Bill C-69

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations by
(a) denying income tax deductions for expenses incurred with respect to non-compliant short-term rentals;
(b) exempting from taxation the international shipping income of certain Canadian resident companies;
(c) exempting from taxation any income of the trusts established under the First Nations Child and Family Services, Jordan’s Principle, and Trout Class Settlement Agreement;
(d) doubling the volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers tax credits;
(e) extending the eligibility for the Canada child benefit in respect of a child for six months after the child’s death;
(f) increasing the cap on labour expenditures per eligible newsroom employee from $55,000 to $85,000 and increasing, for four years, the Canadian journalism labour tax credit rate from 25% to 35%;
(g) extending eligibility for the mineral exploration tax credit by one year;
(h) providing a refundable tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses in designated provinces by returning a portion of fuel charge proceeds from the province;
(i) providing a refundable investment tax credit to qualifying businesses for investments in certain clean hydrogen projects;
(j) providing a refundable investment tax credit to qualifying businesses for certain investments in clean technology manufacturing property;
(k) amending the definition “government assistance” to exclude bona fide concessional loans with reasonable repayment terms from public authorities;
(l) implementing a number of amendments to the alternative minimum tax;
(m) increasing the home buyers’ plan withdrawal limit from $35,000 to $60,000 and deferring the repayment period by three additional years;
(n) excluding the failure to report under the mandatory disclosure rules from the application of the section 238 penalty;
(o) introducing a $10-million capital gains exemption on the sale of a business to an employee ownership trust; and
(p) implementing a number of technical amendments to correct inconsistencies and to better align the law with its intended policy objectives.
Part 2 enacts the Global Minimum Tax Act , a regime based on the rules of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The global minimum tax regime will ensure that large multinational corporations are subject to a minimum effective tax rate of 15% on their profits wherever they do business. It sets out rules for the purposes of establishing liability for the tax and also sets out applicable reporting and filing requirements. To promote compliance with its provisions, that Act includes modern administration and enforcement provisions generally aligned with those found in other taxation statutes. Finally, this Part also makes related and consequential amendments to other texts to ensure proper implementation of the tax and cohesive and efficient administration by the Canada Revenue Agency.
Part 3 amends the Excise Tax Act , the Excise Act , the Excise Act, 2001 , the Underused Housing Tax Act , the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and other related texts in order to implement certain measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Excise Tax Act by repealing the temporary relief for supplies of certain face masks or respirators and certain face shields from the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Excise Act , the Excise Act, 2001 and other related texts in order to implement changes to
(a) the federal excise duty framework for tobacco products by
(i) increasing the excise duty rates for tobacco products, including imposing a tax on inventories of cigarettes held by retailers and wholesalers,
(ii) changing the process by which brands of tobacco products for export are exempted from special excise duty and marking requirements,
(iii) allowing certain information to be shared for the administration or enforcement of the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act , and
(iv) requiring the filing of information returns in respect of tobacco excise stamps;
(b) the federal excise duty framework for vaping products by increasing the excise duty rates for vaping products; and
(c) the federal excise duty framework for alcohol by
(i) extending by two years the two per cent cap on the inflation adjustment on beer, spirits and wine excise duties, and
(ii) cutting by half for two years the excise duty rate on the first 15,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Underused Housing Tax Act and the Underused Housing Tax Regulations by, among other things,
(a) eliminating filing requirements for certain owners;
(b) reducing minimum penalties for failing to file a return; and
(c) introducing a new exemption for residential properties held as a place of residence or lodging for employees.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act by providing authority, in certain circumstances, for the sharing of certain information amongst federal officials and for the public disclosure of certain information by the Minister of National Revenue.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1 to delay the repeal of the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act for two years.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the National Housing Act to increase the in-force limits for guarantees issued by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) in respect of mortgage-backed securities and Canada Mortgage Bonds and for mortgage default insurance provided by CMHC from the temporary $750 billion to the permanent $800 billion. It also amends the Borrowing Authority Act to avoid the double counting of liabilities related to Canada Mortgage Bonds that are guaranteed by the CMHC and have been purchased by the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the Government of Canada, in the calculation of the maximum amount of certain borrowings under that Act.
Division 3 of Part 4 authorizes the making of payments to the provinces for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2024 respecting a national program for providing food in schools.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Canada Student Loans Act and the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to expand eligibility for student loan forgiveness to early childhood educators, dentists, dental hygienists, pharmacists, midwives, teachers, social workers, psychologists, personal support workers and physiotherapists.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Canada Education Savings Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Minister responsible for that Act to open a registered education savings plan in respect of a child born after 2023 who is eligible for the payment of the Canada Learning Bond and is not the beneficiary under such a plan, so that the Minister may pay a Canada Learning Bond in respect of the child; and
(b) increase, from 20 to 30 years, the maximum age of a beneficiary under a registered education savings plan in respect of whom a Canada Learning Bond may be paid on application.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act .
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to increase the maximum financial assistance that may be provided in respect of foreign states.
Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to increase the amount of the payment that the Minister of Finance may provide to the International Monetary Fund in respect of Canada’s subscriptions. It also amends the International Development (Financial Institutions) Assistance Act and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Agreement Act to provide for new financial instruments that the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of Finance, as the case may be, may use to provide financial assistance to the institutions referred to in those Acts.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the International Financial Assistance Act to, among other things, provide that foreign exchange losses in relation to programs referred to in that Act must be charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and provide for the making of payments to Development Finance Institute Canada (DFIC) Inc. in relation to programs referred to in that Act out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Export Development Act to lower the limit for total liabilities and obligations referred to in subsection 24(1) of that Act from $115 billion to $100 billion.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Financial Administration Act to broaden the application of subsection 85(2) of that Act to other Crown corporations.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Financial Administration Act to require certain banks and other financial institutions to disclose prescribed information for federal payments accepted for deposit.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to enhance the Canada Health Transfer for qualifying provinces and territories.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to require that the Superintendent of Financial Institutions publish certain information relating to pension plan investments. It also amends the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act to require that plan administrators provide specified information by written notice to certain persons when they become members of a pooled registered pension plan.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Canada Pension Plan to, among other things,
(a) provide for a death benefit of $5,000 in cases where no other Canada Pension Plan benefit, with the exception of the orphan’s benefit, has been paid in respect of the deceased contributor’s contributions;
(b) create a new child’s benefit for dependent children aged 18 to 24 who are in part-time attendance at school;
(c) maintain eligibility for the disabled contributor’s child’s benefit if the disabled contributor reaches the age of 65;
(d) allow for the deeming of an application for a disabled contributor’s child’s benefit on behalf of a child to have been made at an earlier date under the Canada Pension Plan ’s incapacity provisions;
(e) preclude entitlement to a survivor’s pension if an individual has received a division of unadjusted pensionable earnings in respect of their deceased separated spouse; and
(f) clarify the determination of the payee of the disabled contributor’s child’s benefit.
It also makes a consequential amendment to the Canada Pension Plan Regulations .
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to provide for the payment of certain amounts into the Consolidated Revenue Fund by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board.
Division 16 of Part 4 enacts the Consumer-Driven Banking Act , which establishes a consumer-driven framework for individuals and small businesses to safely and securely share their data with the participating entities of their choice.
It also makes related amendments to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to establish the position of Senior Deputy Commissioner for Consumer-Driven Banking who is responsible for consumer-driven banking matters and to provide for, among other things, the supervision of participating entities.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act to, among other things, clarify the definitions “deposit-type instrument” and “principal-protected note”.
Division 18 of Part 4 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to increase to $100,000,000 the maximum amount that expenditures made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to defray the expenses arising out of the operations of the Office may exceed the Office’s total assessments and revenues.
Division 19 of Part 4 amends the Bank of Canada Act to clarify that the Bank of Canada may enter into repurchase, reverse repurchase and buy-sellback agreements.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to
(a) harmonize fines for a corporation guilty of an offence related to the collection or sending of information regarding individuals with significant control; and
(b) set separate fines and imprisonment terms on the basis of a summary conviction or a conviction on indictment for a director, officer or shareholder of a corporation guilty of an offence related to individuals with significant control.
Division 21 of Part 4 amends Parts I to III of the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) provide that a person who is paid remuneration by an employer is presumed to be their employee unless the contrary is proved by the employer;
(b) provide that if, in any proceeding other than a prosecution, an employer alleges that a person is not their employee, the burden of proof is on the employer; and
(c) prohibit an employer from treating an employee as if they were not their employee.
Finally, it also includes transitional provisions.
Division 22 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things, set out certain employer obligations relating to policies respecting work-related communication and clarify certain employee rights and employer obligations relating to terminations of employment. It also includes transitional provisions.
Division 23 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend, until October 24, 2026, the duration of the measure that increases the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers.
Division 24 of Part 4 amends section 61 of An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages in order to add a reference to subsections 18(1.1) and (1.2) of the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act in subsection 19(1) of that Act, which An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages enacts.
Division 25 of Part 4 authorizes a corporation that is to be incorporated as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation to provide loan guarantees as part of an Indigenous loan guarantee program and authorizes the payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund by the Minister of Finance of amounts that are required in respect of those guarantees.
Division 26 of Part 4 authorizes the payment of up to $1.3 million to entities or individuals involved in the government’s engagement in a pilot project for the creation of a Red Dress Alert.
Division 27 of Part 4 provides that the subsidiary of VIA Rail Canada Inc. incorporated with the corporate name VIA HFR - VIA TGF Inc. is, as of the date of its incorporation, an agent of His Majesty in right of Canada and may enter into contracts, agreements and other arrangements with His Majesty as though it were not such an agent.
Division 28 of Part 4 amends the Impact Assessment Act , in response to the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of that Act, to, among other things,
(a) align the preamble and purpose provision with the primary objective of that Act, which is to prevent or mitigate significant adverse effects within federal jurisdiction — and significant direct or incidental adverse effects — that may be caused by the carrying out of physical activities;
(b) replace the definition “effects within federal jurisdiction” with “adverse effects within federal jurisdiction” and, in doing so,
(i) restrict the definition to non-negligible adverse changes,
(ii) limit transboundary changes to those involving the pollution of transboundary waters and the marine environment, and
(iii) include, in respect of federal works or undertakings and activities carried out on federal lands, non-negligible adverse changes to the environment or to health, social and economic conditions;
(c) ensure that the impact assessment process applies only to those physical activities that may cause adverse effects within federal jurisdiction or direct or incidental adverse effects;
(d) ensure that, in deciding if an impact assessment of a designated project is required, one factor that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada must take into account is whether another means exists that would permit a jurisdiction to address those effects;
(e) amend the final decision-making provisions to provide for an initial determination as to whether the adverse effects within federal jurisdiction and the direct or incidental adverse effects are likely to be, to some extent, significant, and then, if so, provide for a determination as to whether those effects are justified in the public interest; and
(f) improve cooperation tools to better harmonize the impact assessment process with the processes for assessing effects that are followed by provincial and Indigenous jurisdictions.
Finally, it also includes transitional provisions.
Division 29 of Part 4 amends the Judges Act to increase the number of salaries authorized for judges of superior courts other than appeal courts. It also reduces in a corresponding manner the number of salaries authorized for judges of provincial unified family courts.
Division 30 of Part 4 amends the Tax Court of Canada Act to provide that, if a party to a proceeding under the general procedure of the Tax Court of Canada is not an individual, that party must be represented by counsel, except under special circumstances.
Division 31 of Part 4 amends the Food and Drugs Act to, among other things, authorize the Minister of Health to
(a) establish rules for the purpose of preventing, managing or controlling the risk of injury to health from the use of therapeutic products, other than the intended use, or the risk of adverse effects on human beings, animals or the environment from the use of a drug intended for an animal;
(b) exempt any food, therapeutic product, person or activity from the application of certain provisions of that Act or its regulations; and
(c) deem, on the basis of decisions of, information or documents produced by, a foreign regulatory authority, that certain requirements of that Act or its regulations are met in respect of a therapeutic product or food.
Finally, it also includes a transitional provision.
Division 32 of Part 4 amends the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act to authorize the provision of customs information to the Minister responsible for that Act for the purpose of the administration and enforcement of that Act and to authorize that Minister to disclose information to other federal ministers for certain purposes.
Division 33 of Part 4 amends the Criminal Code to broaden the criminal interest rate offence to prohibit a person from offering to enter into an agreement or arrangement to receive interest at a criminal rate and from advertising an offer to enter into an agreement or arrangement that provides for the receipt of interest at a criminal rate. It also repeals the provision that requires the consent of the Attorney General prior to commencing proceedings related to the offence.
Division 34 of Part 4 contains measures that are related to money laundering, terrorist financing and sanctions evasion and other measures.
Subdivision A of Division 34 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) permit information sharing between reporting entities for the purpose of detecting and deterring money laundering, terrorist financing and sanctions evasion;
(b) authorize, subject to certain conditions, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) to disclose certain information to provincial and territorial civil forfeiture offices and to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration;
(c) authorize FINTRAC to publicize additional information pertaining to violations of that Act; and
(d) extend the application of that Act to cheque cashing businesses.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Cross-border Currency and Monetary Instruments Reporting Regulations .
Subdivision B of Division 34 amends the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act to allow provincial or superior court judges, a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge as defined in section 552 of the Criminal Code to grant on application by a Canada Revenue Agency official the authorization to use device or investigative technique, or procedure or otherwise do any thing provided in a warrant, for purposes of tax investigations.
Subdivision C of Division 34 amends the Criminal Code to provide for an order to keep an account open or active and for a production order to require the production of documents or data that are in a person’s possession or control on dates specified in an order that fall within the 60-day period after the day on which it is made.
Division 35 of Part 4 amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create new offences in respect of motor vehicle theft, including an offence concerning the possession or the distribution of an electronic device suitable for committing theft of a motor vehicle, and in respect of criminal organizations; and
(b) add, as an aggravating factor, evidence that an offender involved a person under the age of 18 years in the commission of an offence.
It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 36 of Part 4 amends the Radiocommunication Act to, among other things, prohibit the manufacture, import, distribution, lease, offer for sale, sale or possession of certain devices specified by the Minister of Industry. It also amends that Act to establish as an offence or a violation the contravention of that prohibition.
Division 37 of Part 4 amends the Telecommunications Act to, among other things, require telecommunications service providers to provide their subscribers with a self-service mechanism that allows them to cancel their contract for telecommunications services or modify their telecommunications service plan and to inform those subscribers before the expiry of their fixed-term contract, as well as in other specified circumstances, of other service plans that those providers offer. It also amends that Act to prohibit the charging of certain fees.
Division 38 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) eliminate the designated countries of origin regime;
(b) expand the powers of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to specify the information and documents that are required in support of a claim for refugee protection;
(c) authorize the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board to determine that claims for refugee protection that have not yet been referred to the Refugee Protection Division have been abandoned in certain circumstances;
(d) provide the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with the power to determine that claims for refugee protection that have not yet been referred to the Refugee Protection Division have been withdrawn in certain circumstances;
(e) require that certain refugee claimants be authorized to enter and remain in Canada until a final determination is made in respect of their claim;
(f) authorize regulations to be made setting out conditions that must be imposed on refugee claimants who are authorized to enter and remain in Canada;
(g) provide for the deemed inadmissibility of foreign nationals whose refugee claims are rejected or determined to be abandoned or withdrawn and for the automatic making of removal orders in those circumstances;
(h) require the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division to suspend certain proceedings respecting a claim for refugee protection if the claimant is not present in Canada;
(i) clarify that decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board must be rendered, and reasons for those decisions must be given, in the manner specified by its Chairperson; and
(j) provide the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness with the power to designate, in relation to certain proceedings or applications, a representative for persons who are under 18 years of age or who are unable to appreciate the nature of the proceeding or application.
Finally, it also includes transitional provisions.
Division 39 of Part 4 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the Correctional Service of Canada is responsible for implementing any arrangement — approved by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness — entered into by the Commissioner of Corrections and the Canada Border Services Agency with respect to the support that the Service may provide to the Agency to assist in the exercise of certain powers or the performance of certain duties and functions;
(b) control the access of the inmates of a penitentiary to a designated immigrant station adjacent to the penitentiary and the access of the immigration detainees of a designated immigrant station to a penitentiary adjacent to the station; and
(c) provide that, in exigent circumstances, staff members of the Service may provide additional support to detention enforcement officers of the Agency to assist them in the exercise of certain powers or the performance of certain duties and functions.
It also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to define the term “immigrant station” and provide that an area of a penitentiary may be an immigrant station only if it is designated under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act .
Finally, it provides for the repeal of those amendments on a specified date and includes a transitional provision.
Division 40 of Part 4 contains measures related to public debt and the borrowing of money.
Subdivision A of Division 40 amends the Financial Administration Act to clarify that certain regulations and directions do not apply to contracts related to the borrowing of money entered into by the Minister of Finance.
Subdivision B of Division 40 amends the Borrowing Authority Act to increase the maximum amount of certain borrowings.
Division 41 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to require certain financial institutions to make available information respecting diversity among directors and members of senior management.
Division 42 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to extend the period during which federal financial institutions governed by those Acts may carry on business.
Division 43 of Part 4 amends the Federal Courts Act to provide that the Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear applications for judicial review of decisions of the Social Security Tribunal on the extension of time to make a request for review or reconsideration under the Canada Disability Benefit Act . It also amends the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to, among other things, provide the Tribunal with jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions made under the Canada Disability Benefit Act and require that matters related to income raised in those appeals be referred to the Tax Court of Canada.
Division 44 of Part 4 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to repeal provisions related to the ministerial power to exempt supervised consumption sites from the application of that Act. It also amends that Act to allow for the making of regulations respecting authorizations for supervised consumption and drug checking services and includes transitional provisions.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

moved that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise to start the debate on Bill C-69.

Governments have an opportunity every year to set down in legislation initiatives that could have a wonderful impact. I look at Bill C-69 as a budget implementation bill that would really make a difference in the lives of Canadians. I would like to think that all members of the House would get behind the legislation and the budget for the many positive initiatives the budget would put in place for the benefit of all Canadians, no matter what region of the country they are in.

I personally think there is a theme to be taken from the budget, which I hear many of my colleagues talk about, whether it is the Prime Minister or members of caucus, and that is a sense of fairness. We need to think about generation X and the millennials, and how the government can ensure there is a higher sense of fairness. We saw a good example of that in 2015-16 when we brought in our first budget. Taxation policy is important. Through the legislation and the budget, we will see there is a higher sense of fairness as we are look to the wealthiest in the country to pay a fairer share.

This is not the first time. In fact in 2015-16, we put a special increase on the tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. Today it is even a smaller percentage. We recognize there is a need for us to provide the good-quality programming the government has had over the last number of years, much of it being enhanced in the budget and legislation. Some of the programs we are seeing for the first time, and others are a continuation. What it really means at the end of day is that we have a government that very much cares about the well-being of Canadians and wants to support them in a fair fashion.

If we look at overall government policies over the last eight-plus years, we will see that, in comparison to other countries in the world, Canada is doing relatively well. I will highlight a few of them. However, before I do that, I want to talk about the last few times the Prime Minister came to Manitoba. In my opinion, they highlight three areas Canadians understand and the fact that they very much appreciate the government's making them a high priority.

Last year, the Prime Minister visited Stanley Knowles School in Manitoba, which is pretty close to the heart of Winnipeg North, to highlight child care. He visited a child care facility at Stanley Knowles School, and the reception was exceptionally positive as people understood what the Government of Canada was doing. For the first time, we have a national child care program that ensures $10-a-day day care. It has had a profoundly positive impact in the province of Manitoba and, indeed, in all of Canada.

The Province of Quebec instituted it many years ago. We took the idea and turned it into a national program. As a direct result, not only are we making child care more affordable for Canadians but we are also enabling more women than ever, on a percentage basis, to get engaged in the workforce. It is no real surprise, as we anticipated that would happen. There are many benefits, as we have seen, of the $10-a-day child care program, the first ever by the national government. Every province and territory has now signed on, recognizing the true value.

For the second visit from the Prime Minister, I was able to participate in a press conference. The single greatest issue I have seen over the last 30-plus years as a parliamentarian, in my constituency and, I would argue, across Canada, is the issue of health care. We love our health care system. We are passionate about it. In fact, when I talk to many people and ask them what makes them feel good about being a Canadian, our health care system is often what comes up as the thing that helps us identify as and feel good about being Canadian.

As members know, working with all the different provinces, the federal government came up with a generational commitment of $198 billion, not million, over 10 years. That would enable long-term financial planning in an area that Canadians are genuinely concerned about. At that particular press conference, we had not only the Prime Minister but also the national Minister of Health, the Premier of Manitoba, the provincial minister of health and the most important people, the health care workers there to witness the announcement for the Province of Manitoba.

