Minister and our stand against the United States. Our plans are clear, and we must protect our country. We just announced $2 billion to save energy and help families save money. This will save $1 billion every year. Does my colleague agree this is a good investment?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 44 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when I went door-knocking this summer, everyone I talked to told me how much confidence they have in the Prime Minister and how much they appreciate our stance vis-à-vis the United States. My colleague says that we have not explained things, but I think everything is clear. We need to protect our sovereignty. Just today, we announced $2 billion for energy efficiency and to help households and young people save money. That $2 billion will generate $1 billion in savings every year. Does my colleague think that is a good investment?

Gabriel Hardy, Montmorency—Charlevoix

Conservative

Linked statement

“People in my riding are upset about the high cost of living and the government's choices. The Liberals keep spending money we do not have and running deficits. Every new cheque and program just creates debt that our children will have to pay.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, clearly we are not knocking on the same doors because, when I meet with constituents, they find the cost of living appalling, and they hate the decisions being made here. Every time the Liberals make announcements and ask people to look at how they are spending money when they launch a program, people understand that the money being spent is money we do not have. The government is running a deficit year after year. There are no more surpluses. As a result, when the Liberals announce they are sending out cheques or creating programs, they are announcing a debt that will be paid by future generations. That is of concern for parents and families. No, people are not cheering for the government. On the contrary, they are wondering when we are going to make decisions that put citizens at the heart of the equation.

Luc Thériault, Montcalm

Bloc Québécois
“Retired seniors between 65 and 74 are struggling to pay for basic needs because their pensions have not kept up with rising costs. They need this money to live, not to save it. I want to know if the Conservative member supports our bill to raise pensions for this group.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, earlier, my Conservative colleague spoke about people who cannot afford to retire. That does not even take into account all those aged between 65 and 74 who have already retired and are struggling to make ends meet because of affordability issues. For quite some time now, the Bloc Québécois has been introducing bills calling for OAS to be fully indexed for seniors aged 65 to 74, yet the government continues to refuse to do so. This is not money that would simply be squirrelled away in a savings account. People would use this money to maintain a decent quality of life and cope with the rising cost of living, because their income is not indexed to the current rate of inflation. Could my colleague tell us whether he supports the Bloc’s Bill C‑261?

Gabriel Hardy, Montmorency—Charlevoix

Conservative
“Life costs more now, but seniors are not making more money. Many are struggling and some may have to sell their homes. We want seniors who go back to work to keep part of their wages tax-free. This would help them pay their bills and share their experience with younger workers.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 44 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Indeed, the cost of living is going up, but the income of seniors and retirees is not. Every month, they have to make difficult choices. I have received many messages from people telling me that they are retired and will be forced to sell their homes because they can no longer make ends meet. This summer, the Conservatives made an announcement on this very topic. For example, in regions like mine, a portion of the wages earned by someone who chooses to return to the workforce and contribute their time and expertise should be tax-free. This would allow them to keep more money in their pockets to help cope with the cost of living. That money would go directly to them, in recognition of their efforts, their work and the knowledge they share, particularly with younger workers.

Jim Bélanger, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt

Conservative
“Prices are going up while people's wages stay the same, and many people cannot afford to buy homes. This is what I hear from people in my riding. I want to know what my colleague is hearing in his riding.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the cost of essentials keeps going up, but Canadians’ purchasing power remains stagnant. The Canadian dream of becoming a homeowner is disappearing for a generation. That is what I hear back home. I would like to know what my colleague is hearing in his riding.

Gabriel Hardy, Montmorency—Charlevoix

Conservative
“Thousands of people answered my survey to say the cost of living is out of control. Governments do not create wealth, they cost money. We need to take action so young people can build businesses and believe in their future through hard work.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is true. As I said at the start of my speech, nearly 14,000 people replied to my survey and nearly 11,000 people commented directly. The message was clear: The cost of living is out of control. Young people need hope. They need to believe in their future. They need to know that if they work hard, they can succeed. We cannot lead them to believe that the only way to get ahead is to work for the government. Governments do not create wealth; they cost us money. We need entrepreneurs. We need ambitious young people. We need people who are willing to take risks, but who hope for success. That is the reality facing our young people. Yes, I am hearing exactly the same thing, and it is high time we took meaningful action to help young people believe in their future.

Kody Blois, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Liberal
“The investment in the Canso spaceport is important for Canada. Defence experts and a former Conservative defence minister both agree.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat disappointed by my hon. colleague’s comments about the Canso spaceport. Stakeholders in the defence sector consider this investment essential for Canada, a view shared by former Conservative defence minister, Mr. MacKay.

Gabriel Hardy, Montmorency—Charlevoix

Conservative
“We did not say this project was unimportant. We said the money must be spent wisely. Norway paid $45 million for a similar project and owns 90% of it. Someone needs to explain who approved giving $200 million of our money to Liberal friends for a project Canada does not own.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we never said it was not an important thing to do; we said that the money had to be spent logically and effectively. Norway invested $45 million in a similar project and owns 90% of it. Someone needs to explain who signed off on giving $200 million to Liberal cronies for a project in which Canada has no stake.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 148

  1. Government Orders Business of Supply 105 statements
  2. Government Orders Business of Supply 8 statements
  3. Statements by Members Latin American and Hispanic Day on the Hill 2 statements
  4. Oral Questions Finance 5 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  6. Oral Questions Government Priorities 6 statements
  7. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 13 statements
  8. Oral Questions Climate Change 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Housing 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions Employment 4 statements
  11. Oral Questions Housing 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Agriculture and Agri-Food 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Public Safety 4 statements
  14. Oral Questions Democratic Institutions 8 statements
  15. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 6 statements
  16. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions The Economy 6 statements
  18. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  19. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  21. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 4 statements
  22. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  23. Government Orders Business of the House 2 statements
  24. Government Orders Business of Supply 9 statements
  25. Private Members' Business Sergei Magnitsky International Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Act 15 statements
  26. Government Orders Business of Supply 8 statements
  27. Government Orders Business of Supply 42 statements
  28. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  29. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  30. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 6 statements