What took place in Manitoba is taking place across the country because, for the first time in over a generation, we have a Prime Minister who is committed to ensuring that we have a world-class health care system that deals with the issues we are hearing about at the doors from people. There are concerns about family doctors; concerns about health care workers; concerns about how we are going to be able to get things, such as credentials, recognized; concerns about how we can ensure that health care workers are being valued; and concerns about how we can bring additional health care workers and support staff into the system so that we are able to meet the expectations Canadians have.

We are looking at ways in which we can expand into mental health like we have never done in the past. This is a government that cares about health care and is looking at the Canada Health Act and the benefits it provides every Canadian in every region.

I made reference to child care and gave credit to the province of Quebec. For health care, a great deal of credit goes to the province of Saskatchewan, where it originated. More recently, we had the Prime Minister come to Winnipeg, and this time we were involved in a press conference that included not only the national Minister of Housing but also the premier of the province, provincial ministers and the mayor of Winnipeg. At that particular press conference, we dealt with the issue of housing.

We are very much aware of the needs for housing. I have stood in this chamber on numerous occasions to talk about the importance of the issue of housing. It is somewhat hypocritical of the official opposition to stand in its place and criticize the federal government for not doing enough on housing. I compare what the Conservatives did when they were in government, and in particular the current leader of the Conservative Party, who I think built six non-profit housing units in total. He spent hundreds of millions and was able to get six built, but I did not necessarily want to get to that. It is a bit off track.

The point is that we had a wonderful press conference with different stakeholders out in Transcona, where we had great participation from a wonderful housing complex, and we had the opportunity to talk about some of the things the federal government is doing. Working with the different levels of government, we are going to have an optimum impact on dealing with an issue that is so critically important to all Canadians.

What is providing a great deal of comfort is the fact that it is something we have been talking about for months now, even longer. I would not be surprised if we went back a couple of years, when members might have heard me talking about the issue of housing and how the best way to deal with housing issues in Canada is to have all three levels of government, and other stakeholders, engaged. That is the only way. It is not one level of government that cures all. It is going to take all levels of government working together, as well as the non-profit organizations.

I often talk about Habitat for Humanity. Habitat is a wonderful organization. It has likely done more in building affordable housing than any other non-profit organization, at least that I am personally aware of. In the province of Manitoba, we are talking about hundreds of homes over the years. I believe we are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 600 homes built, all of which are affordable. These homes were provided to individuals who never would have had the opportunity to have housing.

We had the stakeholders, the premier, the mayor and the Prime Minister in Winnipeg talking about things such as accelerating funding, providing supports to the City of Winnipeg so it can speed up its process, working with the province to ensure there is going to be more non-profit housing units built and that the province would be at the table, both in a financial fashion and with other forms of resources. This is to complement other budgetary measures, which dealt with, for example, the GST removal on purpose-built rentals for the country. These are initiatives for which Ottawa is not only taking upon itself and demonstrating leadership on but also working with the different levels of government. We are talking somewhere in the neighbourhood, through this budget, of just over four million new homes as a target in the coming years. That cannot be done by the federal government alone, and we have demonstrated our willingness to work with the different stakeholders, including our partners.

There is also our commitment to indigenous housing and working within indigenous communities. In Winnipeg, indigenous communities stepped up and worked with the Hudson's Bay Company to develop housing in downtown Winnipeg. There is also what is taking place in rural communities across the country.

The budget shows how important it is that we not only have a higher sense of fairness but also that we move forward with a healthy, stronger economy, which is in the best interest of all.

One of the things I took away from the budget, which the Deputy Prime Minister made reference to, is something I want to highlight because, to me, it really does matter. It puts things into perspective. No matter how much the Conservatives want to spread misinformation, the reality is that, in comparison to other countries around the world, Canada is doing exceptionally well.

I will give an example from the Deputy Prime Minister's speech and the stats on foreign direct investment. People and companies around the world looking at where to invest their hundreds of millions and billions of dollars will often look at Canada. Not only will they look at Canada, but they will also invest here. With direct foreign investment, on a per capita basis, Canada is number one out of the G7 countries. That is number one in direct foreign investment.

Throughout the world, per capita, Canada is number three. I would suggest that people, businesses and corporations around the world that are taking a look at where to invest are looking at Canada, and that is not an accident.

Let me elaborate on that. No government in Canada's history has signed off on more trade agreements than this government, under this Prime Minister, has. No government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than this government has. Canada is a trading nation. We need trade. All of us benefit from it. That is one of the reasons why, I would argue, people around the world are not only looking at Canada but also investing in Canada. They are doing that because they see the stability that is here, along with a myriad of other positive attributes.

Members can take a look at the investments. The Conservatives have been critical. They do not like the fact that we are helping Volkswagen, for example—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There appears to be so little interest in this budget on the Liberal side of the House that we do not have quorum.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I will ask the clerk to count the members present.

And the count having been taken:

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We now have a quorum, and the debate will continue with the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not how many times, when I was sitting on the opposition benches and Stephen Harper was the then prime minister, I could have called for a quorum count because there were no Conservatives in the chamber. I am talking about nine years ago when the Conservatives had a majority government.

I will stay away from the games that the member opposite wants to play because I know he is a little sensitive about the issue of just how well Canada is doing in comparison to countries around the world, contrary to what the Conservatives say. The Conservatives have been going around the country with misinformation. They want to say that Canada is broken. If they really and truly believe that Canada is broken, what does that say about the world, when Canada is doing so much better in so many ways than the rest of the world? The bottom line is that the Conservatives are like a dark cloud, going all over the place to spread nothing but bad, sad news, which is often, consistently, based on misinformation.

Where was I? I was talking about investments in Volkswagen. On the one hand, there are the far right Conservative Party members saying that they do not support the Volkswagen investment. Members can imagine a manufacturing plant that would take up the size of 200 football fields. It is going to be the largest manufacturing plant in Canada, in terms of land usage, and they are all to be green jobs. Doug Ford, the Progressive Conservative Premier of Ontario, is also putting up substantial financial support. At least he recognizes the value there. Just the other day, Honda made another huge investment in Canada. I believe it is Honda's largest investment ever in North America, and it deals with the electrification of vehicles.

The government sees that green jobs are good jobs. We are investing in them in a very real and tangible way. We are going to see thousands of direct and indirect jobs. This is a government that understands the value of a healthy economy. Since being elected, we have generated well over two million jobs. In the same amount of time, we have had more than double the number of jobs that were created under Stephen Harper. We understand the benefits of a strong, healthy economy and of supporting Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, the current Prime Minister has put more debt on Canadians' heads than has every single prime minister before him, combined. That led to doubling of the national debt and gave Canadians 40-year highs in inflation with the most rapid interest rate hikes, not seen in Canadian history. Now we see students living under bridges. We see that people like nurses and teachers, with well-paying jobs, are now having to live in their cars. There are food bank lineups, with two million people going to a food bank in a single month. With this budget, $54.1 billion will go to servicing just the interest on the debt that the Prime Minister accumulated, when it should be going to doctors, nurses and our health care. More is going to bankers, bondholders and the finance minister's Bay Street buddies than to health care transfers. Why?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it was not that long ago when we had a worldwide pandemic. We literally spent billions and billions of dollars to support Canadians. Through CERB, we supported more than nine million Canadians. We supported hundreds of thousands of businesses, both directly and indirectly, again, costing billions and billions of dollars. The Conservative Party voted in favour of those expenditures. Therefore, with respect to much of the debt that the Conservatives criticize today, they actually voted in favour of our spending that money. It is like giving a kid a candy bar and then criticizing the kid for eating it. Really? The Conservative Party knows no bounds when it comes to hypocrisy and shame. Canada's debt is very much under control—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague just talked at length about housing in his speech. In 2017, the Liberal federal government launched its major national housing strategy, which would span a decade and cost $82 billion. It should have addressed all the housing needs of Canadians. Today, the latest CMHC reports say we need to build 5.8 million homes in Canada by 2030.

Over the three weeks leading up to the budget, the Liberal government made daily housing announcements. Across Canada, the Liberals announced new programs and new spending. However, we noted substantial interference in provincial jurisdictions, to the tune of some 50 pages in the budget on housing—which we welcome. Does the fact the budget contains 50 pages on housing not constitute an admission of failure with respect to the $82-billion decade-long national housing strategy?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think of the commitment in terms of working with the different stakeholders, provinces and territories building a stronger and healthier Canada. This is the big difference between me and members of the Bloc: I do not see the federal government strictly as an ATM; I believe that the federal government has a role to play, for example in things like a national pharmacare program and a national school food program. We have the Canada disability benefit, which I would love to have been able to expand on. We have the Canada dental program. There are so many things in which, as a progressive government, we are supporting Canadians in a very real and tangible way. That means working with people and working with different jurisdictions in order to have that profoundly positive impact, and I am very proud of that.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to refer to the part in this bill that would double the volunteer firefighter tax credit and the search and rescue tax credit. The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni has really been pushing on this issue. He introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-310. He has introduced countless petitions, and I have tabled a few of them. We have spoken to volunteer firefighter and search and rescue organizations right across the country, and this is a really meaningful impact that the NDP successfully pushed the Liberals to adopt.

Can the hon. member just talk about what the doubling of this tax credit and the NDP pressure to do so would mean for volunteer firefighters and search and rescue personnel who, in many rural communities, including mine in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, do all that important work? What would it mean for them to be able to continue to serve our communities in the honourable way that they do?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, but I can honestly say that the strongest advocate I have ever seen with respect to firefighters is my friend the former deputy House leader, now parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Emergency Preparedness.

What I like about the budget is that it is a true reflection of what Canadians have been advocating for to parliamentarians, both opposition and government members. I truly believe that. Therefore, when we look at the budget, what we see is a reflection of the values and thoughts of Canadians with respect to the type of budget they want to see. That is why, in my previous response, I made reference to things such as pharmacare, the national school food program and other types of social programs, along with economic policies that are going to help build a stronger and healthier economy.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Winnipeg North, the parliamentary secretary, recognizes that we are in a housing crisis.

Back in budget 2022, there was a funding stream called the rapid housing initiative. It allocated $750 million a year over two years so that non-profits could apply to build non-market housing. Obviously, it was not enough. As a result of the crisis we are in, we need to see the government go further and faster.

Non-profits in my community, from the YWCA to the House of Friendship and The Working Centre, are looking to this budget expecting dollars for them to build non-market housing. What do we see in budget 2024? It is down to $195 million a year, from $750 million. The $750 million was not enough, and this year's budget cuts it dramatically.

Why does the parliamentary secretary think this is going to be enough to address the housing crisis we are in?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important that we look at it from a holistic approach. At the end of the day, as a national government over the last seven or eight years, we can say that no government in Canada's history has invested more into housing, and we have done it in different ways. In this budget, we continue to amplify the need to get homes built as quickly as possible. That means, for example, working with the municipalities. I referred to the city of Winnipeg. I think it was around $192 million back in December, when we had a major announcement to try to speed up the processing of permits and so forth.

Sometimes the money that is allocated benefits not only for-profit, but also not-for-profit organizations. I know that I, for one, continue to want to promote and encourage more development in the whole housing co-op area.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, this week is Emergency Preparedness Week. With that, I would like to ask the member, my good friend from Winnipeg North, to talk a bit about the investments in budget 2024, not only with respect to the $800,000 for the International Association of Fire Fighters to help train wildland firefighters, but also with respect to first nations communities, to help build resilience. We are also funding our defence system. Can my colleague explain a bit more about what we are doing in terms of preparedness for Emergency Preparedness Week?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, all of the investments we have put into our Canadian Armed Forces, if not directly then indirectly, are a great way to prepare for all the different types of emergencies that take place in Canada. Many years ago, I participated with members of the armed forces in the city of Winnipeg to battle floods. During the pandemic, members of the forces, who are well trained, helped take care of seniors. Therefore, any sort of investment in the forces is always a good investment, from my perspective.

When we talk about volunteer firefighters, the tax incentives and the dollars allocated to support them are a very powerful step in the right direction. However, knowing my colleague who asked the question, she will continue to be at the table to want more yet.

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the hon. member for Niagara West.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Madam Speaker, this is another budget bonanza, with $40 billion of new net inflationary spending. That is only going to add to the already doubled debt after nine years of the Liberal-NDP Prime Minister that caused 40-year highs in inflation and the most rapid interest rate hikes, not seen in Canadian history, which put Canadians most at risk in the G7 for a mortgage default crisis.

It is hard to believe that we live in a country where there is going to be more money spent on paying the interest on the debt of the Prime Minister that Canadians are on the hook for, which is going to go to bankers, bondholders and the finance minister's Bay Street buddies, than what is supposed to go to the provinces in health transfers. There is more money for those who are sitting in ivory towers and less for the doctors, nurses and frontline workers who are supposed to be taking care of people in our health care system.

After nine years of the Liberal-NDP Prime Minister, all this debt has accumulated on Canadians that future generations will have to continue to pay for. Who is not affected by any of this at all? It is the Prime Minister's trust fund friends and those Liberal-connected insiders who get the cushy contracts and whose assets get inflated as the Prime Minister caused an inflation crisis that we have not seen in 40 years. They get an increased value in their assets, and Canadians end up paying the price with higher taxes, a higher cost of living and a higher rate of crime, chaos, drugs and disorder in the streets.

Food bank usage is at record highs. There are two million Canadians lining up at food banks in a single month, and a million more are projected this year. The sad part about all of this is that a third of those going to food banks are children.

There are homeless encampments all across the country. People cannot afford housing. After spending $89 billion on housing, the government caused housing prices to double. Mortgages and rents have doubled. It takes double the time to save up for a down payment on a house. We hear stories about students who came here for a better future and have to live under bridges or in tents. We are hearing about nurses and teachers having to live in their cars because they cannot afford to eat and to heat and house themselves.

Crime is ravaging our country.

Back in the day, families like mine were promised something by Canada, that we could leave the countries we came from and experience what was sold as the Canadian dream. It is this illustrious thing that we used to hear about before we came to this country, where people could afford to buy groceries and eat, live in a nice house, and not just live in a nice house but be able to afford to buy a house, and walk down the street without fear of something happening to them.

That was the promise of Canada, that people could run a business and not have the government interfere by putting up more red tape and bureaucracy and taking even more from them, that the government would not kick people while they are down and would give people a hand-up rather than handouts.

That was the promise of this country before, but after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, that Canadian dream is broken. The dream of home ownership, the dream of owning a business, the dream of having a safe future for our kids and having a place where groceries are affordable, it is all broken. It is an absolute nightmare. This is what we hear all across the country.

This budget did nothing more than give the Liberal-NDP government more opportunities for photo ops and for travelling the country on the taxpayers' dime and taking photos beside projects that are already under construction while taking credit for them. The government's own housing department, the CMHC, has made it clear why there is a housing hell here in Canada. Housing starts will decline this year and next year. In fact, fewer homes will be started this year than in the 1970s, when we had half the population.

The most incompetent immigration minister in history, who is now the housing minister, was told by his own department two years ago that if the government followed through with its policies, the already existing housing crisis would get worse. What did he do? He ignored the department's warning. He ripped it up, ignored it, and housing costs got even more expensive.

Not only that, the promise that people came here for is broken; it is gone. More and more young people, nine out of 10, in fact, have given up on the dream of home ownership. Five million more homes need to be built in the country than what is already projected to be built. However, it is because of the government's gatekeeping that houses are not being built.

I used to be a home builder before this political life, and I do not know any tradesperson or builder who says that they want more government interference, that they want more government red tape and bureaucracy, that they want the government to take more from them and give Canadians a lot less. In fact, in a free market, we should let the market decide what kinds of homes need to be built, and let builders build and let buyers buy.

It is these high interest rates that have been caused by the government, the most rapid that we have seen in Canadian history to fight the inflation that the government created, which is keeping builders from building, developers from developing and buyers from buying. This is the crisis after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government's failed policies. Household debt is the most in the G7, the most we have ever seen. This is from a government that brags about its photo-op slush fund, that it has spent $89 billion to create the crisis we see in Canada.

There is another emerging crisis here, and that is the productivity crisis. In fact, it was a big deal. It is a stark warning by the Bank of Canada's deputy governor, Carolyn Rogers, who said that productivity in our country is a “break glass” crisis. It is a big deal when the Bank of Canada says that. If it is saying that it is raining, there is probably a big storm brewing that will hit Canadian.

With a six consecutive GDP-per-capita decline, we see less growth in our economy success per person, or what we call “GDP-per-capita”, than what it was in 2017. After nine years of making billions of dollars run away from our economy, not having any new investment come in and not letting projects get built, the result is that Canadians are poorer than they have ever been before.

Let me be clear that Canada was not like this before the Liberal-NDP Prime Minister and it will not be like that after he is gone. Under a common-sense Conservative government, led by our Conservative leader, we will bring the Canadian dream, the Canadian hope, back to our country. If people work hard, they will be able to see a better future for themselves, their kids and future generations.

How are we going to do that? We are going to get some of the large-scale projects, green-light green projects and stop getting in the way of our resource sector so we can have more powerful paycheques for our people and not give more dollars for dictators abroad.

We recently saw Japan, Greece and other countries come here for LNG, and the Prime Minister said that there was no business case. Under such a radical, ideological-obsessed government with the carbon tax, of course there is no business case. However, we will bring Canada back on the world stage with our low-carbon, responsible, clean energy sector. We are going to axe the tax.

We are going to bring in four very simple things. A common-sense Conservative government will axe the tax to bring down the cost of gas, groceries and home heating. We are going to build the homes by requiring municipalities to increase their permitting by 15% to get more supply into the market. We are going to fix the budget. We all know now that budgets do not balance themselves. We will bring in a dollar-for-dollar law to cap government spending so that interest rates and inflation can come down and Canadians can stay in their homes. We are also going to stop the crime. We are going to bring in jail, not bail policies, and help those who need treatment to get back on their feet so we can help our brothers and sisters recover from addictions and ensure that we have safer streets in our country once again. We are going to bring home the Canadian dream.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member on the other side. I think he hit every single one of the Conservative slogans that he was required to by the whip. Nothing was really said, but all the slogans were hit.

I have asked a number of members about this, and the hon. member brought it up. He says that cutting the price on pollution will reduce the price of groceries. However, when we look to the United States, which does not have a national price on pollution, grocery prices have increased at the same rate as they have in Canada.

I wonder if the hon. member can explain why it is happening in the United States without a national price on pollution. Is it not truly just a misleading fact that cutting the price on pollution will have in impact on groceries, like he has said?

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

Madam Speaker, let me tell the House what is misleading. The Liberals sold this carbon tax scam to Canadians, telling them that it would reduce emissions. However, their own environment department said that this was false because it was not even tracking it. They know, just like this carbon tax, that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. In fact, emissions went up again in the country.

They also sold this scam by saying that more Canadians would get more back in these phony rebates than what they pay into it. However, their own Parliamentary Budget Officer proved that wrong when he said, multiple times, that a majority of households would pay more into this scam than what they would get back in these phony rebates.

We will not take any lessons from the government. We will green-light green projects and bring down emissions, while keeping more money in the pockets of Canadians.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague missed a real opportunity in his speech, which is to call out the real elephant in the room when it comes to inflation, and that is corporate greed.

Those members like to go on and on about the carbon tax, but conveniently ignore that, since 2019, oil and gas companies have seen their net profits go up by over 1000%. Grocery retailers have seen their profit margins double, their net profits double.

If we look at our farmers, their input costs have gone up. That is why farm debt has gone up so much over the last 20 years and that is why the consumers at the other end are getting screwed.

When are the Conservatives going to get serious about calling out the corporate greed? Are they going to be like the Liberals and continue the deference that we have seen over the last 40 years through successive Liberal and Conservative governments?

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

Madam Speaker, it is too bad. It is the NDP that will never miss an opportunity to prop up the most corrupt, incompetent government in Canadian history. The NDP is literally the reason why there is not enough competition in our country. It is literally the reason why Canadians are going into food banks. It has propped up and supported the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister, all for the greed of its leader's pension.

Those members need to put that aside and think about the suffering that they are helping cause on Canadians by teaming up with the Liberal-NDP Prime Minister. It is time to step out of the way.

Why does he not do the right thing and stop propping up the government? Let us go to a carbon tax election and let Canadians decide whether they want to keep this carbon tax scam or not.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my Conservative colleague's speech, and I would like him to set the record straight regarding the housing crisis we are experiencing. I heard him say something that I thought was simplistic, about letting builders build and letting buyers buy.

Does he think that it is fair to rely solely on market forces in a housing crisis of this magnitude? Does he think that the market will respond to the urgent need for social and affordable housing? What measures does my colleague's political party intend to adopt that will truly prioritize social and affordable housing?

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

Madam Speaker, nothing is sustainable right now. It is these high interest rates that are stopping builders from building and buyers from buying. In fact, it is these high interest rates where, now, 2.2 million mortgages are up for renewal. There is a mortgage default crisis looming, according to the IMF. That is literally what is keeping builders from building and people from getting into homes in the first place.

It is too bad. The Bloc is continually supporting the government and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We are out of time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Niagara West.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, as always, I am honoured and proud to stand in this place and speak on behalf of the constituents of Niagara West.

I want to start by reading a quote. It states:

One of the biggest pressures on people right now is housing. Young Canadians – particularly Millennials and Gen Z – are being priced out of their communities. Families are finding it difficult to get a good place to settle down. Rising rents and the high cost of buying a home are making it more difficult for younger generations to find a place to call their own. We need more homes in Canada, and we need to keep them affordable.

Where did I find this quote? In one of the government's news releases last week.

After nine years of bungling the economy, inflation, taxation and housing, the government finally has acknowledged that what it has been doing is not working. It is acknowledging that it has done generational harm to millennials, gen Z and other younger folks. It is that simple and it is written down. The government has admitted it in that very statement.

What the Liberals say after are their usual promises about to be broken. By the way, they are recycling their promises from nine years ago. If they have not been able to get things done in nine years, who is going to believe that they will be able to get things done now? Absolutely no one.

At this point, Canadians no longer believe the Liberals. Millennials and gen Z do not believe them. Why? According to reports, nearly 60% of retirees are supporting their adult children financially. What does this do to the finances of their parents? Of course, it is having a negative impact.

Whether younger or older, the Liberals are making everyone poorer. How much poorer? The average Canadian family is poorer by $3,687. Families that used to donate to food banks are now going to food banks for themselves. We have record visits to food banks, two million visits in a single month.

To make matters worse, Canada will spend $54.1 billion to service its national debt: $54.1 billion is a lot of money to pay just on interest; $54.1 billion is more money than the government is sending to the provinces for health care. This was entirely self-inflicted. The Liberals will blame the world, they will blame Conservatives and they will blame everyone and anyone they can think of. They call them horrible names. We know the Liberal playbook and Canadians are wise to it as well.

It is time for the government to take responsibility for the financial mess it has created, a mess that many Canadians can no longer endure. People are leaving Canada. Immigrants come to our country and realize it is impossible to afford a life, and oftentimes leave and take their skills elsewhere.

The Liberals admitted their failures in a statement, so there is no backtracking anymore. It has been nine years of abject failure on the housing file and many others. Young folks cannot afford to buy a home. Most have given up and think of owning a home as only for the rich. Eight out of 10 believe that owning a home in Canada is now only for the rich. This is a staggering statistic.

It is the first time in Canada when young Canadians will be worse off than their parents were, and it is not just now. Unless a younger person purchases a home, they are unlikely to build significant equity. This would result in much smaller retirement savings down the road. Therefore, young folks may be worse off for the rest of their lives because of the Prime Minister and his policies. It was not this way when the Prime Minister was elected in 2015, and it will not be this way when he is gone. Let us be frank: If the Liberals caused it for the past nine years, they do not know how to fix it. It is very clear, and their record speaks for itself. It is a photo op government, but that is where it ends: at photo ops. Conservatives will be the getting-things-done government in due time.

Still on the topic of housing, interest rates are also a major factor as to why folks cannot buy homes. Last week at committee, the Governor of the Bank of Canada once again confirmed that the Prime Minister's spending is “not helpful” when it comes to bringing down inflation and lowering interest rates. That is just a toned-down way of saying he should stop the spending. That is what the Governor of the Bank of Canada really wants to say, but he cannot because of the political waves he would create. However, Canadians are wise and can read between the lines. The fact is that $61 billion in new spending is making inflation worse and causing interest rates to stay higher for longer. This spending is the equivalent of pouring fuel on the inflationary fire.

Folks watching at home should keep in mind that inflation is just another tax on them. It is not enough that the Liberals increased the disastrous carbon tax by 23% and will make sure to increase it every year on April 1. They cannot help themselves, and this will only make things worse with inflationary budgets.

If the government members do not believe me, they should listen to their fellow Liberals. What are some of their Liberal pals saying about how things are going? According to one article, former finance minister Bill Morneau said that this budget is a “threat to investment [and] economic growth” and companies will “think twice about investing in Canada.” Another Liberal, David Dodge, former governor of the Bank of Canada, said that the budget is the “worst budget since...1982.” Former Liberal finance minister John Manley told the Prime Minister that he was pressing on the inflationary gas pedal with his spending, which ballooned interest rates.

I mentioned the carbon tax. Let us go back to that for a second. The carbon tax is the government's notoriously bad signature policy. Almost every provincial premier has publicly come out against it. The carbon tax makes everything more expensive without having any impact on the environment. What is happening with this? The government hiked the carbon tax, but emissions still go up. According to the government, if carbon taxes go up, emissions should go down. That is false. That is not the case, and that is not true. What is true is that the carbon tax is just another cash grab for the Liberals, and everyone knows it. The Liberals just refuse to admit it.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has also been very clear that the majority of Canadians will pay more of their money in carbon taxes than they will get back in rebates. In other words, the Liberals take more than they give back, and they expect Canadians to thank them for this rip-off. Canadians are wiser than the Liberals think. Seventy per cent of Canadians are against the carbon tax, because they see it for the scam that it is.

The Prime Minister and his party, though, through their disastrous policies of the last nine years, are playing with people's lives and do not seem to care that folks are hurting. They are hurting badly. The Prime Minister has doubled their rent, their mortgage payments and the down payment necessary to purchase a home. He is making Canadians pay higher taxes for food and heating, while doubling housing costs. Family budgets are broken. There is nothing extra, or even a negative amount, at the end of the month when all the bills are paid.

Conservatives have had three demands for the budget: axe the carbon tax on farmers and food; build homes, not more bureaucracy; and cap spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation. All three are common-sense policies. All three would make life more affordable for Canadians, but the Liberals refuse to do any of them.

Are Liberals too blinded by the ideology of big ballooning government gone out of control to see that what they are doing is hurting Canadian families and their wallets? They are also hurting small businesses, investment and productivity.

One knows that things have gotten very bad when, among Canadians who do not own a home, over seven in 10 say that they have actually given up hope on ever owning one. That is not the Canada I know.

Business insolvencies surged by 87% year over year in the first quarter of 2024, while consumer insolvencies rose by 14%. BNN Bloomberg reported, “The Canadian Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Professionals...said that's by far the largest year-over-year increase in business insolvencies in 37 years of records.” The association's chair, André Bolduc, said, “A perfect storm of economic challenges is brewing, with high mortgage renewal rates, soaring rental prices, and elevated costs of everyday necessities”. He added, “The high cost of servicing debts is also compounding the financial strain for many Canadians and leaving them grappling with insurmountable debt burdens.”

What the government has given Canadians is consistently increased carbon taxes, high inflation, more taxes, more inflation, housing shortages, a housing crisis and a cost of living crisis. When does this financial debacle end? One thing is for sure: It will not end with the current government and the current Prime Minister at the helm.

Their disastrous policies have to end with an election, which would allow for a strong, stable majority Conservative government. We are ready to go on day one. There is a lot for us to fix. The government has created this mess, and it will not be easy to clean up, but we are committed. Our leader is committed.

I would like to add an amendment.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, since the bill fails to implement a commonsense budget that would:

(a) axe the carbon tax;

(b) build the homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities to permit 15% more home building each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money; and

(c) cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation, by requiring the government to find a dollar in savings for every new dollar of spending.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the Conservatives would incorporate the issue of housing into the amendment itself. All one needs to do is take a look at the leader of the Conservative Party. When he was minister of housing, it was virtually a disaster. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent, and I think six non-profit housing units were actually built during his term as minister. We have a government today that is bringing in budgetary measures and working with municipalities, provinces and different stakeholders to build more units.

What more does he believe the Conservative Party could actually do to see more houses built? Is he suggesting that we go back to the way it was when his leader was the minister of housing?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, one thing my colleague talks about is the hundreds of millions of dollars they are spending, and my challenge with the government is its competence level. At the end of the day, the government has no problem spending money. The challenge is actually getting results.

We do not have to go back very far. There was a previous question talking about the fact that the government had spent all this money under COVID and all these other kinds of things. I want to remind the member that there was a sole-source contract for $720 million for ventilators, and $237 million went to one of their former colleagues, Frank Baylis.

We talk about spending money. We also need to keep in context accountability, transparency and making sure that we are getting the job done. Any government can promise to spend money; the current government is awesome at spending and making promises. What it is terrible at is actually delivering, and what it is absolutely incompetent at is managing taxpayers' money in a responsible way.

What happened to all those ventilators? Some are still in their packaging and still on docks, and they are actually being sold for six dollars for their parts. This is the height of incompetence.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, though I do not agree with much of it. I have a very specific question for him.

We in the NDP worked hard to get a new dental care program in place so that the most disadvantaged people and seniors could access dental care practically for free, starting this year.

As of last week, we have already started to see people going to the dentist and having their bill paid in full, or 90% of it. That will be a game-changer for the millions of Canadians and Quebeckers who are suffering terribly because they have not able to go to the dentist for years.

Will my colleague's party commit to maintaining the dental care program for the middle class and the most disadvantaged if it wins the next election?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, some things we will commit to are getting spending under control, making sure that how we spend money is transparent and making sure we get value for our money.

Quite frankly, the member and his party are the ones propping up the government. At the end of the day, they can raise any concern they want; they can huff and puff or do whatever, depending on what their concern is. However, they still support the government and the bad decisions the Liberals make on a regular basis.

If we are looking for ways to help people, one way would be to learn to live within our means, so we can continue to make sure that our cost of living comes down. Interest rates can then follow after that.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful to my colleague for bringing forward a common-sense motion. He spoke about how the government has been great at spending money but falls short on results. To address housing, the government brought forward a bunch of programs. It doubled the cost of housing to try to address the cost of groceries. It spent a lot of money, and recent grocery prices increased along with inflation. That has caused a lot of economic hardship for Canadians across the country.

Does my colleague have any stories he could share, from what he has heard in his own riding, about how the Liberal tax-and-spend agenda is making life more difficult for Canadians?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact, just this past Friday, I was at a round table on poverty with people from the community, which gave me an opportunity to hear from people who are struggling. They shared their stories about how they are having a hard time paying their property taxes and rent; they are having a hard time paying for their groceries. The fact remains that, ever since the government came into power, people have been struggling as they have at no other time in history.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with the invaluable member for Thérèse-De Blainville.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Does the member have unanimous consent to share his time?

[members]

Agreed.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, this budget is unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois because it is unacceptable to Quebeckers. Let us keep the suspense for the movies: We are voting against the budget.

This is a budget that, in many ways, feeds on human misery. It is a budget of fiscal imbalance. This budget is the soul of the federal spending power, through which the federal government assumes the right to impose conditions on Quebec in its own areas of jurisdiction. These are areas in which the federal government does not have the right to legislate, such as housing and health care, among others. It is unacceptable.

Quebec has denounced the Liberal government, along with its NDP allies. Last week, the National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion. Not a single Quebec MNA refused to vote in favour of this motion, which called for the right to withdraw with full financial compensation for Quebec in the event of interference into its jurisdictions, as is the case with this budget. These are what we call Quebec's traditional demands.

Every Quebec government dating back to well before I was born made this demand, in particular the Jean Charest-led government, which included the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis. Had she been in Quebec, she probably would have voted in favour of this motion, rather than voting against last week’s proposal by the Bloc Québécois to give Quebec that right of withdrawal.

Last week during question period, a minister, whose name and title I shall not mention since this was partially private, yelled from one side of the House to the other to ask me what was a unanimous consent motion by the National Assembly worth. According to this individual, there is one every month, since the National Assembly is always unanimously criticizing the federal government.

This helps us understand just how wide the gap is between Canada and Quebec from a budgetary standpoint. Rather than turning to Quebec and showing the province a modicum of understanding and respect, Ottawa says Quebec is wrong to ask for respect in its own areas of jurisdiction. There we have it, the Liberal ministers showing the depths of their contempt. Above all, they are showing their total inability to admit that they are wrong and that they should not interfere in areas outside their jurisdiction they are incompetent to manage. No jurisdiction and no competence makes for an incompetent federal government.

This is an omnibus bill. Right off the bat I expect that the member for Winnipeg-North, an outstanding debater, will likely rise shortly, although my saying so now might dissuade him. He is going to tell me there is something or other that is good in the budget, that there are not just bad things in the budget, that some of what it contains is acceptable. Fine, except that this is an omnibus bill, a bill that has everything and anything and that amends numerous acts and regulations.

In such instances, our values must guide us and we must draw a red line. We in the Bloc Québécois have been transparent. We signalled this red line to the government before it tabled the budget. We told the Liberals that if they wanted, then maybe they could possibly consider seeking the Bloc’s support. One never knows, the NDP might leave their side.

In exchange for this support, we wanted the right to opt out of programs under Quebec's jurisdiction with full financial compensation. Is that included in the bill? Not only is it not included, but the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP voted against the amendment to the amendment that we moved to add it to the budget. They voted against Quebec's National Assembly and against all the Quebec governments that have made this request since the 1950s. What the NDP and Liberals are telling us is that they do not think the Quebec government is doing a good enough job in its own areas of jurisdiction and that they do not trust it. However, some of the problems that Quebec is having with health care, education and housing are due to the fact that it does not have full freedom to act, because the federal government is standing in the way.

We asked for old age security to be increased starting at age 65, but that is not in the budget. We asked for an end to the fossil fuel subsidies, but there are fresh subsidies in this budget, and the government is promising a plan. The Minister of Environment said that the government had abolished inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. However, when we asked him what “inefficient” meant, he could not even define it. The reality is that the tax incentives took on a differnt form.

The federal government owes Quebec $900 million. As François Pérusse put it, “a debt is a debt” and must be repaid. The federal government owes Quebec $900 million because we had to give asylum seekers integration classes, French classes, health services and so on. Quebec incurred these expenses and paid for them with Quebeckers' money. This budget is a slap in the face for Quebec.

Instead of granting unconditional housing transfers, the federal government decided to impose even more conditions. Quebec has had permanent housing construction programs for decades. Now, at a time when people are living on the streets, sleeping in tents or in their cars, the government got the brilliant idea to add even more red tape. The Liberals seem to think this is the best Liberal idea this year.

The consequences are serious, tragic and inhumane. For ideological reasons, this government is determined to crush Quebec and its desire to take action in its own areas of jurisdiction. The other provinces can do what they want, but this urge to crush Quebec is having tragic and inhumane consequences. The same is true when it comes to health.

This may not be the worst part, but what makes this bill even more unacceptable is the part about open banking. Banks have changed. The big banks have basically become financial product factories, selling loans, insurance and other financial products. Consumers often use third-party apps to deal with banks. The banks manufacture the financial products, and the apps handle the customer service for those products. This needs to be regulated. These transactions involve personal and private information.

The government had three choices. First, it could have opted for the Interac model, where the industry regulates itself. For instance, take Desjardins in Quebec, provincially regulated financial institutions, and credit unions in the rest of Canada. They coordinate with the banks so that the information that is shared is regulated, customers receive their product and their information is protected. This involves some self-regulation. We are not huge fans of this model, but it could have worked. However, the government said it was not interested.

Then there was the second approach, which is more collaborative and involves securities commissions. This is where Ottawa sits down with Quebec, in particular. Not only is Desjardins the biggest employer in Quebec, but it is also its biggest financial institution. The idea would be to harmonize our laws and regulate the exchange of information to protect consumers, while ensuring that they receive quality service and that new banking services meet their needs. Ottawa, which says it is still working with Quebec, has closed the door on that option.

The government has therefore decided to introduce legislation that will lead to a plan next fall, under which federal financial institutions will be included in the legislative framework. Desjardins and other Quebec co-operatives are literally being told that they have the choice of ignoring Quebec's Consumer Protection Act, ignoring Quebec's Bill 25 on privacy protection and that, if they want, they can come into the federal fold. They will fall under Ottawa's jurisdiction, which contradicts the most basic spirit of co-operation.

That is exactly how the federal government behaved. It not only stomped all over Quebec's jurisdictions, it held a knife to Quebec's throat. It behaved a bit like that when it imposed a securities commission that was supposedly national, but in reality centred on Toronto, before the Supreme Court ruled against it. The government is not open to talking with Quebec.

The Liberals can go ahead and list all the good things they want about Bill C‑69. They can try to convince us that Ottawa knows better than Quebec when it comes to managing hospitals, operating child care and fixing teeth, but that will not not change the fact that this is a bad budget. It goes against Quebec and Quebec's interests as framed by every Quebec government throughout history.

Once again, I am announcing that not only will the Bloc Québécois vote against, but I will be pleased to rise and vote no.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member would not be surprised that I disagree with him.

Looking at this budget, there are many progressive aspects to it, whether it is pharmacare, the national school food program, the disability benefit or the expansion of the Canada dental program. These are all programs that would benefit Canadians in every region of the country.

The issue my friend brings up is in regard to giving cash to provinces. From my experience of being a provincial MLA for almost two decades I can say that, for a lot of the provinces and a lot of provincial politicians, that is all they want from Ottawa. They want the government to give them money and they do not want to be held accountable for how they spend the money. They just want the money. However, the expectations of the people we represent are higher than Ottawa just being an ATM machine.

I wonder if the member would recognize that one of the ways we could have programs that help lift all Canadians is by instituting a national program. Does the member not recognize there is value, for example, in a national school food—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I will give the hon. member for Mirabel time to answer the question.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the immigration minister is in the bad habit of saying during question period that we take the federal government for an ATM. That may be because it is our money, drawn on our account, that is in this ATM. Quebeckers' national government is in Quebec City. I have no interest in what Manitobans think about this. If they want centralized programs, fine. Quebec, for its part, is asking for the right to opt out.

There is nothing progressive about being bad. There is nothing progressive about setting up a dental care system that already exists in Quebec, while the infrastructure already exists in Quebec. There is nothing progressive about not recognizing that drug insurance is provincial and that everyone in Quebec is already covered in some fashion or another. There is nothing progressive about not recognizing that unilateral measures cannot be put in place. There is nothing progressive about doubling and tripling red tape for housing programs or to build affordable housing units. This just adds delays. There is nothing progressive about that.

What is progressive is to listen to Quebec and let it act in its own areas of jurisdiction.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's remarks. There is a double standard when it comes to the Bloc Québécois. It is true that in the past, the Bloc voted against the budgets, but they voted in favour of the budgetary appropriations. We are talking about $500 billion in inflationary, centralizing spending.

Why does the Bloc Québécois always vote in favour of the budgetary appropriations? Will the Bloc vote for the budgetary appropriations associated with this year's budget?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Member for Lévis—Lotbinière talks about a double standard, and yet he always votes against Quebec and for Alberta. He votes against the right to opt out with full financial compensation for Quebec, but he has no problem giving oil companies $55 billion or $60 billion in financial incentives. This is paid for with Quebeckers' money meant for day care, health, education, social programs, housing and refugees but it ends up in the pockets of oil companies. Is that not a double standard?

In the Bloc Québécois, for as long as I can remember, we have not supported any of Ottawa's budgetary policies because we always set conditions. As far as we are concerned, common sense is set out in black and white. Our conditions are clear and reasonable. That is why Quebeckers vote for us.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his fiery and passionate speech. I want to talk about more than just motions, institutions and parliaments. I want to talk about Quebeckers. Some four million Quebeckers have no dental coverage, whether private or public.

People voted for us, the NDP, to come to Ottawa and fight to give people access to a dentist, and we did. We used our balance of power and we delivered.

What does my colleague have to say to the seniors and people with disabilities in his riding who will benefit from having 80% or 90% of their dental care paid for?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will tell them what I told a woman from my riding recently. When the details of the program were not yet available, she realized that she would have to pay with her credit card and then go onto the CRA portal to apply for a refund. Then, after having to wait for the refund, she would only be reimbursed for half the amount. Children are covered in Quebec. There is already a system in place and dentists are participating in it.

The government could have reimbursed people automatically so that they would not have to pay for their dental care out of their own pocket. People often have to use their credit card at an interest rate of 20%. That is what doing a good job means in a federal context. That is what Quebeckers are telling us. That is what they are experiencing. They are paying 20% interest to provide advances to the federal government for these services because it is the CRA that has to issue the refund.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. My colleagues are going to hear something similar, because the Bloc Québécois is here to defend Quebeckers' interests. This budget does not live up to the needs, interests or aspirations of Quebeckers or the people in my riding.

It abandons seniors, workers and the unemployed. It erodes their confidence and ours. We have made it clear: the Bloc Québécois will be voting against the budget. We have always said that if something is good for Quebec, we will vote for it, and if something is not good for Quebec, we will vote against it. This budget and its implementation bill clearly do not live up to Quebeckers' needs or aspirations at all.

It is a shameful attempt to interfere in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction on a number of levels. It interferes in health and education, as well as clean energy when it comes to Hydro-Québec, which we are proud to say is ours. It also interferes in housing and other areas.

The government could show a bit of sportsmanship. We asked for something in a motion presented to the House. We wanted Quebec to have the right to opt out with full compensation. However, the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party voted against the motion, which respected Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

That is no small matter because, in the end, I get the impression and we get the impression that they could not care less and that they are not at all concerned. I think I have just used a parliamentary term. This is such an issue that motions have been passed in Quebec's National Assembly demanding this right and telling the three federal parties to mind their own business, stay out of our areas of jurisdiction and respect the robust health and social services and housing programs we have built in Quebec. These motions ask that they respect us and allow us to continue managing these programs that have improved Quebeckers' lives, with full compensation.

However, the reality is very different. On the one hand, the government is spending millions and billions of dollars on programs that should be under Quebec's jurisdiction and, on the other, it is not spending a dime to improve the services for which it is responsible.

When I was elected in 2019, I put one priority atop my list of three priorities: public service. In fact, I commend the people of my riding on their grasp of the issues relating to the support available to citizens, organizations and businesses. They are very concerned about these issues.

I would say that most of the files we deal with have to do with immigration. This comes under federal jurisdiction in many regards, particularly with respect to newcomers, asylum seekers, visa applications, sponsorship applications and family reunification applications. The processing delays are unacceptable.

Underprivileged, disadvantaged people come to see us regularly to inquire about the status of their file. These delays fly in the face of our humanitarian duty to these individuals. What is the government doing? Where in the budget does it say that these unacceptable processing delays will be reduced? Where in the budget does it say that action will be taken on immigration policy to respect Quebec's demand and integration capacity? In this case too, the stated requirements are completely ignored, which is to the great detriment of those we welcome here. Indeed, in Quebec, our integration policy is important, just as much as our policy on newcomers' French language training. In order for these policies to be respected, Quebec needs leverage, just as it needs a federal immigration policy that does not impose delays or conditions that ultimately erode our capacity. We stand against this.

The Phoenix pay system is the responsibility of the government, which employs thousands of people in the federal public service. When it was elected in 2015, the government made a firm commitment to changing the Phoenix pay system to make it fairer and more equitable. I heard the parliamentary secretary say in his speech this afternoon that the budget was fair and equitable. Is it fair and equitable to allow the situation to continue without investing in a pay system that does not help attract or retain employees who make a real difference in people's lives? The federal government is investing nothing in the organization of its own services. I even read recently that it may use artificial intelligence to help with the problem. It is embarrassing.

As for employment insurance, I no longer know what to say or what tone to take. The Conservatives often talk about these eight years under a Liberal government. I do not share the opinion that the Liberal government is responsible for every problem. However, when it comes to failing to fulfill a commitment to workers and, by extension, the unemployed, it is unmatched. The government undertook to present and implement an EI reform worthy of the 21st century. It did so in the minister's mandate letters in November 2015, September 2016, January 2021 and December 2021, as well as in its 2021 election platform. It went even further in 2021, saying it would reform the system by summer 2022, and yet here we are in summer 2024. The government has broken its promise and failed to fulfill its commitment.

It also said, in its first term, that it would enhance the pilot project for seasonal workers and make it permanent. What it did in the budget, however, was to renew the five additional weeks in the 2018 pilot project for another two years. The only thing the government will have done is to renew a temporary measure, nothing more.

Moreover, the computer system used to support the social safety net is obsolete, and the government knows it. Only recently did it say that it would invest in modernizing it, maybe in 2026 or 2028. What prospects do workers and the unemployed have? None at all. Is it fair and equitable for seniors? Canada is one of the worst OECD countries when it comes to the old age pension, not to mention that it discriminates against people between the ages of 65 and 74—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am curious as to the member's thoughts on the pharmacare proposal that is within. I think that seniors, no matter what area of the country they are in, particularly those with diabetes, would recognize that having national pharmacare is a very strong, positive thing, just on that point alone.

Does the Bloc support Canada providing pharmacare coverage and recognize that at least we are moving in the right direction?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to lob that question back at the parliamentary secretary and ask him if the Liberals really intend to implement universal pharmacare across the country. It just does not make sense.

It is not that universal pharmacare does not make sense. It is that it does not fit into a context where Quebec already has a pharmacare program that covers thousands of drugs.

It makes no sense to impose such a program without the right to opt out with full compensation in an area that is under Quebec's jurisdiction. Quebec even questions why this program only covers diabetes and contraceptives. The government is not following through on its commitment.

I have a feeling these meddling federal policies will continue for a long time to come. They may suit the rest of Canada, but they in no way meet the needs and interests of Quebec, which already has its own system. Yes, it needs some improvements, but not with federal conditions.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to talk about pharmacare too. It interests me because the Hoskins report made it very clear that the best way to control and reduce drug costs for everyone is to have universal public pharmacare.

The Quebec system is a hybrid system that was cutting-edge at the time. Today, however, even Dr. Rochon, the person who instituted the system, says that it is time to finish the job and adopt a universal public system.

Yes, Quebec must be given the right to opt out with compensation. We support that and agree on it. However, this universal pharmacare plan would be the best thing for Quebeckers, for patients, for businesses and for hospitals. It is something that the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec and the Union des consommateurs du Québec are all calling for.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is no surprise to me that these major labour organizations are calling for this, because I used to work for them.

We fought for universal pharmacare for over 20 years. That struggle is what led to the system we currently have in Quebec. Our hybrid system is not perfect and could be improved. I believe that people want to continue with it.

I am very pleased to hear for the first time that the NDP agrees with us about the right to opt out with full compensation, because neither the bill we are studying nor the agreement to keep the government in power mentions this condition.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, at the end of her speech, my colleague talked about creating two classes of seniors.

I would like her to elaborate on this topic because we have discussed it a number of times in the House. What is her opinion on the matter?

I understand that she is calling for changes to old age security, but maybe there would be no need to ask if the government just decided to take action. We thought this would be in the budget, but it is still not there.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Shefford's Bill C-319 is currently at committee stage.

We in the Bloc Québécois want just and equitable social safety nets. That is why we are calling on Ottawa to strengthen its own social safety net programs.

As far as old age security is concerned, Canada is currently faring poorly among the OECD countries. Moreover, the federal government has seen fit to increase old age security by 10% for people 75 years and over, excluding those who qualify for OAS upon turning 65. Those seniors are getting no support and no increase.

That is a disgrace.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I start my speech, I seek unanimous consent to split my time with the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, millions of Canadians are really struggling right now. The cost of living is up dramatically. It is getting much harder to pay rent, to pay a mortgage, to buy food and to pay bills. This has gone on for several years now for many Canadian families, and I think it is fair to say that communities across Canada are really feeling the toll of the economic difficulty facing this country.

However, big corporations and the ultra rich are doing better than ever. They are making record profits, often by gouging Canadians with sky-high prices. Even with corporate profits soaring, the investments in Canadian workers and in the Canadian economy are declining. Major shareholders and top executives are reaping enormous benefits, while the promised trickle-down to workers, communities and consumers, promised by the right to North Americans around the world since the beginning of the century, is as illusory as it has ever been. New Democrats recognize these facts. That is why we are using our power in this minority Parliament to deliver results for people.

In the 2024 budget alone, New Democrats have compelled the government to do the following: to build more homes, to preserve existing affordable housing and to protect renters; to bring in universal, single-payer pharmacare, starting with contraception and diabetes medications and devices; to establish a national school food program; to reverse damaging cuts to indigenous services; to invest in accessible, high-quality, non-profit child care; to establish a dedicated youth mental health fund; to double the volunteer firefighter tax credit and the search and rescue volunteer tax credit; and to take the first step toward tax fairness in this country by making wealthy Canadians pay a bit more on their capital gains profits.

It is funny that while I have been speaking, I have heard nothing but catcalls from the Conservatives, who have opposed every single one of the points I just mentioned. That gives people a flash into what a Conservative government might do for Canadians. I think it is quite clear that it would reverse every one of those measures.

While these achievements illustrate, in part, what a New Democrat government could accomplish, the 2024 budget does not fully reflect our party's vision. This is not an NDP budget, but it was a budget that we were able to influence in a minority Parliament.

Likewise, Bill C-69, the bill under consideration in the House, the budget implementation act, 2024, No. 1, includes many of those positive measures that the NDP was able to compel the Liberal government to implement. However, we acknowledge that the legislation has several and significant shortcomings. In our view, there is much more the federal government can and should be doing to make this easier for people and to provide opportunities for the generations to come. For our part, New Democrats will not stop working to deliver results for people.

I want to cover some positive aspects of Bill C-69 because we have indicated that we intend to support this legislation. First, it would launch the new national school food program. This program would be in place as early as the 2024-25 school year and would help over 400,000 children access the food they need to grow healthy and to learn. This would be an important first step toward establishing a national school food program or national standards. This is a critical gap felt strongly in a time of sky-rocketing food prices.

Across Canada, the reality is that nearly one in four children do not get enough food, and more than one-third of food bank users are children. According to Children First Canada, there has been a 29% increase in food insecurity for children in the last year alone. A national school food program not only would give students in Canada access to nutritious food, but also would make healthy eating a daily lesson for our kids. By integrating lessons on food growing, nutrition, preparation and cultivation into established curricula, a national school food program can encourage children to adopt lifelong healthy eating habits.

We know, from international best practices, that all children benefit from universal school food programs, not just children from low-income households. Countries with a national school food program have documented better academic performance, improved short- and long-term health for children, help for family budgets and improved efficiency in the health care system.

Bill C-69 also includes measures that would make housing more affordable in a few ways. It would enhance the home buyers' plan by increasing the withdrawal limit from $35,000 to $60,000 and would temporarily add three years to the grace period before repayments to an RRSP were required.

Bill C-69 would start to crack down on short-term rentals to unlock more homes for Canadians to live in by denying income tax deductions on income earned from short-term rentals that do not comply with provincial or local restrictions. It would ban foreign buyers of Canadian homes for an additional two years, until January 1, 2027, to ensure homes are used for Canadians to live in and not as a speculative asset class for foreign investors.

Bill C-69 also includes measures that would make life more affordable Canadians in other ways. It would make it easier to find better deals on Internet, home phone and cellphone plans by amending the Telecommunications Act to better allow Canadians to renew or to switch between plans and to increase consumer choice to help them find a deal that works best for them.

We know that Internet and cell services are now core staple utilities for Canadians, and Canadians pay among the highest prices in the world. This happened under the current Liberal government, and it happened under the previous Conservative government. New Democrats know we have to drive those prices down for Canadians to meaningfully participate in work-at-home life.

It would crack down on predatory lending by strengthening enforcement against criminal rates of interest to help protect the most vulnerable Canadians from harmful illegal lenders. It would make it easier to save for our children's education by introducing an automatic enrolment in the Canada learning bond to ensure all low-income families receive the support they need for their children's futures.

It also includes measures that would support workers. Bill C-69 would protect gig workers by strengthening prohibitions against employee misclassification in federally regulated industries. It would establish a right to disconnect to help restore the work-life balance for workers in federally regulated industries. It would extend additional weeks of employment insurance for seasonal workers in 13 targeted regions until October 2026. It would advance employee ownership trusts to enable employees to share in the success of their work by encouraging more businesses to sell to an employee ownership trust.

Bill C-69 would deliver two major investment tax credits to help build a more sustainable future, and those are the 30% clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit and the up to 40% clean hydrogen investment tax credit. I sat in the Standing Committee on Finance, where I heard from businesses across this country that cannot wait to get these tax credits in place so that they start to make the investment in sustainable forms of energy that not only would create the jobs of the future but also would help Canada meet our carbon reduction targets.

I have already mentioned that Bill C-69 would provide support for volunteer first responders and the care economy workers in rural and remote communities. It would do this in a couple of ways. It would expand the Canada student loan forgiveness program to pharmacists, dentists, dental hygienists, midwives, early childhood educators, teachers, social workers, personal support workers, physiotherapists and psychologists who choose to work in rural and remote communities. This would build on existing loan forgiveness for doctors and nurses. We all know our rural and remote areas probably feel the pinch of a health care system that is not providing fast enough or good enough service, and it is important this budget recognizes that and takes some steps toward addressing it.

I want to talk for just a moment about the Canada disability benefit because I mentioned that this bill has some serious deficiencies. In my mind, this is one of the most major ones. Despite its plan announced earlier to provide a maximum benefit to people living with disabilities to lift them out of poverty, which is the claim and the goal, which the NDP agrees with, the Liberal government decided to back that up by giving those Canadians $200 a month.

One does not need to be an economist to know that it does not come anywhere near to lifting anybody out of poverty, but frankly, it is almost an insult. At present, a single adult with a disability will live below the poverty line if they receive funding from any of the provincial programs across Canada, and an additional $200 a month is not enough to bring them even to the poverty line. There are over a million and a half Canadians living with disabilities who live in poverty in this country, yet this plan would also have a restrictive eligibility requirement that would limit access to, at most, an estimated 600,000 people.

We are deeply disappointed to see that broken promise, and we will continue to fight for Canadians living with disabilities. We know they need sufficient income in this country not only to let them get out of poverty but also to meaningfully participate and to live enriched lives, where they can contribute as fully as they can. It is not only good for them, but also good for communities and our economy as well.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments the hon. member shared. The budget document is a massive document. Working together to find some elements within that document that we can agree on, I think, is a way to move forward as a country.

I would like to hear the member re-echo what some programs are that he supports, and should the Conservative Party be elected, which I hope it is not, what could be undone or possibly taken away from Canadians. Does he agree that all levels of government need to work together? I know he comes from the province of British Columbia. I do not know the politics of British Columbia, but I can say that in the province of Ontario, every time the federal government tries to provide supports for people to make their lives better, the provincial Conservative government tends to claw back the supports at their level, which actually does not move Canadians ahead. I would like to hear about their experience versus what we see in Ontario.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, dealing with the last question first, I think a critical part of the Canada disability benefit is that we ensure all provinces and territories come to an agreement with the federal government whereby any additional funds the federal government is providing to people living with disabilities is not clawed back. If that were to happen then people living with disabilities would not receive any benefit at all. That is a critical component for success.

In terms of additional aspects of the budget, which is over 600 pages long, I would point out that Bill C-69 would provide support for small and medium-sized businesses by returning over $2.5 billion in proceeds from the price on pollution to an estimated 600,000 small and medium-sized businesses through an accelerated and automated return process. Rebates would also be provided every year going forward. That is a positive step. Small businesses are the engine of our economy, and many of them are suffering.

The extension of that carbon tax rebate, in the billions of dollars, to small and medium-sized businesses would be an important reason, I think, to support this budget and one that I would be interested in hearing my Conservative colleagues' reasoning as to why they would oppose that.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member opposite that it was very disappointing to see what happened with the Canada disability benefit. It certainly was not what the community was asking for.

Would he not also agree that everything else the Liberals are delivering is disappointing, including $10-a-day child care with fewer child care spots than existed before, a dental care program with no dentists subscribed, and a pharmacare program that does not even exist and might end up having two drugs in it? Is it really worth carrying the water for the Liberal government for the last nine years?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP has been championing public, affordable, accessible child care for decades. While I agree that there are not enough spots being created, I have seen more created in the last six years than I ever saw created under any Conservative government. That is for sure.

I do not really understand the premise of my hon. colleague's last question when she said that dental care does not exist. I read stories over the weekend and saw pictures of seniors who had been to the dentist and were showing copies of their bills that were paid for by the Canada dental care program. I do not know what she means about dentists not signing up. The last I heard was that 6,500 dentists across this country have signed up and, frankly, there is no more requirement to sign up for the program. Dentists can just automatically enrol in the program by billing their first customer.

The NDP fought for nine million Canadians, during this Parliament, to be able to go to the dentist for the first time. To us, dental care is primary health care. Every Canadian should have the right to get their oral health needs met, regardless of their ability to pay. At the end of this Parliament, we will be able to go to Canadians on their doorsteps and tell them how the NDP helped to get dental care for nine million Canadians. I am going to tell them that the Conservatives voted against dental care, that they thought it was a bad idea and that they will take it away from them. That is not illusory.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I basically agree with my colleague that times are hard for many people in Canada, Quebec and elsewhere right now.

Let us talk about housing. It is true that this issue is the focus of the budget. However, the problem is the federal government's approach. It is interfering in provincial jurisdictions. Housing is not a federal jurisdiction and never has been.

Nevertheless, the government is creating more programs. It will have to negotiate with Quebec, and that process is going to drag on. When the government introduced the big national housing strategy, it took three years for Quebec to see a single penny. As for the housing accelerator fund, it took two years for a single project to be announced in Quebec. All of that is going to slow down the projects, when we need housing to be built immediately.

Why is the NDP supporting a budget that is basically only going to delay—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I need to give the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway a little time to answer.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, housing is in crisis in this country. Canadians in every community, including in the province of Quebec, cannot find affordable housing to buy or to rent.

In my view, it takes all levels of government working on this problem. We cannot solve the problem by leaving the federal government, which has the deepest pockets in this country, out of it. The feds, the provinces and the municipalities have to work together. It is the only way we are going to make progress.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I am deeply concerned about what is happening right now in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, where the bombing seems to have resumed. The Israeli army seems to have asked tens of thousands of people to seek shelter elsewhere, even though they are are already refugees within the Gaza Strip and keep being told to move. It is a forced displacement of the population. That is extremely worrisome. The city's only public hospital is located on the east side of Rafah, which people are being asked to leave. I think we need to look at the scope of what is going on over there. I just read that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has called this forced relocation order “inhumane”. We have to be watchful and pay close attention today to what has been going on there for the past six months.

After the last federal election, we ended up with another minority government in Ottawa. Wanting to play a constructive role, the NDP caucus agreed to enter into talks and negotiations to see if we could secure things that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives would agree to in the past, hence our imperfect but historic agreement to support the Liberal government in exchange for programs and measures that will provide meaningful help to workers and their families, seniors, patients, students and others.

The latest budget is far from being an NDP budget, but it does reflect the NDP's influence in this Parliament and the use of our leverage to get tangible results and make a difference in people's lives. We are not in politics just to make speeches and to have photo ops. We are also here to provide meaningful help to people who really need it and to improve the living and working conditions of the people we represent in our ridings.

I will get to my criticisms later, but there are some good things in this budget, things that we in the NDP forced the Liberals to deliver, things that past governments had never agreed to. The dental care program is one example. This program came into effect last week, on May 1 to be exact, for the oldest seniors who registered in December and January. It is going to make a huge difference in people's lives. In Quebec alone, four million Quebeckers do not have public or private dental coverage. What the NDP fought for will help those folks in a meaningful way. The Department of Finance estimates that a senior couple could save roughly $2,600 as a result. A family with two children could save just over $1,800, or nearly $2,000.

Having 80% or 90%, or even more, of a dental bill covered has a big impact on someone's budget. Some people have avoided going to the dentist for years because they cannot afford it. Things are about to change. Will the program work beautifully, and is it perfect? No, adjustments will have to be made. We will have to find a balance. That said, I am convinced that it will be of real benefit to families, middle-class people and the most disadvantaged, particularly at a time when the cost of living is rising everywhere, and housing and groceries are becoming more and more expensive. Being reimbursed for almost all dental care will be a game-changer for many people. I am very proud of that. I encourage everyone to sign up, especially dentists. What is more, there will be a new system that I think will make payment even easier.

This program is directly related to the work of the NDP caucus. It was a campaign promise. We promised that we would come to Ottawa to fight for that, and we did. We got results. Today, I am very pleased to say that we kept our promise, and we also took an extremely important first step on pharmacare through the budget. All the reports and studies tell us that a universal public pharmacare program is the best way to reduce or control the cost of drugs. The strange thing is that Canada is the only country in the world that has universal public health care but no pharmacare. For years, we have witnessed drug prices spiral out of control while people go without the drugs they need and end up sicker than ever. As their condition grows worse, they end up in emergency rooms, which places our health care system under additional stress and strain.

Yes, Quebec has its own pharmacare program and retains the right to opt out of the federal pharmacare program with compensation. However, there are limits to Quebec's system, which is a hybrid public-private program that strongly encourages supplemental insurance plans that are negotiated by the unions when employment contracts are renewed. A large part of the money that is used to cover the increased cost of drugs, which is out of control, could be used to enhance things like wages or pension benefits. Even Dr. Jean Rochon, the person who established Quebec's pharmacare system, says that the program was a major step forward 30 years ago but that now we can see all of the flaws and that is it time to finish the job.

Finishing the job means implementing a universal public pharmacare program. The most recent budget lays the groundwork for the discussions that will take place with the provinces. It also sets out specific measures, such as $1.5 billion to help 3.7 million people with diabetes, who will have access to medication or equipment in a few months, once the discussions have wrapped up. Nine million women across the country will also have access to contraceptives. That is huge.

I urge the Government of Quebec to listen and be open to dialogue so that Quebeckers can benefit from this progress and this offer. It would be a real shame if, for ideological reasons, women in Gatineau could not get access to contraceptives while women in Ottawa could. I think that would be a real shame, especially when civil society groups in Quebec are calling for this. Every major union agrees with this. The FTQ, the CSN, the CSQ and the Union des consommateurs du Québec unanimously agree that this is the path to take, as stated in the Hoskins reports. That is pretty significant.

This budget also contains something that we asked for and that Quebec and others have been asking for for years, namely a school food program. Schools are a provincial jurisdiction, obviously. However, federal money can be used to buy meals, snacks or lunches for children who go to school on an empty stomach and who need energy so they can get through the day, pay attention in class and get good grades. These are determinants of academic success.

I do not know if anyone else remembers them, but I remember the little milk cartons we used to get at school when I was a kid. I think it is important for kids to have access to this kind of food. The folks responsible for the health of our children in schools were also calling for this. For years, the Breakfast Club has been asking for this kind of program and for federal money to be allocated. I am glad we managed to get it done.

This budget also increases scholarship amounts for people enrolled in higher education, scholarships that have been frozen for 20 years but have finally just been increased. The budget also includes a plan to use federal lands to build truly affordable housing, something the NDP had called for, as well as an acquisition fund to purchase land for non-market housing, another request from the NDP. There is also a new $1‑billion fund to build truly affordable housing. There are a number of worthwhile measures.

I see that my time is running out, but I have to add that there are some seriously disappointing things about this budget, including the disability benefit, which will provide only $200 a month. That is totally inadequate and will not lift people out of poverty. We could also talk about indigenous infrastructure and indigenous housing, both areas where the federal government needs to do a lot more.

The House resumed from May 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the few seconds I have left before questions and comments from my colleagues, I would just like to say that, despite all the flaws in this budget and the things we would have liked to have seen, the NDP had a hand in it.

Basically, there would have been no dental care without the NDP, no pharmacare for diabetics and for women who want contraceptives without the NDP, no anti-scab legislation without the NDP, no red dress alert system without the NDP, no increase in the capital gains tax without the NDP, no increase in scholarships for graduate students without the NDP, and the list goes on.

I would be happy to take questions.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's words, there are many things we can do if we work together.

Is it worthwhile to work together to ensure that Canadians have the programs that will help them through these very difficult times?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I congratulate her on her excellent French.

The answer to her question is yes. Since the 2021 election, the NDP has adopted a constructive attitude enabling it to advance files that are important to the party, files such as accessible dental care for the least fortunate. This year, it is for seniors, older people. I am very pleased to see that this is moving forward and that it is working.

The accessible dental care program for seniors has been in effect since May 1. Yesterday, we learned that during the first three days, 15,000 people were reimbursed 80% to 90% of the cost of their dental care under the program.

In the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, including the rising cost of groceries and rent, it is excellent news to see that people have more money and can save money at the dentist.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is from Quebec. He knows that Quebec already has a pharmacare program.

Would he rather have a program run by the federal government or by Quebec?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. Quebec has had a pharmacare program for years. However, it is a private-public hybrid system with many flaws. It fails to control drug costs, which are extremely high when negotiating collective agreements.

The NDP believes Quebec would have the right to opt out of the federal pharmacare program with full compensation. Furthermore, this is something the major trade unions and consumer advocacy organizations have been asking for in order to lower drug costs for everyone.

We will see what happens during discussions in the coming months. We feel this would be a step forward for Quebeckers.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP sent a letter inviting the Quebec Minister of Health and Vincent Marissal, a Québec solidaire member, to explain the benefits of pharmacare.

I am not sure if the leader of the NDP is aware, but we already have pharmacare in Quebec. Furthermore, I know that the riding office of my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is in the same building as the Québec solidaire member for Gouin.

Could he not have spoken with him so they could explain to the leader of the NDP that Quebec already has pharmacare?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP is fully aware that Quebec has a pharmacare program. He has said several times during interviews here, in the foyer of the House, that Quebec has the right to opt out with compensation.

While the Quebec pharmacare program was a significant social development 30 years ago, it is showing many cracks today. Even Dr. Jean Rochon, the former health minister who implemented it, has said it is time to finish the job.

Finishing the job means having a true universal public pharmacare program, as requested by the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux and the Centrale des syndicats du Québec.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, all the major Quebec trade unions—the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux and the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec—have said that the pharmacare bill the NDP forced the government to introduce in the House is worthwhile and important.

Should Quebec members not listen to these unions, who have long been demanding the implementation of a public pharmacare system that does not have all the flaws and loopholes of the current Quebec system?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we definitely need to listen to workers' representatives because this will have direct impacts.

Take, for example, a person who works part time in a grocery store three days a week and who has to pay for supplementary health insurance. Given the unaffordable and out-of-control cost of medication, we end up meeting people who have to spend 25% to 30% of their pay on supplementary insurance through their employer. That is not sustainable.

If we want to help these people, we need a true public, universal pharmacare plan.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the House today.

On April 16, the government introduced a new budget. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Finance for bringing forward a document that reflects where this country is today and aims to tackle some of the big challenges we face, but that also looks for ways to seize the opportunity to help build a better tomorrow.

I have always viewed the budget as a road map a government puts forward to ensure that we can navigate barriers and help us position ourselves as a country to get to where we need to be. It lays out the necessary supports and programs that will assist the citizens of this great country to pursue their future, and it provides a glimpse into the potential of tomorrow. I believe that budget 2024 moves our country in the right direction, and it is very aligned with the people of Don Valley East, who are also committed to building a better country.

Today I want to talk about the budget, and I want to talk specifically about how it impacts young people, children and youth, in our country, but also I want to talk a little about the investments, specifically the investments into AI, we are making into the future to help support our economy.

First I would like to revisit a couple of points I made in the fall economic statement about our job here in the House. We are sent here on behalf of our constituents to make decisions. We have choices. Last year I said that we come into the House, are presented with a bunch of decision points and have the opportunity to vote yes or no. The Conservatives and all members of the House will have the opportunity to either support these programs or not support these programs.

This is a massive responsibility as an MP, one that cannot be taken lightly. We have a responsibility to do what is right for our community. This year's budget builds on a continued approach that puts people first and seizes opportunities. It builds on years of commitment toward supporting Canadians of all ages and all walks of life in all regions of this country.

I want to mention I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North today.

The budget builds on what has made Canada successful over all these years. It is why Canada continues to rank among the top countries in the world when it comes to economic development, safety, quality of life, cultural diversity, natural beauty, education and our health care system, but also our political stability. We can see these rankings every single day. A ranking a few days ago said that Canada was the safest country in the world to travel in. However, despite all of the accomplishments this country has, there are some members of the House who do not acknowledge the success of this country. I still believe Canada remains the best place on the entire planet to be.

There is constant rhetoric in the House from the Leader of the Opposition and other Conservatives that portrays this country as broken. It portrays an image that we, as a country, have a dim future. I understand that is part of a larger strategy, to downplay the country, but when we speak poorly of our country, what it actually does is that it destroys the dreams and aspirations of its citizens. It is our job as members of Parliament to build opportunity and to build up hope by putting in place the right types of programs and supports to make sure we elevate opportunity in this country.

I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the budget and what the Conservatives will be voting against, specifically around programs and supports when it comes to children and young people, but also the artificial intelligence investments we will be making. I am committed to helping all people in my community, but today I want to talk about children. I want to talk about what we are doing to prepare them for the future and I want to talk about some of the services we are putting in place and continue to support as a government. I want to talk about how we are going to invest into the future and invest into opportunity.

I am not sure whether the Speaker knows this, but I was a school board trustee. I served at the Toronto District School Board for eight years, and it was perhaps one of the most rewarding opportunities I had as a young politician. While I was there, we worked on student nutrition programs. My area, ward 33, was one of the first places in the city that had breakfast programs in every single school, and I was quite proud of that.

It was through the advocacy of people in my community, parents and also student advocates, that we were able to do that. One of the things I noticed is that our country, Canada, was the only country in the G7 that did not have a national food program. I am happy that, many years later, here I am in the House of Commons as part of a government that is investing in young people and creating a school nutrition program for this country.

We know that when a young person is not getting the right types of nutrients, this impacts their behaviour, their learning and their memory. We know that if we make the right investments into young people at an early age when it comes to getting the right type of nutrition, we are going to produce better students and therefore better Canadians.

We are also going to continue to invest in child care, $10-a-day child care. We know that this will have a significant impact in our communities. It also impacts our workforce because it frees up more women and more men to go into the workforce rather than staying home, because it becomes affordable. I am very happy to support in the House that program and its expansion. Again, people listening should know that this program and the student nutrition program are other programs that the Conservatives will be voting against.

With respect to dental care, oral health is imperative for the success of young people. Young people were among the first to receive dental care. I am proud, again, to be part of a government that puts young people first. We are going to build off that. We are working on having all seniors, people living with disabilities and low-income Canadians at the forefront of the program so we can ensure that people get the right type of health care they need. Again, folks watching should know that this is another program that the Conservatives will be voting against.

The next thing I want to talk about is the investments into artificial intelligence. We know that AI is going to change the world around us. In fact, just minutes ago, I introduced a report for the HUMA committee that spoke to the workforce of the future and what it will look like. I am proud of the work we did on the committee to look into how AI will impact the workforce.

The government is investing $2 billion into artificial intelligence to better position companies, researchers and start-ups in this country so we can have a better handle on how AI is going to interact with our economy. This is about building a better Canada for the young people I mentioned earlier. These are the investments we are making as a government, as anyone who supports the budget will be, to support young people in this country.

Over the last two years that I have been here, I have noticed that the government has been bold over the last decade in putting forward new national programs that are changing the trajectory of this country. There were programs established, when we were a very ambitious country, in the 1960s and 1970s, like health care and old age security, programs that connected to all provinces, right across the country, such as our pension plan.

For the first time in many decades, there is a government that is investing in new national programs like child care, dental care, pharmacare and a student nutrition program. These are programs that should not be taken lightly. These are game-changers. I am proud to be part of a government that is investing into these types of programs.

Going back to my first point, we have choices as MPs in the House to decide which direction we want our country to go in. In the budget, and specifically speaking to investing in our future through our investments in AI and, even more importantly, our investment in the next generation of learners, the next generation of people within our workforce and the next generation of good citizens in our country, there are the types of investments we should be making to ensure that we as a country continue to remain the best country on the planet.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do see some irony in the fact that the budget bill is called Bill C-69, because one might remember that the last Bill C-69 ended up being ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because the federal government was sticking its nose into provincial jurisdiction. Here we have, in budget 2024, the government sticking its nose into child care and creating fewer spaces than ever existed and into dental care and not consulting the dentists, and decriminalizing more hard drugs than are actually in its pharmacare plan.

Why is the government pouring $40 billion more on the inflationary fire so that the Governor of the Bank of Canada cannot reduce inflation rates and get inflation down?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a perfect example of where ideology overtakes common sense and decency in politics. Here, we have a situation where one in four young people are going to school hungry in this country, and some provinces may be responding well and some may not be responding well.

We have an opportunity, as members of Parliament, and this goes back to my point that we have choices to make in the House. Rather than getting wrapped up in jurisdiction, why do we not get wrapped up in doing what is right for young people in this country and make the investment into their nutrition?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech. I am wondering what kind of alternate reality the Liberals are living in right now. I do not know. They talk about Canada as though it were one of the best countries in the world.

When it comes to the fight against climate change, almost all of the statistics out there show that Canada is dead last. That is not to mention the housing crisis. We need to build 5.8 million housing units in the coming years. The number of homeless encampments is growing across Canada. Homelessness has doubled in Quebec over the past five years, since the Liberals launched their major national housing strategy in 2017.

Yesterday, I was driving around Gatineau and I saw a homeless encampment on the side of the road. I had to wonder whether I was in Gatineau or Calcutta. I am wondering what planet my colleague is living on.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are politicians out there who want to create the image that this country is a dim, miserable place; I refuse to believe that. This is a country where one can go out and seize opportunity and where governments, schools and so many great people will invest in young people and in recreational programs. I spoke about, for example, nutrition programs.

We have perhaps the most freedom, as Canadians, to speak our minds. People can walk into my office, and tell me what they think of me and what they think of this government, freely, and that is very rare in any country. People should never look at this country as being a place without opportunity and as having a dim future. I believe Canada remains the best country in the world to be in, and that is why I am so proud to be a Canadian.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for his intervention and for mentioning the national food program, which I think is quite important.

I would like to know what he would say to all the Nunavut children. Even with the program, they will still go to school without enough sleep because they are forced to sleep in overcrowded housing situations. They are forced to go to school without enough sleep because of the mouldy housing conditions they are forced to endure. They have no place to do home work and have schools that are falling apart.

What does he say to those children who might have the national food program, but they still struggle with hurdles to graduate with the same level of grade 12 as other Canadians?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the really important question because there are many children across this country, in all regions, who still face challenges. I will say to those children directly that I will continue to work as hard as I can, like I have over my 20 years in politics, to ensure that we continue to fight and to build the best supports and programs aimed at children.

In this budget, we continue to build on child care and on dental care for young people, and a nutrition program for young people. These are programs that are investing in our future, and I will continue to do what I can to fight for ever single child in this country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when I think of Bill C-69, I think of a sense of fairness for generations X and Z, and the millennials, and how important it is that, as a government, we provide hope. We have seen this put into practice over the years in budgetary and legislative measures that provide that sense of hope for all, recognizing how critically important Canada's middle class is, and those aspiring to be a part of it. Building a stronger economy, and building and reinforcing Canada's middle class, is good for all Canadians. It would ultimately ensure, as my colleague spoke about before, that Canada would be the best place in the world to call home.

The actions we have taken, to date, reinforce the opposite of what the Conservative Party has been talking about. As Conservatives travel the country, spreading misinformation, talking about Canada being broken, nothing could be further from the truth when things are put into the proper perspective of what is happening around the world.

Canada is doing well in comparison to any other country in the world, I would argue. It does not mean that we do not recognize the issues that Canadians are having to face today. That is why, when we talk about issues such as affordability, interest rates and housing, we not only understand and appreciate them, but also take tangible actions to support Canadians. We do not take that lightly. Much like during the pandemic, when the government stood up in a team Canada approach, working with people and other governments, we were there in a very real and tangible way.

I love the contrast between today's Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservative Party. Canadians really do have choices, which is becoming more evident to the degree that they are opposites. We talk about measures such as a pharmacare program and the national school food funding program incorporated into this budget, and the first-ever Canada disability benefit, not to mention the Canadian dental care plan. There are many initiatives we have provided, both in this budget and in other budgets, which have led to ensuring a much higher sense of fairness. There are taxation policies, whether it is the capital gains, the extra tax on the wealthiest 1% in the first budget we introduced or the cut to Canada's middle-class tax bracket. We can talk about the grocery rebate and the enhancement of the guaranteed income supplement, not to mention the OAS being raised for those who are collecting it over the age of 75.

Compare that to what we hear from the Conservatives today. They say they would to fix the budget. Fixing the budget is code. I would suggest there is in fact a hidden Conservative budget they do not want to talk about because it would put on the chopping block a lot of the work we have been able to accomplish over the last number of years, whether it is with respect to the national child care program of $10-a-day day care, which has received phenomenal support across every region of our country, or whether it is the provinces and territories having signed on to programs such as pharmacare.

Yesterday, we witnessed Conservative after Conservative stand up to say that they do not support the pharmacare program. We saw Conservatives stand up to say that they do not support the investments we are making in health care because they do not believe the federal government has a role to play in health care. The contrast is immense. When the Conservatives talk about fixing the budget, they mean cuts, and let there be no doubt about that.

As we continue to bring in policies, whether they are budgetary measures or legislation, let us be very clear that the objective is to recognize the values that Canadians have and the sense of fairness that they want to see put into things such as budgets. They want to see a government that truly cares about the middle class and about expanding the middle class. The healthier and stronger the middle class is, the better the economy will be. We know that.

The Conservatives can spread false information, but the reality speaks volumes. Let me give two very specific examples. In 10 years, Stephen Harper, as prime minister, generated just under one million jobs. In less time, our Liberal government, working with Canadians and other jurisdictions, has generated over two million jobs. That is also taking into consideration a worldwide pandemic, where there was an economic shutdown in many areas.

Our policies are working. In my mind, one of the most powerful statements from the budget released by the Deputy Prime Minister was around foreign direct investment to Canada, and I referenced that yesterday. Individuals and corporations around the world are looking at Canada and saying that they want to invest in Canada. There is a reason they want to invest in Canada, and it is about economic stability and other factors.

On a per capita basis, Canada is number one of the G7 countries on foreign direct investment. The G7 includes the European Union, England, Japan, U.S.A., France and Germany. We are number one when it comes to foreign direct investment. People are putting their money where they believe the potential is the greatest for being able to expand and to have opportunities. Contrast that to the world. If we do that for the entire world, we will see that Canada places number three for foreign direct investment, based on last year's first three quarters, which is where I got those numbers.

People around the world are looking at Canada as a place to invest, and I think that speaks volumes and is complemented by the fact that we have created over two million jobs, all while recognizing the important programs and the expectations Canadians have that we will be there for them, first and foremost, on the issue of health care. We continue to invest historic amounts of money in health care because we understand what is important to Canadians. Unlike the Conservative Party, we are going to be there to ensure that we have a health care system that we could all be proud of, not only for today but also for future generations.

Those types of commitments and contrasts are what Canadians will see between the Liberals and the Conservatives. We will continue to expand on that contrast in the coming months. In 18 months or so, when there is an election, people will see the leader of the Conservative Party for who he is, a leader who has no problem meeting with groups like Diagolon.

Liberals are meeting with real people, and who is the leader of the Conservative Party meeting with? Who is he listening to, in order to come up with policy ideas that would help Canadians? Contrast who we are to who they are. In the end, we will continue to work with Canadians to build a stronger, healthier economy and society.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that “Canada is doing well”. I spoke to many residents over the past couple of weeks and want to give two examples of Canadians I spoke to. The member can let me know if he is differentiating between how Canadians are doing and how Canada is doing.

I had two calls last week. One of them was from a senior who is no longer eating lunch because she cannot afford it. She is trying to feed her disabled son, so she has cut out a meal. Is she doing well? The second one was from a lady who has missed the last couple of months of her mortgage payment. She has great fear that she will lose her house. She was in tears while on the phone with me.

I do not think those Canadians are doing well. In the member's speech, he said “Canada is doing well”. Can he please differentiate between Canada and Canadians? I do not think Canadians are doing too well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what I said was that in comparison to any other country around the world, Canada is doing relatively well. That does not mean that, as a society, even if the country is doing relatively well, we should not demonstrate compassion and heart in dealing with individuals. There are individuals who are going through a great deal of hardship. That is one of the reasons why we continue to work as hard as we do.

Not everyone is doing as well as we would like to see, but I think it would be a far stretch to say that because parts of society are not doing well, Canada is, therefore, broken. There always have been and, sadly, there will continue to be people who are going to have difficult times. That is why it is so important that the Conservatives get on board and support some of the social programming that we are putting in place, so that there is a higher sense of fairness and fewer people who are having difficult times.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the past few days, the number of devastating articles published in Quebec newspapers about the housing crisis have really surged. This morning, Josée Legault wrote the following about the housing crisis in the Journal de Montréal:

Some Quebeckers can't find reasonably housing. Some are forced to live in substandard apartments neglected by their landlords.

Some have been ruthlessly evicted so that the owner can rent out the property for more money. Some can't afford exorbitant rent increases. And some others are forced to live in a van, in Quebec, in 2024.

Housing committees everywhere are overwhelmed. The same goes for the Tribunal administratif du logement. Distress calls are on the rise.

Radio‑Canada reported that members of the Regroupement des ressources alternatives en santé mentale du Québec and the Regroupement des comités logement et associations de locataires du Québec are sounding the alarm.

We are hearing about tenant harassment. Even depression and suicidal thoughts. At the same time...homelessness is becoming normalized....

In my colleague's opinion, how will the housing budget resolve the kinds of situations that Josée Legault talked about this morning, considering that it creates twice the administrative burden and will take years to produce results on the ground?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the Bloc members are genuine about wanting to help solve the housing issue, they will do what we have witnessed in other jurisdictions. For example, recently we had the Premier of Manitoba join the Prime Minister, the respective housing ministers and the mayor of Winnipeg to talk about the housing issue and how the three levels of government, along with the different stakeholders, are going to work together in an attempt to deal with the housing situation in the province of Manitoba.

The difference between the Liberals and the Bloc is that the Bloc wants to separate, at all costs. From a Liberal perspective, we want to work with the different levels of government so that we can provide the types of services that people of all communities want to see. That includes addressing the housing issue. However, that is going to take more than one level of government. We know that. Fortunately, there are many levels of government working with the federal government. The federal government, for the first time, not only has taken the initiative to be there on the housing file, but has invested historic amounts of money at the same time.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

I am honoured to rise in the House and add the voice of the people of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte to today's debate. I want to take a moment to go over the unfortunate state of this country's finances after nine years of deficit budgets and how the Liberal government's inflationary policies are affecting families in my community.

Under the Liberal government, mortgage payments have doubled, down payments have doubled, rents have doubled, the cost of gas, groceries and home heating has skyrocketed and people cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves. The Prime Minister said repeatedly that doubling the national debt would have zero consequences and the budget would balance itself. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister did not have the foresight to realize that doubling the national debt would drive up interest rates to historic modern highs, and now the government will spend over $54 billion in interest on the national debt. That is more than the government is spending on provincial health care transfers.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in his latest report, stated that budget 2024 marks the third consecutive fiscal plan in which the government's new measures, even after accounting for revenue-raising and spending reviews, have exceeded the incremental “fiscal room” resulting from economic and fiscal developments.

Conservatives had three simple demands leading up to this year's budget. We committed that if the Liberal government introduced measures to immediately pass Bill C-234 in its original form, require cities to permit 15% more homebuilding each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money, and cap spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation, we would give our support to the budget. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister and the finance minister ignored our pleas for a balanced budget, lower taxes and more homes for Canadians, and decided to add more than $60 billion in new spending that will keep inflation and interest rates higher than Canadians can afford. That means higher taxes, higher inflation, higher interest rates, higher rents and higher mortgage payments.

I would like to spend some time discussing three central issues that I hear often from members of my community: the high cost of housing, the carbon tax and public safety.

First, one of the top concerns for residents in my community is housing affordability. In my riding, the cost of housing has skyrocketed under the Liberal government. Residents in my riding are now forced to spend almost $2,000 a month on a one-bedroom apartment. The only solution to this crisis is for the Liberals to build more homes. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister told Canadians directly that housing is not a federal responsibility, and bureaucrats in his own housing department have confirmed that the government has no plans to bring down housing costs by building the homes that Canadians need.

According to Statistics Canada, between January 1 and November 30, 2023, Canada built 17,000 fewer homes than in the previous year. Instead of taking real action to address this issue, the Liberal government is concerned with photo ops and ribbon cuttings. The numbers do not lie. The government has failed an entire generation of Canadians who fear that they will never be able to own a home.

I see the crisis surrounding interest rates playing out in my community. I receive calls and emails constantly from residents whose mortgage rates have doubled. Recently, a retiree in my riding saw their mortgage jump from $1,100 a month to $2,600 in less than a year. It has not always been like this in Canada. Nine years ago, the average down payment on a home was approximately $20,000. Now the massive cost of even a modest home in my community is forcing residents to save for longer and longer. It now takes 25 years to save up for the cost of a down payment, and the needed down payment for a home has doubled.

Roughly 64% of the average pre-tax monthly income is needed to pay the monthly costs associated with housing. This crisis has made the dream of home ownership impossible for all but the wealthiest few. In fact, 76% of Canadians who do not own homes believe they never will. The Liberal government had nine years to address this issue. The housing crisis is a policy and leadership failure from the Liberal government.

I will go on to an issue that is directly affecting families and farmers in my community: the carbon tax. Just a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister hiked his punishing carbon tax by 23% as part of his plan to quadruple the carbon tax over the next six years. The Parliamentary Budget Officer told members of this House that Canadians would be better off without the carbon tax, saying that they would experience higher income growth while the price of food would come down, but the Liberal government went ahead with its tax anyway.

To illustrate the impact this tax is having on the lives of Canadians, I want to share some of the correspondence I have received from people living in my community. I have a bill here from a family of six in my riding that is paying $142 a month plus HST in carbon tax on their home heating bill.

I have another Enbridge bill from a Barrie resident where the carbon tax makes up 33% of the total bill when the HST is factored in. This resident bought a programmable thermostat that automatically turns down the temperature in her home to 15°C from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. She believes that she is doing all she can do lower her gas bill, but she still feels punished by this costly carbon tax.

I hear this government boast often about the rural top-up of the carbon rebate. Meanwhile, we know that the calculations it made on who qualifies as a rural Canadian are deeply flawed. Residents in my riding who live in rural places like Anten Mills, Elmvale, Hillsdale, Midhurst, Minesing, Phelpston, and Snow Valley are deemed to be living in urban areas, according to the Liberal government's rural top-up formula. Budget 2024 finally says that the government will look to better define rural areas, but it only commits to putting forward a proposal to do so later in the year. This is unacceptable for residents in my riding who are forced to pay more in carbon tax, and it is proof of why we simply need to axe the tax for everyone, forever.

I will move on to how this tax is affecting the hard-working farmers in my riding. I am proud to represent a riding with a large, vibrant agricultural industry. I was recently sent an Enbridge bill for almost $10,000 from a farmer in my riding who runs a poultry operation. Their bill shows a carbon tax charge of $2,700 on the cost of fuel to dry grain corn. Shockingly, the carbon tax is more than the value of the gas before delivery and global adjustment. The Prime Minister just does not understand that if we tax the farmer who grows the food and the trucker who ships the food, we end up taxing the food that a family buys.

Finally, I will spend some time discussing the crime and chaos that the Prime Minister has unleashed, which is deeply affecting members of my community.

Small businesses bring life and a sense of community to our downtowns and neighbourhoods, yet they are sounding the alarm about the impacts of crime on their livelihoods. These businesses, including in my community, face significant challenges related to vandalism, theft, loitering, and public intoxication.

In my riding, a beloved Italian restaurant named Limoncello Bistro was recently broken into for the sixth time. Thieves who recently broke into Limoncello Bistro stole everything from the restaurant, even the meat and seafood. These repeated break-ins have cost the owners thousands and thousands of dollars. One of the owners of Limoncello Bistro has stated, “I find it hard to swallow that I have to pick up and leave a place where 5 short years ago this wasn't as bad as it is today. We fell in love with downtown Barrie. The waterfront, the community and the people. We as business owners shouldn't have to leave because criminals are putting us out of business.”

I agree. Small businesses like Limoncello Bistro are on the front lines of the Canadian public safety crisis, and we urgently need to address this issue of skyrocketing crime rates. We know that the Liberal government caused this problem with its soft-on-crime laws: Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

Another issue that is directly affecting small businesses in my community is the Liberal government's nonsensical attack on law-abiding hunters, farmers, and sport shooters. The budget proposes to spend $30.4 million on a hunting rifle buyback plan that does not exist. This is on top of the $42 million it has already committed. Members can think about that. The Liberal government will now spend $72.4 million to buy exactly zero guns from owners and businesses. Not one gun has been bought back after spending $72.4 million.

I recently received an email from a small business owner in my riding. He is a responsible business owner who gives back to the community and is facing devastating financial losses because of this failed policy. He is now struggling to pay for his everyday expenses. He has over 40 firearms, worth almost $50,000, sitting in safes that cannot be sold but must be insured and housed in a secure rental space, while the Liberal government forces him to pay GST on them. The owner of this business says that this government is “clearly bent on just winning political points and not truly caring about the safety of the general public surrounding firearms and criminals who use them.” I agree with him. While the Prime Minister wants to protect turkeys from hunters, common-sense Conservatives want to protect Canadians from criminals.

The only way to reverse the damage the Liberal government has caused is by reversing course and doing the opposite. Canadians want change. They want lower taxes, lower mortgage rates, lower grocery bills and safer communities. Most of all, they want a change in government. The Conservative promise is simple: no gimmicks, no half measures. We will axe the tax, build more homes, fix the budget, stop the crime and bring home affordability for all Canadians.

I will be voting alongside my Conservative colleagues against the budget, and we will be voting no confidence in this costly NDP-Liberal coalition.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about housing, and I want to talk about the lack of support the party opposite, the Conservative Party, has actually had with respect to housing.

We came forth with the national housing strategy. We came forth with the rapid housing initiative, the federal co-investment fund, the housing accelerator fund and many other wonderful transformational programs for cities and communities across this country that would help build housing. Also, we all know that the issues, the challenges and the emergency we face with housing have been unfolding over many years.

The Conservative Party voted against every one of those initiatives. My question to members of the party opposite is this: How can they vote against those wonderful initiatives and still say they support housing?

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, Canada was not like this nine years ago. One could live the dream. I remember buying my first home, freshly married, and it was a goal to be able to do that. That is long gone. The Liberal government and the NDP have been in power now for nine years. A huge issue has been created over that time.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

The member opposite says nine more to go. Hopefully it means months or days, because that is enough. We need to get back to having an election and bringing the Conservatives back in, and we will bring back this dream where young people, especially teenagers, can afford to buy a home.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have respect for my colleague in my day to day.

The narrative I am hearing from the Conservatives throughout this debate is around the concerns of the impacts on private interests and any loss that may occur for them in moving forward with a national health care plan, national pharmacare, dental care. Could the member share why that might be and why we are not seeing instead an emphasis on people who need access to insulin, birth control or dental care?

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, hopefully I heard the entire question. We are a long way down from each other right now.

What the Conservatives and myself are afraid of is more bureaucracy. It has been proven over the last nine years that the Liberal-NDP government has been building bureaucracy, which is costing more and more money. That is our biggest fear. We do not believe more bureaucracy is going to solve a lot of issues. People are struggling. We need tangible, good results, and we do not think building more government bureaucracy is going to build such results for Canadians.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, has the member had people coming to his constituency office to say how much better it is than it was nine years ago, or seven, six, five or four years ago? I can honestly say I have not had one person come to my office to say how glad they are and that things are working out. Can you relate what it has been like in your area?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I remind folks to go through the Chair and not say “you” directly to hon. members.

The hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, quite frankly, some of the calls and emails I get are heartbreaking. I was recently in my office, returning a bunch of calls. By the end of that, things felt very daunting and very stressful. I heard negativity from every single person I spoke to.

I mentioned earlier, and I will mention it again, two specific people I spoke to on the phone who really stuck in my mind. One was a senior lady who has a disabled child; she has literally cut out her own lunchtime meal to feed her disabled son. She is going on two meals a day now.

Another lady was in tears because she had not been able to pay the last couple of months of her mortgage payment. The bank had been working with her, but she felt that was going to end and she would lose her home. She worked her whole life. She worked hard, as a Canadian, bought a home and was enjoying it. Just because of the interest rates and the price of inflation in Canada, she fears she is going to lose her home. It was a very tough call to hear. Those are the types of calls I get in my office.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I get those kinds of calls in my office as well. We reach out and try to provide connections for people who are falling between the cracks, with other charitable agencies and help.

However, as a party, we believe that we need to go to where the wealth is. We are surprised and disappointed that the Minister of Finance has not done that. Corporate assets in this country have more than doubled in recent years from, believe it or not, $14 trillion to $28 trillion in assets. Nevertheless, corporate tax rates remain among the lowest in the world.

Does the Conservative Party believe we should, for instance, bring in a guaranteed livable income? This would actually end poverty in Canada and ensure every Canadian can meet their basic needs, while not having clawbacks, being able to earn money and becoming successful taxpayers within the nation of Canada.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to hear the member opposite mention that she helps people as they come in, which is my biggest goal. Being in here is one aspect of our job, but helping residents is really the best part of it. Every time someone comes into our office, we try to point them to the right place to get assistance.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to be able to rise on behalf of the residents of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and raise their voices here in this chamber. In the last number of months, I have had many people reach out, sharing their concerns regarding the cost of living. They are sharing that they are in crisis or nearly in crisis as they see ever-rising costs of gas, groceries, home heating and everything.

We see so many who are struggling, and all they see is their costs going up under the punishing carbon tax regime and the tax and spend from the NDP-Liberal government. What they have also come to clearly understand is that this is a tax plan that has been sold to Canadians as an environmental plan. However, Canadians can now see it for what it truly is; they have come to understand that it means they pay more, but there is no environmental gain.

After nine years, the NDP-Liberal coalition is simply not worth the cost.

A few weeks ago, I had a group of bright young students come for a visit from Ardmore School. Members might not know where Ardmore is. It is in northeastern Alberta, between the communities of Bonnyville and Cold Lake along Highway 28. This is a relatively rural community that has two major economic drivers: the energy industry and agriculture.

The students from Ardmore School saw the wonder of Parliament Hill. It was inspiring to me, and it reminded me of how lucky we are, each and every one of us, to be able to sit here and work hard for the constituents in our ridings. One boy shared that the whole experience of coming to Parliament Hill was the highlight of his life.

These students were able to see the inner workings of Ottawa when they came here. They got to watch question period from up in the gallery and had a wave from the leader of the official opposition. They got to meet many members of Parliament in the hallways of this magnificent building and watch the debate on Bill C-50, the unjust transition bill, a bill that is, simply put, an attack on Canada's energy sector.

These students questioned very succinctly why so many politicians in the chamber constantly attack the energy industry. These students see first-hand, day in and day out, the positive impacts the energy industry has in their community. They understand how hard these people work and how the members of the energy industry are there when it is -50° so we can stay in our homes and stay warm.

One student shared her concerns regarding the increasing cost of living, what it would mean for her future and, specifically, what it would mean for her ability to attend post-secondary education. This is really important to highlight: These were students in junior high, and they could see very clearly that the cost of living, which has been made a crisis under the NDP-Liberal government, is having real impacts on someone that has not even gone to high school yet.

A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit with a group of grade 7, 8 and 9 students from Frank Spragins High School in Fort McMurray, along with their principal, my friend Dan Tulk. They shared their thoughts and fears about what the cost of living crisis would mean for their future. Again, they highlighted their concerns about the cost of groceries and the cost of gas and what these costs would mean for their ability to attend post-secondary education, buy a house and have a family.

One particular student, in very unparliamentary terms, shared his thoughts about our Prime Minister's leadership. When we started to tease through the fact that name-calling was not okay, he said that people cannot afford to live right now. This student, Ryder, had many really intelligent comments about what he saw. He spoke very succinctly, and it was really frustrating to me when this student said that he did not understand why so many politicians hate the oil sands and the energy industry. It was a tough question for me, because I too struggle with it.

I am proud of the work done by our hard-working oil and gas, and, like Ryder, I do not understand why politicians in this chamber fail to understand the opportunity that exists in Canada's world-class energy sector.

We constantly see attacks on our energy sector at every possible opportunity. There are eco-radical politicians who do this at the direct cost of our hard-working energy workers, the future of communities right across Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and Canada, and Canada's economy.

At a time when we desperately need economic growth, eco-radicals guide Canadian policy. They have an intense hate for our world-class energy industry. They sit at the cabinet table and hold the pen on the costly coalition that keeps the government in power, pushing for ever more blows to this industry.

They have made no attempt to hide their distaste for the oil and gas industry. However, in this budget, I think it is kind of interesting that we see the Minister of Finance use a rather rosy benchmark for West Texas Intermediate, the crude oil price of $78 U.S.

It is worth noting that this is a rosier outlook than my home province of Alberta's forecast, which was $74 U.S. At some point, I would be very curious to see the modelling that was used to get to this number. While they attack the industry, they have no issue whatsoever benefiting from the profits.

The anti-energy agenda from the government has been consistent and punishing over the last nine years. Anti-energy messaging, delays, arbitrary and inconsistent regulatory conditions, and an outright veto of approved export pipelines have all hurt this industry.

Despite asks to export Canadian liquefied natural gas from Germany, Japan and, most recently, Poland, among others, time and time again, the answer from the Prime Minister has been that there is no business case. At a time when the world is calling, Canada's NDP-Liberal government refuses to answer. It seems more interested in supporting dirty dictator oil and fuelling Putin's war machine than in supporting Canada's world-class energy industry. That is absolutely shameful.

After nine years, the NDP-Liberal budget is just more of the same that got us into this mess. The Prime Minister did not do anything to stop the inflationary deficits that are driving up interest rates. He did not stop putting our social programs, jobs and economy at risk by adding more debt. Simply put, he is not worth the cost for any generation, despite what he says. He is responsible for record deficits, which are driving up record inflation rates. Both have very real impacts on the budgets of hard-working Canadians.

We see story after story about record-breaking visits to food banks right across the country. Last year, food banks received a record two million visits in a single month. They are anticipating that an additional million people will visit food banks this year, an extra million people having to access food banks.

While life has gotten worse for Canadians, the Prime Minister is spending more than ever before. This year's budget will include over $61 billion in new inflationary spending, costing the average Canadian family an extra $3,687. Most families do not have that lying around.

Students from communities right across my riding see the insanity. They understand that, when governments spend more of their money, costs go up. The hard-working energy workers who see the industry they work in under constant attack understand the hypocrisy.

World leaders who are looking for energy solutions understand the potential in Canada's world-class energy industry. Can one imagine a world in which our Prime Minister believed in our economy as much as these world leaders do? Sadly, what else can we expect from a Prime Minister who would rather wedge, divide and stigmatize Canadians?

Hope is on the horizon. It is not all doom and gloom. Canada's common-sense Conservatives will support Canada's world-class energy industry. We are ready to stand up and govern. As has been shared by many of my colleagues, it is time to get Canada back on track.

We will axe the carbon tax, reducing the costs for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We will invest in technology, not taxes, to deliver environmental gains. This is common sense.

I would invite all members of the House to vote non-confidence in the Prime Minister, who, after nine years, is simply not worth the cost. We can vote against this budget and deliver common sense for the common people.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on the theme of misinformation, we can think about this: The last Conservative prime minister did not build one inch of pipeline to coast waters in 10 years.

We have TMX, in which Danielle Smith and Rachel Notley, both United Conservative and New Democrat, have supported the Government of Canada's approach. That is bringing resources to tidewater.

On what grounds does the hon. member believe that Stephen Harper, in any way, did anything to support resources going from her home province to tidewater in B.C.?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what we get is what we often get from that member, disinformation and blaming Stephen Harper, in all his answers. Stephen Harper was a proud supporter of Canada's world-class energy industry.

He supported LNG exports. We had 18 LNG projects when the Liberals took office. Unfortunately, we have one under them. The Liberals refuse to support LNG. They refuse to claim that there is a business case for this. They refused to allow the energy east project to go forward, which not only would have benefited my home province of Alberta. It would have benefited the Speaker's home province of Nova Scotia. It would have benefited the province of New Brunswick. It would have benefited all of Canada. However, the Liberal government decided it was more important to play politics and fuel Putin's war machine than it was to support Canada's oil and gas.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I got a message from Jessa. She cites that pharmacare deductibles prevent coverage for her nine-year-old daughter with type 1 diabetes for most years. If they are lucky, they hit their deductible by November. She said that, over the last seven years since her diagnosis, they have easily spent $60,000 out of pocket for her diabetic supplies and insulin, even with help from Fair PharmaCare.

Pretending things are already covered is atrocious and shows a lack of care and understanding on the Conservatives' part. What we are hearing from Conservatives is that they are more worried about the private insurance companies. Maybe my colleague could respond to Jessa and explain how she is supposed to deal with her nine-year-old daughter and continue to make sure that she has access to insulin.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the interesting part about this pharmacare scheme that was put forward by the NDP-Liberal government is that it is not actually a plan. It is a promise to eventually, possibly, maybe explore a plan.

If the NDP-Liberal government was really interested in delivering for Canadians, it would have worked with provinces and territories to expand plans, to go after the 3% of Canadians who did not currently have a plan or had plans that were not sufficient for them. The government would have already been able to have pharmacare delivered to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

However, that is not what the NDP-Liberal government wanted. It wanted photo ops, announcements and promises, but it did not actually want to deliver for Canadians. This is the tragic trend that we see, after nine years of a government that is not worth the cost. It is all about the announcements; it is not about the delivery.

As I said in my speech on pharmacare, if the government actually wanted pharmacare, it would have worked with provinces and territories to develop their plans out so that Canadians could have already benefited.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent presentation, as well as for pointing out the fact that the Liberal government seems to put a little more emphasis on putting hard drugs into people's hands than on pharmacare and getting actual medications to Canadians.

With that said, the member talked about technologies and how we are looking forward to developing those technologies, which would create jobs. As we saw with the just transition task force that basically created no jobs, other than bureaucracy, it is not stepping up for our coal miners. I know my colleague has some in her riding and in her province. I am wondering if the member would comment a little more on that technology and how it is going to improve Canada.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. The government is more interested in building bureaucracy than actually creating jobs. The government wants jobs here in Ottawa rather than jobs in our ridings right across the country. That is absolutely inappropriate and not the right way to do it. It is government central planning at its absolute peak.

This is something that common-sense Conservatives will continue fighting for, day in and day out, to make sure that Canada's world-class oil and energy industries have the support they need so that those workers can keep the lights on when it is cold outside.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying I will be sharing my time with the member for Yukon.

Today, I am very proud to be able to make a speech on implementing the provisions of the budget. Before investing in something, it is extremely important to make sure there is a solid foundation. When I say foundation, I am of course talking about the economy. We have put in place certain things that ensure we can continue to invest.

I would first like to say that inflation has fallen from 8.2% to approximately 3% and is now in the range where banks seek to reduce interest rates. On that front, things are going well.

In addition, Canada is one of two G7 countries that has a AAA credit rating. That also shows that it is in good shape in that regard. The unemployment rate is between 5.5% and 5.6%, which is a historically low rate. According to the International Monetary Fund, Canada’s net debt-to-GDP-ratio is the lowest in the G7. Furthermore, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund anticipate that Canada will have the highest economic growth in the G7 in 2025. It is very important to note that. Already, this shows why we are well placed to make investments for Canadians.

Yes, there is a housing crisis. We recognize that. It must be said that a large part of this crisis is due to the fact that the Conservative government, in the past, did not deem it had the obligation, the responsibility, to invest in housing. In contrast, our government works in close collaboration with the provinces, territories and municipalities to make investments. That is very important.

In this budget we are continuing to invest in the rapid construction of new housing and in the housing accelerator fund. The investments added to this program will make it possible to continue building new homes. Eliminating the GST will enable developers to build housing much faster and cheaper, of course. For a $10-million building, the developer will save $1.5 million. Modular home innovations will also help us make a lot more progress in this area. This is very important.

On top of that, we are employing a new strategy. We will transfer public lands owned by the government for leasing or as part of other approaches to help build housing. That could amount to as many as 250,000 homes. We will work in close co-operation with universities so that they can invest in student residences. This may allow students to leave condos and apartments and move back into residences. This too will be a great help.

In this budget we are proposing to invest in organizations working on the ground with the homeless or those living in encampments. We will work in close co-operation with organizations on the ground that have a great deal of experience combatting homelessness, with a view to identifying how we can address this issue. We will work in close co-operation with the provinces and territories to invest in refurbishing and building more shelters and transition houses. This is very important.

One thing I want to touch on is the government's transformative investments since 2015. We know that it has been the Liberal government that has been there from the start. I think back to medicare in 1968, which was a very important initiative that all Canadians are very proud of today.

Let me share some of the investments we are making to close the gap between those who have and those who do not have, those who are experiencing challenges and those who are experiencing fewer challenges.

Last year, in the 2023 budget, we made an investment of over $200 billion in health care for more doctors, nurses and frontline workers. We also made major investments today that I am extremely proud of. The first one is the new Canada disability benefit, which is $6.1 billion over six years. We know that most people living with disabilities are living in poverty. We need to come forward. It is not as much as we would have liked, but it is an important step forward that will help over 600,000 Canadians.

We are also bringing in, as I spoke about yesterday in my speech, pharmacare. It is a first step, phase one, if you will, which will help many women but also help about four million people living with diabetes. When I go to the pharmacy, my pharmacist reminds me each time I go that we have to do something to help people with diabetes. They need help. It costs them thousands of dollars and we need to be there for them. The government is moving forward on that, which I am extremely proud of.

There is dental care for nine million Canadians. We can say there are all kinds of insurance and programs, and everybody has access to this, that and the other thing. Let us be real here: There are nine million Canadians who do not have dental care and we are going to help them. We are now completing the seniors category in registration. We are also doing this for young people 18 and under and people with disabilities. I am very proud of that investment as well.

Continuing with those proud investments, there is early learning and day care. This budget supports investments in creating more spaces and more renovations, so we can offer great programming. Finally, I want to touch on the national school food program that we have been talking about for years. It is a must and it is going to help at least 400,000 Canadians.

Those are very important investments in the social net of our country, and this is why many people want to come to live in Canada, because we walk with people and support them.

I will now say a few words about safer and healthier communities, which is to say places where we will invest to help improve the situation on the ground.

Tourism was certainly an industry that suffered terribly during the COVID-19 pandemic—which is why we are continuing to invest in this sector. The budget also contains investments for volunteer firefighters. We are doubling the tax credits for the volunteer work they are doing to help communities. Another very significant investment is being made to attract health workers and social service workers to rural regions. I am talking about certain professionals like dentists, teachers, social workers, physiotherapists and so on. Many of the investments are concentrated in sectors where there are essential needs. To encourage this, we will be amending the legislation pertaining to the Canada student loan forgiveness program.

Since I know I only have a minute left, I will jump straight to the conclusion. I do not have a monopoly on sharing all this good news. Deloitte, an independent firm, had this to say:

Budget 2024 attempts to navigate a fine line: invest enough to have an impact on key priorities, from housing, social programs, and affordability to growth and good jobs, while maintaining sufficient fiscal discipline to adhere to fiscal guardrails and support the continued easing of inflation.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It is always a pleasure to hear him.

In the last minute of his speech, my colleague talked about good jobs. However, something is completely missing from the budget. Once again, we are waiting for an aerospace strategy. As we know, Quebec is one of the world’s three leading aerospace hubs, along with Seattle and Toulouse.

Pratt & Whitney manufactures aircraft engines in my riding and sells them all over the world. My riding is also home to Héroux-Devtek. I like to say that Longueuil set foot on the moon before Neil Armstrong, because that company makes landing gear systems.

We must encourage this industry, which accounted for 37,000 jobs in 2022 and $18 billion in economic activity. We are still waiting for the federal government to take a stance on this and say it will encourage this industry, because it provides good jobs and generates an economic impact. What is the government waiting for?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for his enthusiasm about the aerospace industry.

I agree with him that the aerospace industry is an extremely important industry in Canada and that Quebec plays a key role in this industry. As parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development, I want my colleague to know that I just attended two meetings on aerospace. We are examining the possibility of making serious investments to maintain our position in this area that is very important for Canadians and Quebeckers.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for each of the flawed programs that have been introduced in this budget, the government seems to not understand the reality.

Let us talk about the dental care program, for which the government will cover 70%. For people who cannot afford dental care, and let us say they need one crown, that means the government pays $1,000 of taxpayer money and individuals have to pay $300. People who cannot afford dental care do not have that $300.

Not only that, but the government has picked Canada Life as the monopoly that will deal with this situation. It will reimburse dentists, who were never consulted. Therefore, not enough dentists have subscribed. Once again, we see the government getting into provincial jurisdiction with skills it does not have in a program that does not understand the basic needs of the people who want to use it.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my first impression is always that my glass is half full, not half empty. This is a very important program for Canadians. As I said in my speech, nine million Canadians will have access to dental care because of this crucial program.

On the cost for dentists, the government is setting the rates and those rates are respected. Dental care should be covered 100% unless dentists ask for more than the set rates. We will work together with dentists, who are very proud professionals and want to support each and every Canadian who needs that dental care. We will be there for them.

I am sure the end product will be like any of the other programs, such as medicare, pharmacare and various other programs. We always find, as Canadians, the right way to make them work, and we shall be there for them this time around as well.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, because of the work of the NDP and the collective voices of so many advocating across Canada, we are seeing some real solutions being implemented, many of them mentioned by the member, including dental care, free birth control, diabetes medication, a national school food program, a rental protection fund. There are some real and positive solutions as a result of the work of the NDP.

One thing I need to bring up, which is vitally important, is the national disability benefit. The member did say that it was not as much as he would have liked. People living with disabilities are legislated into poverty. Two hundred dollars a month in additional funds will not lift people out of poverty.

When will the Liberal government finally put in place the legislation and funding to lift people living with disabilities out of poverty?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, have been advocating, as the member and many in the House and across the country have, to support people with disabilities. We know they are the largest percentage of people living in poverty. I said in my speech that $200 a month were not enough. There is more we will focus on as we move forward. However, let us not forget that this is biggest single-line investment in the budget, $6.1 billion for this new initiative. It is a very powerful one. The $2,400 a year are not enough, but this is a first step and an important step.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity today to speak to budget 2024 as I believe it presents a number of investments and initiatives critical to ensure that Canada keeps moving forward in difficult times.

We are living difficult times. Not only are Canadians dealing with a high cost of living, driven by a complex mix of global factors, but we are struggling with dramatically increasing costs of climate change and serious geopolitical upheaval, issues which are spilling over onto our own shores and deeply affecting our communities both directly and indirectly.

This is happening as the income gap, more critically the purchasing power between the lowest income-earning households and the highest income quintiles, has continued to grow. That divide, whether economically, socially or as a measure of health, is not a good one.

Recently I was talking with one of my constituents, who is based in Whitehorse. Even with a well-paying public service position and while owning a house, she described her struggle getting by from day to day: fuel costs, food costs and an upcoming mortgage renewal, with not a lot left over for extras.

All Canadians at low and middle-incomes are feeling the strain, from deciding not to go on a family trip this year to not doing the Friday dinner date. It is those younger Canadians, millennial and gen Z, who are feeling the strain the most. In addition to being saddled with the cost of services for boomers and others as they age, our younger generations now are facing the unconscionable, perhaps unforgivable, debt of the cost of the climate crisis.

According to the Canadian Climate Institute's estimates, $89 billion will be added to our health care costs annually by mid-century. We could face $100-billion fall in annual GDP and the lowest income levels could drop by 25%.

Yes, this budget carries costs, but those costs are investments in Canada and Canadians so that we can face the future with confidence, restore equity and avert the worst effects of climate change.

The cost of inaction will be far greater.

Let us talk about investments.

We are implementing a clean electricity tax credit, the clean technology manufacturing tax credit, to allow companies and tax-exempt entities to invest in clean energy equipment, helping us not only to green our electricity systems but scale them up to meet the demand of zero emission in electric vehicles and support our provinces and territories in working toward net-zero grids.

We are investing in entrepreneurs, including more than $200 million for Canadian start-ups for equity deserving or underserved communities, which I know will give a boost to the many enterprising entrepreneurs who populate the communities across Yukon.

We are also further adapting the Canada growth fund, a fund worth over $6 billion for stakeholders looking to accelerate their investments in decarbonization and clean growth technologies. This is a crucial addition to our price on pollution to ensure that Canada can successfully reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

It is not only the cost of climate change that Canadians face. Far too many Canadians are housing insecure, which is why our budget launch is a bold strategy to unlock almost four million new homes by 2031. We are reintroducing a post-World War II-style design catalogue to speed up the building of good quality homes, including duplexes, triplexes and low and medium-density options. These will be coupled with an additional $15 billion to the apartment construction loan program, $1.5 billion to protect affordable rentals and a billion dollars for our affordable housing fund.

Not only are we investing in good homes, a healthy environment and strong communities to raise our families, we are protecting our assets as well.

We have one of the longest coastlines in the world. We have a vital waterway over which we exercise our sovereignty, the Northwest Passage. Canada's north represents more than 40% of Canada's territory, located in an increasingly unstable world where major or emerging powers, friendly or unfriendly, are watching.

While the north is experiencing some of the most dramatic effects of climate change, we are also just starting to tap into the north's huge potential in equitable economic and resource development, all while protecting an increasingly threatened landscape and advancing reconciliation and true partnership with indigenous citizens.

Building on our $40-billion investment to modernize NORAD, along with our American partners, budget 2024 begins to lay out further critically needed investments in defence and a defence policy update to chart the course to ensure our armed forces are ready for what the future will hold. This includes $8.1 billion to ensure Canada is ready to respond to global threats, including almost $2 billion to replenish supplies and equipment, and more than $500 million to replace satellite communications equipment critical for our future investments in new tactical helicopters and long-range missile capabilities.

This is in addition to critical investments we have made to build new homes and renovate existing ones, to provide child care services to Canadian Armed Forces personnel and families on bases across the country, to increase the number of civilian specialists working to support DND operations, and to support their consolidation. We are also working on ways to improve retention as we modernize the forces.

Part of that is recognizing the increasing risks cybersecurity threats pose to Canadians. I am pleased to see the importance of this work recognized in budget 2024, with a commitment of more than $900 million over the next five years to enhance intelligence in cyber-operations and to protect Canada's economic security from rapidly evolving security threats.

With a world that is increasingly connected online, the threats we face in the cyber realm are growing, not only to individual Canadians and our personal data and finances but to our country's critical infrastructure.

Our government is investing in our future and in defending that future, but we also want to support Canadians today.

We are investing $273.6 million for Canada's action plan to combatting hate, to support community outreach, law enforcement reform, tackle the rise in hate crimes, enhance community security and counter radicalization. This is alongside $7.3 million to address the rise in anti-Semitism and $7.3 million to address the rise in Islamophobia. Expressions of both have been rising for some years, but have broken out in a more ominous way since the onset of war in the Middle East.

In addition to our government's historic investment in strengthening public health care over the past year, I am pleased to see our new national pharmacare plan announced, with $1.5 billion over five years to ensure its effective rollout, while providing, as first steps, support for reproductive health care and diabetes care.

We are also addressing the critical needs of our communities in the ongoing overdose crisis, with $150 million through the emergency treatment fund.

We are also continuing to expand the Canadian dental care plan to cover more than nine million Canadians who currently do not have dental insurance, and we are investing an additional $1 billion to support affordable day care.

It is not only day care that families need. I am looking forward to seeing our partners in Yukon work with our new national school food program to expand access to existing school food programs to those who need it, so no child has to go to school hungry.

For students already on the pathway to a career, we are increasing student grants and loans, making it easier for the more than one million Canadian students to afford their desired education and get their start in life.

Teachers, social workers and more health care health care professionals, who have found new opportunities in our rural and remote communities, will now be a permanent part of the Canada student loan forgiveness program.

New investments to boost research and innovation, including support for graduate students and post-doctoral fellows, will ensure Canada remains a world leader in science and new technologies like artificial intelligence.

This budget is about ensuring that young people in particular, but all Canadians, have a chance to realize their dreams and aspirations.

To deliver on all of the promises in the budget, we are asking some of the wealthiest Canadians to pay a little more for certain things, because in doing so, they are investing in their fellow citizens and in their country, and everyone benefits.

Pierre Poilievre and his Conservatives have already committed to voting against the budget. This means they will be voting against increased health care funding and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order, please. I have to remind the hon. member not to use the proper names of members of the House of Commons. Maybe he could back up and say “Leader of the Opposition” or “the member for Carleton.”

The hon. member for Yukon.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

My apologies, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has already committed to voting against the budget, and this means voting against increased health care funding, a national school food program, funding to build nearly four million more homes, support for renters, free contraception and diabetes medication, affordable dental care and much more.

What kind of country do Canadians want to live in? What kind of country do they want for their children and grandchildren? I know what constituents are asking me. They want support to get through the affordability crisis. They want affordable options for housing, whether to rent or to buy. They want Canada to be a country of innovation, a country that is forward-looking, climate resilient and a leader among peers. That is the kind of country we are building.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Yukon talks about innovation and the cost of climate change to the world. To me, it seems interesting, because we have the opportunity to get more liquefied natural gas to global markets. As a Wood Mackenzie report just showed, if we get more Canadian LNG to Asia, we can actually reduce emissions, yet the climate change minister across the way, one of the radical ministers in the House, is putting a cap on getting LNG to that very market that wants to lower emissions.

Does the member support getting more of Canada to the world to reduce emissions?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, there is so much in this budget, and in previous budgets, that is building toward a new energy future. In my community of Yukon, we are investing in the critical minerals that will drive our move toward green energy and a green future and also stimulate and revive the economy for all Canadians.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about homelessness a bit. My colleague spoke of housing, and it is an important issue, but the government approach on homelessness is a bit hard to follow.

The only federal program dealing with homelessness is Reaching Home. Still, the government cut 3% from this program in recent months. The budget proposes a $1-billion investment over four years, and $250 million for encampments. However, encampments are a problem.

Last weekend, I attended a summit on youth homelessness in Quebec. Every group dealing with homelessness in Quebec was there, and all were asking how this $250 million would be spent, since, ultimately, fighting homelessness means building social housing.

Would it not have been better to simply invest money to actually build social housing units to get people off the street?

Does my colleague have any idea how this $250 million will be spent? As it stands, there is quite a bit of uncertainty around that.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question. I am going to focus on the range of investments found in the budget, which includes investments in the housing market. The federal government is still ready to work with provincial partners, including Quebec, to ensure we also make investments for the homeless.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, I met with nurse Crystal Edwards, who is the director of the women and children’s and mental health programs at the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, as well as Dr. Justin Jagger, who is the chair of pediatrics at the Northern Ontario School of Medicine, and Children's Healthcare Canada. We talked about the children and youth crisis regarding physical and mental health in Canada and how band-aid solutions will not measurably improve child health care systems or children's health outcomes. They are calling on the federal government to take a leadership role in resolving this crisis by declaring children's health and well-being a national priority.

I worked with my colleague from Yukon, as he was part of the negotiations, to create the youth mental health fund. It is historic, and it is a step toward parity between mental and physical health. However, they are also calling on the government to create and implement a national children's strategy that would include targets and timelines to improve children's health outcomes, the establishment of a chief children's health officer and the creation of a dedicated funding envelope to ensure a robust maternal child and youth health research agenda.

Does my colleague support those asks from Children's Healthcare Canada?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni, who is a strong advocate and friend in working together toward common aims in health, and children's health in particular.

We should shortly be able to present the report from our study at the health committee on children's health. There are many recommendations in there to inform a national perspective and coordination in improving the health of children. My colleague is right to point to the importance of the mental health of youth and children in general.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. I will inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the incredible member of Parliament for Prince Albert.

I have been around this place long enough to see a clear pattern of what a Liberal budget is. What exactly is the pattern of a Liberal budget? We have to go back to 2015 for a moment. What happened back in 2015? The Liberal Prime Minister promised three years of modest deficit-spending budgets before he made a cast in stone promise to return to a balanced budget in 2019. What happened to that promise?

In each of those three years, the Prime Minister spent much more than he had promised. In 2019, he did not even try to keep his cast in stone promise about returning Canada to a balanced budget. In other words, this Liberal Prime Minister did not even try to do what he had promised.

Why even promise to return Canada to a balanced budget when he had no intention of ever doing so? Of course, we all know the answer. The Prime Minister is willing to say literally anything if he thinks it will get him votes and help him gain voters' confidence. That is the real problem with what has become the trend in the libertarian budgets tabled by the Liberals and the Prime Minister, because Canadians have lost confidence in this Liberal government.

Let me provide yet another example of this.

To do this, we have to go back to the 2022 Liberal budget. Back in 2022, following the pandemic, the Prime Minister and his finance minister introduced what his Liberal government called the return to fiscal responsibility budget. That begs the question of what fiscally responsible spending was, according to the Liberal government in 2022. The answer is that the Liberals' 2022 budget proposed total federal government spending of $434 billion.

This is an interesting amount of money because it represented a $90-billion spending increase over the Liberals' very own prepandemic spending in the 2019-20 fiscal year, which had a budget of $338 billion. Now, here we are with the latest Liberal 2024 budget, which proposes total spending of $535 billion for the 2024-25 fiscal year. Let us pause for a moment to recap.

The 2022 return to fiscal responsibility budget was $434 billion. Now, here we are in 2024 with the current budget, and the proposed spending is $535 billion. This means that the latest Liberal budget for the 2024-25 fiscal year proposes to spend $100 billion more than what the Liberals themselves labelled a return to fiscal responsibility budget just a short time ago.

Let us look at the bigger picture for a moment. Before the pandemic began, in 2019-20, the Liberals were spending $338 billion. Today, the Liberals now propose to spend $535 billion. That is an increase of almost $200 billion a year in annual spending, and let us not kid ourselves. Everyone knows the Liberals will spend more than the $535 billion they are proposing in this budget. If anyone is in doubt of that, I will recall what the finance minister told us in April of last year during her 2023 budget.

In that 2023 budget, the Liberals told us that projected total spending would be $497 billion in 2023-24. That self-same Liberal budget projected spending would reach $556 billion in 2027-28. Now, here we are in 2024-25, and already the Liberals are proposing to spend $535 billion.

Can we all not see the clear pattern here? Every year, what we are told will happen never actually happens. The forecasts, the promises and everything the Liberals promise us end up being completely false. They do not even try to live within the fiscal limits they propose for themselves.

This particular Liberal budget follows the pattern that once again demonstrates that every commitment of a so-called fiscal guardrail made in previous Liberal budgets was a sham. Most offensive of all is that the Prime Minister's Office has the audacity to label this budget as the “Fairness for Every Generation” budget. I am literally aghast by this.

The 2024 “Fairness for Every Generation” budget proposes a $40-billion deficit for this fiscal year alone. This is noteworthy because the Liberals' previous debt forecast was $35 billion for 2024-25 and $27 billion for 2025-26. In the Liberals' mini budget last fall, their fiscal update increased the deficits projected for 2024-25 and 2025-26 to $38 billion and $38 billion respectively.

Now, why is this new debt significant? Given the current interest rates, the cost of servicing on the national debt has now exceeded federal spending on health care, and this problem only gets worse. There is an entire generation of young Canadians who are now entirely left out despite all the Liberal spending, and this is today. Literally, this problem is so bad that even the Prime Minister himself now openly admits that young people now feel like they cannot get ahead in the same way their parents or their grandparents could. However, it is much worse than that. The Prime Minister is leaving future generations of Canadians with record levels of debt and no plan whatsoever to return to a balanced budget, ever. The Prime Minister has failed in every single budget to do what he promised he would do in the budget the year previous, and I have established that with several examples in my comments today.

Let us ask the Prime Minister, who thinks he is pretty awesome, if, in the past nine years he has massively and completely failed to even come close to balancing the budget, what is he expecting future generations of Canadians to do because they are the ones who will be inheriting all of this Liberal debt?

What Canadians see is a desperate Prime Minister's Office trying to shovel as much money out the door as quickly and as recklessly as they can as they are hoping that something, anything, will stick as they try desperately to buy their way to remain in power because power is the one thing that the Prime Minister and his group of insiders really care about. I would submit that they will and, in fact, they are, willing to spend any amount of money in their quest to retain power. I believe the way they see it in the Prime Minister's Office is that this ends in one of two different ways for them. Either they will be successful and remain in power or, if they are unsuccessful, well, they do not care about the fiscal mess they will leave behind because it will be future generations of Canadians, but more importantly not them, who will have to clean the mess up and pay for it. I submit that this is really what is occurring here.

Members can imagine leaving our kids behind a prepaid Visa, but in reality, that prepaid Visa card has a negative balance of $10,000 owing on it. The joke is on them. In the real world, no one would actually do that, but the Prime Minister is doing exactly that, and he has the audacity to pretend to call it fairness for every generation.

There is nothing fair about racking up huge debts in an attempt to buy votes and leaving future Canadians to foot the bill. It is the most unfair thing that the government can do to young Canadians, but that is precisely what the Liberal government is doing.

Rather than accept and respect the fact that many Canadians see and oppose what the government is doing, the Prime Minister's Office is doubling down and proposing more of the same.

This is a budget, yes, but it follows a dangerous pattern. The Liberals continue to say whatever it takes to stay in power. They have no intention of following through on their promises. They do not care. They just care about power. That is not good enough for this chamber. It is definitely not good enough for Canadians, and I will not be going along with this plan to again spend whatever it takes, to throw that money at the wall, to see how long they can stay in power.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, those are interesting comments coming from the member across the way, in the sense that, as a government, we do recognize there is a need to be able to spend money, as has Doug Ford.

For example, we talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, in terms of landing the VW battery plant. It is going to generate thousands of jobs. It is being supported in good part by both the Ontario government and the Canadian government. It will have a long-term positive impact, as it will be one of the reasons why Canada is going to be ranked so high in the world in production of electric batteries. Let us think about it: greener jobs into the future. Why does the Conservative Party not support that particular initiative?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not support any initiative of the Liberal government, because the government will do whatever it takes to stay in power.

If the member is so confident that particular deal is going to be so great for every Canadian, why has the government not brought up the business case? Why has it not shown us the contracts?

The latest Liberal budget for the 2024-25 fiscal year proposes to spend $100 billion more than what the Liberals themselves labelled as a return to fiscal responsibility just a short time ago.

The member and the Liberal government will say whatever they need to say to stay in power. He needs to admit that to himself.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I was reflecting on while we were talking about the budget today is the national school food program that is being implemented in the budget. I was a school board trustee and also worked in the school district. I am a single parent with two children. An issue that came up over and over again was that schools need the support to be able to ensure that all children who arrive at school have the nutritious healthy foods they need to learn and grow.

There are many wins in the budget. There are also areas like the national disability benefit that need to see an increase in the amount.

If the member were in the position of power that he is saying the Liberals are striving to maintain, what would he cut that Canadians need so desperately, at a time when people are struggling to make ends meet?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a synergy between the Liberal Party and the NDP, where they are constantly trying to outbid each other for who can be more relevant. The problem is that they are constantly asking for a new national priority, when the federal government has zero experience in doing something.

In my area of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, when I was the United Way chair, there was a great program called “Success By 6”. It made sure that children who needed those supports at Queen's Park Elementary got them. Unfortunately, if the member were to read Paul Wells' Substack on this, she would see that the government actually cannot tell us which children would receive the support. It just says that 400,000 children are going to receive it. The government has no idea who these children are. It has no idea who the different players are in different school districts right across the country.

As I said, it is all about paper. The NDP enables this. It keeps saying, “More, more, more”, and we just get more paper, more promises and more bureaucracy, not the help that Canadians want or need.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that was a great speech. I know that the member comes from British Columbia, and I know that in British Columbia addiction has become a huge issue over the last eight years. Could the member give the House a bit of a report on what has changed in his riding and what in the budget would actually address the problem? Can he explain to us why the government is so committed to not fixing the problem?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question.

In many rural parts of my riding, from places such as Merritt, B.C., which we all know is still trying to rebuild from some of the floods that happened a few years ago, to places like Hedley, I continue to get reports about the so-called drug legalization program, where people are allowed to consume hard drugs, crack, heroin, etc. on the streets.

There are drug houses that the RCMP has said it cannot shut down because of the laws. The government can say all sorts of things, like that it is going to work with British Columbia, but the problem is that it is not working with the RCMP. It is not giving the RCMP the tools it needs to make our communities, particularly the rural ones, safer.

The member is correct; the government, again, is always about promises but never about delivering.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here. The member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola gave such a great speech. His comments are surely appreciated in the House. His knowledge and his wisdom are a benefit to all Canadians, and I want to thank him for being here today. He did a wonderful job.

I want to talk about the great riding of Prince Albert. It has been home to three prime ministers, believe it or not. It has a great history and great people. I am from a combination of the agriculture sector, which is strong, vibrant and growing, and the forestry sector, in which we hope to see a rejuvenation and a rebirth, bringing along first nations and first nations involvement. There are some great opportunities that will be happening in and around Prince Albert and in the district itself.

When I look at the budget and look back at the needs and wants, and the questions I get, in my riding, the budget is a failure. It did not listen to what Canadians want. It did not listen to what Canadians require. It talks about a lot of things and throws a lot of things at the wall, but there is not anything to really address affordability. There is nothing really there to address crime, including rural crime. There is nothing there, really, to address the day-to-day costs of living. I am going to talk a little about that today and about what residents are saying to me in the riding of Prince Albert.

While many of my colleagues have raised various serious problems with the budget today, I am going to focus on a variety of areas that directly impact communities, families, poverty and, of course, crime. I am also going to add addictions and mental health to that list. After nine years, the NDP-Liberal coalition has had every opportunity to address these issues and effect real change for Canadians, yet its policies have done nothing but make things worse. For families, the tax-and-spend approach continues to make life more unaffordable, as they feel the real-life impacts of the Liberal inflationary policies.

According to the Prime Minister, after nine years of his leadership, one in four children goes to school without food every day. Again, I come from a riding with agriculture. We grow food. We raise beef. There is no reason for kids to go to school hungry, but when one's parents cannot afford the basic necessities, when they have to choose between making the rent payment or the mortgage payment and buying good, nourishing meals, that is a shame. That is what the government has created.

After nine years of the Prime Minister, roughly 64% of one's average monthly income is needed to pay the monthly costs associated with housing. When I grew up, housing was a dream that was achievable. We dreamt of owning a house. Actually, I was lucky to own a house relatively young in life and able to own a house right through. I own a house today.

I look at kids and people's grandkids, and that dream has become a fantasy. It is something they actually look at and very realistically say, “If I am going to own a house, I will have nothing else. I will be house poor. The cost of owning a house is so unachievable; it is not an option for me.” That dream has left Canadians. It is crazy. There is no reason not to have that dream. There is no reason not to work toward owning a house. There is no reason not to have a house, a safe place to raise one's family, one's kids, especially in Canada. After nine years, this is no longer an option.

After nine years of the Prime Minister, food banks received a record two million visits in a single month last year. Two million Canadians are going to the food bank.

Why is the government not listening when it hears stats like that? These are stats, hard, hard figures, talking about what is actually going on in this country. There are two million Canadians going to the food bank just so they can feed their family. Does the government not think this is a problem? Should it not address it in the budget? Should the government not say, “Wait a minute. Maybe we need to change course. Obviously what we have been trying is not working”? One would think that there would be serious reflection on what has been done, but there is nothing.

The NDP-Liberal coalition talks about caring for families. What it has done is the exact opposite. Under its watch, its failed policies have contributed to the worsening situation we see across our country. The budget is nothing more than a continuation of failed policies. There is no reflection, no second sober thought, just continuing on and barging ahead with the failed policies.

With nearly $40 billion in new inflationary spending, it is no wonder Canadians cannot get ahead. As Canadians try to take one step forward, the Liberal government keeps pulling them back two steps at a time. The Liberals are hurting people. They do not understand it, but they really are hurting Canadians.

Let us look at housing, for example. Nine years after the Prime Minister promised to lower the price of housing, of rents and mortgages in Canada, they have doubled, and Canadians are forced to live in tent encampments in nearly every city across Canada. It is cold here. It is -30°C or -40°C in the wintertime and they are stuck living in tents. How shameful that is.

Under the Prime Minister, Canada is building fewer homes than we did in 1970 when we had half the population, and housing is more expensive for everyone. We are not building houses. What policies has the government put in place that have actually disincentivized Canadians to build houses? Liberals should reflect on that and maybe change course.

From speaking to the members of my community, I know that parents are worried about the life that their children will have. Before the current Prime Minister, Canadian households earning the median income could cover the cost of owning a house. Roughly 39% of their pay went to housing. According to RBC, that number has now risen, and Canadians now need to spend 64% to 69% of a median income just put a roof over their head. That does not leave a lot of money to take the kids to soccer. It does not leave a lot of money for buying hockey equipment.

It does not leave a lot of money for kids to take their mothers to a Mother's Day brunch on Sunday. The moms out there should not be mad at their kids if they do not invite them out for brunch this year. They really would like to, but they just cannot afford to because they have spent so much on housing and everything else. Moms are tremendous people. They did not foresee raising kids in a country where they would not be able to fulfill the dream of owning a house. That falls upon the government, the NDP-Liberal coalition.

We need a government and a budget that are focused on addressing the affordability challenges Canadians face. The government has caused those challenges and only gives a facade of caring when it is down 20% in the polls. The Liberals are not doing it for Canadians; they are doing it to maintain power.

Let us look at the crime wave across Canada, an issue that is plaguing our streets and making life less safe for Canadians. Auto theft and violent crime are on the rise under the Prime Minister. Canadians are tired of the Liberals' catch-and-release programs that have led to higher insurance costs, higher security costs and a higher human cost. There is nothing but talk, platitudes and photo ops. There is no real concrete action.

I recently put forward a private member's bill, Bill C-379, an act to amend the Criminal Code for motor vehicle thefts, which would lock up for three years those who have stolen a third car. It would not include a newcomer or somebody who went for a joyride and did something stupid; it would be for the third offence. If someone has been convicted three times, the individual should at least get three years. It is common sense. It would show action and that we are moving forward.

I also proposed that judges and prosecutors take into consideration that a crime was committed to benefit organized crime. For this, people would receive a stronger sentence. If someone is stealing a vehicle for third time, they are not a petty criminal. However, the NDP-Liberal coalition has indicated that it is going to vote against the bill. This is an example of making photo ops and not taking action, but again they do not listen. They are not reacting to what Canadians need; they are doing what they think their failed policies are filling in, and they are continuing with failed policies.

All the Liberals have done is photo ops and more photo ops. It is real people, whose cars are being stolen and who are victims of violent crime and extortion, who are feeling the impact. The budget fails to treat the crime wave as the epidemic it really is across this country. It is one thing to host a summit, but it is another thing to implement meaningful legislation, which the budget would not.

I would like to talk about the $61 billion in new inflationary spending that will end up costing every Canadian an extra $3,687 a year. Both the Bank of Canada and former Liberal finance minister John Manley told the Prime Minister that he was pressing on the inflationary gas pedal with his spending that balloons interest rates, but the Prime Minister did not listen. It is not a surprise. Even the former Liberal governor of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge, warned the Liberals that their spending is making it harder to bring down interest rates, but again the Prime Minister did not listen. As a result, the Bank of Canada went on the most aggressive interest rate hike campaign in its history.

As the millions of Canadians renewing their mortgages know, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost, and struggling families cannot afford the higher taxes that come with him, so when it comes to this budget, I will not be voting for it. This budget missed the mark in so many ways. The Liberals had a huge opportunity to get things right, and for the ninth time in a row, they failed.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member's speech when he was talking about auto thefts, which was interesting as the hon. member voted against increased penalties for auto theft back in the 42nd Parliament. The member and a lot of Conservatives mention mandatory minimums time after time. It is a very American-style justice.

Can the member point to any jurisdiction in the United States that uses that type of policy? Is that jurisdiction safer than it is here in Canada?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the Liberals seem to be more interested in American-style politics than in listening to constituents, like the constituents in the riding of Prince Albert.

My constituents tell me that they do not want those repeat offenders back out on the streets. They want to see concrete action. They also say that the judicial system is not doing its job, putting these people behind bars. That is why the constituents are asking for mandatory minimums. That is why they have instructed me to come to Ottawa on their behalf and to put something in place that does something concrete to stop this problem.

What does the Liberal government do? It looks to the U.S. Do not look at the U.S.; Liberal members should talk to their constituents and should ask them what they want. The Liberal members will be surprised. The constituents will say that they do not want their car stolen for the third time. They do not want to be threatened in their homes. They do not want to leave their keys in the ashtray by the door because the current government will do nothing to stop it.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am quite fascinated by the dramatics of the member's intervention and by just how much disinformation is shared in the Conservative interventions I have heard since I have been elected.

What I heard from the MP is about the privilege he has always had in his life and about the privilege he continues to push forward, especially when he was talking about housing. He spoke about how they have always had housing and about how housing was always available to them, compared to what my constituents are forced to endure. For them, housing is very much a privilege, and it is a benefit of employment. It is not something that is very easy to come by.

I think the reality is that everyone in the House has power. The Conservatives saying that only the Liberals or the NDP have power is such disinformation.

Will the member commit to using his power, beyond just slogans, so that the policies we pass in the House actually make a difference for all Canadians?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is a good, sincere question. We are privileged to live in Canada. We are. We are privileged to own a house. We are privileged to represent Canadians, in Canada, in a democracy, here in the House, to take advantage of that democracy and to bring their views to the House of Commons. We have the right to choose whether we are going to vote against or for the budget, based on the directions from our constituents.

If the member went back to her riding right now, would her constituents endorse this budget? Would they tell the NDP to vote with the Liberal government, at all costs, to keep it in power? I do not think so. If she were to go back to her riding, with the privilege she has to represent them, and if she were to ask them what she should do, they would say to vote against this budget.

The Liberals have done nothing for housing in the north. They have done nothing to deal with addictions in the north. They have done nothing to deal with the cost of food in the north. What have they delivered to the north? They have delivered nothing, and the member recognizes that.

I would like to help the member see a better way forward, but I cannot do it in opposition. I can only do it under a government led by the Conservative Party of Canada because we have the policies to deal with those issues. If she is really representing her riding, she would break ranks with the NDP and would vote this budget down.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Governor of the Bank of Canada has said that pouring more deficit spending is like pouring more gas on the inflationary fire, but this budget pours another $40 billion on.

Could the member describe the impacts of that to people across the country?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is such a big issue. I will use a very simple example. Interest rates go up. Mortgage rates go up. For their mortgage now, people pay more interest costs. Therefore, instead of paying, let us say, $3,000 or $2,000 a month, now they are paying $3,000 or $4,000 a month. That is after-tax dollars taken out of their pockets just for interest costs. That is because of the inflation policy.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have the dubious pleasure of addressing Bill C-69 and the implementation of the budget. No one will be surprised to hear that I was quite astonished when I read the budget. I am a member of the Bloc Québécois, a member who believes in Quebec independence, and yet the sheer amount of government interference in provincial areas of jurisdiction managed to exceed even my expectations.

The budget shows how shameless the government is about spending money in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. It is so shameless that I felt ashamed just reading it, because it demonstrated what I have said many times over the years—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Jonquière on a point of order.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly not ashamed to say that I think the member will be sharing her time with me.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Manicouagan.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I surely mentioned it at some point, perhaps at the end of my speech. I will be sharing my time with the member for Jonquière. I could have shared it with the member for Winnipeg North, but I decided to go with the member for Jonquière.

I was talking about something that I have mentioned here in the House on many occasions in recent years: The government's lack of vision, which makes the government feel obligated to work in areas that do not fall under its own jurisdiction and to neglect its own duties in favour of other things. That is having an impact on the ground.

As members of Parliament, we talk with people in our ridings. These are often very informal discussions. People ask us questions in good faith, as sometimes happens in the House. They ask us what the legacy of this government, which has been in office for three consecutive terms, will be. They often mention 2017 and the Cannabis Act. Apart from that, I want to more formally ask this question: What kind of legacy will the Liberals leave after all those years in office or even with this budget? For me, that is what is still missing from this budget.

Obviously, the budget contains several measures. There are 650 pages of measures. That is a lot of measures. At the same time, as many have said, we get the impression that the budget is all over the place. Let me get back to the thrust of the budget. Is there anything in there that provides direction, some orientation? It talks about the future and vision. The fact is that the future presupposes a vision and vice versa. There is nothing like that in the budget.

There is also the issue of government responsibilities. I would like to point out that it is the same thing when we discuss certain bills in the House, for example defence bills. We do not talk about that often. We could also mention fisheries and oceans and international trade. They too are absent. There is little to no trace of these issues in the speeches and bills in the House. In short, everything under federal jurisdiction is missing.

I said I was surprised, but I was actually shocked. I said that the government went further than it usually goes. The government can spend because it collects more money than it needs to fulfill its responsibilities. If it is not working on its own areas of responsibility, maybe that is because it has too much money. As a result, it spends in Quebec and provincial jurisdictions.

This time there is no unconditional opting out. There are conditions. For example, Quebec will not be able to get money from the federal government to manage its own areas of jurisdiction.

The Prime Minister even criticized the provinces, Quebec and elected municipal officials. He is playing king. The analogy may be shaky, but it is still an analogy. The Prime Minister decides for everyone. He is the only one with sound judgment and good ideas. He can do the job of everyone working at their own level of government. Everyone knows that I would rather have only two levels, the municipal and Quebec. I am truly shocked. Obviously, I will be voting against the budget implementation bill.

I would also like to comment on the budget’s title. I mentioned earlier that the budget’s measures are all over the place. The budget’s title mentions fairness for every generation. That is one way of putting together measures that are neither cohesive nor coherent. It does not stand up.

However, we in the Bloc continue to hammer home that we oppose discrimination against seniors. It would have been easy to include a provision in the budget stipulating that all seniors, even those under the age of 75, would receive the same old age security increase. That is not the case right now. They talk about fairness. I agree, it is a praiseworthy concept.

To be sure, we want every generation to have pretty much the same opportunities, but this is phony. It is phony because I believe that what seniors in my region want is to no longer be discriminated against. What is being proposed still discriminates against them. Therefore, in my view, the objective of abolishing all intergenerational inequities is not being met. This point is very important for the Bloc Québécois and for seniors. We are speaking up for our people.

The same goes for young people when it comes to fossil fuels. Who will bear the brunt of climate change and rising temperatures? That would be our young people, including those who live in my region. I could speak for my riding, and I know young people well—I have several at home, as a matter of fact. As for climate change, young people think it makes no sense at all to buy a pipeline and spend billions of dollars on a form of energy that we should have replaced yesterday, never mind today.

I do not want to be told about equality of opportunity. The industrial development of the past two centuries has brought us to an absolutely untenable place. What the government is doing makes no sense at all. They are speeding up rather than applying the brakes. There is no equity here.

I would also talk about regional equity. Yes, there is a generational element, but there are disparities throughout the territory. There are some members here, even from other parties, who spoke about it a bit earlier. For example, my colleague from Nunavut spoke about the north. I represent a rural riding rich in natural resources. Most of the time, I am unable to travel home. I have to drive 10, 15, 20 or even 30 hours to get somewhere where I get on a snowmobile or some other form of transportation to get home. It is nearly impossible to get there. These are northern regions and we are not really talking about fishing. I am talking about a resource-rich region, of course. We have the mining sector, which is very rich, but fishery workers are often people who struggle to make ends meet. There are many examples. I mentioned six, I believe.

There is also the issue of nutrition north Canada. There were discussions about food. There were already problems with costs. It is all well and good to talk about inflation or food banks, but when it comes to the Lower North Shore, when it comes to Shefferville, that is a whole different story. That too needs improvement.

I could give many, many examples like that. As for employment insurance, it is the same thing. If we are talking about equity, we should think about what that means for the regions as well.

I heard the parliamentary secretary talk about the whole issue of rural regions, but that is not going to cut it. What the government is offering does not correspond to what the people in my riding want.

I think it is unfortunate when parties decide to govern based not on their duties, but on their interests, particularly their electoral interests. There are several measures in this budget that are not ready to be implemented. These are really measures that will be implemented after 2025, in other words, after the next election.

Again, I will be voting against the bill. Maybe I do have something in common with the government after all, because I too would like one government to be responsible for every jurisdiction, but I want it to be the government of an independent Quebec.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am increasingly concerned that the Bloc Québécois is continuing to work hand in hand with the government. We are increasingly seeing the Bloc Québécois become more centralized and more willing to prop up the federal government.

My question is this. Will the Bloc Québécois, which is working with the government, respect British Columbia's provincial areas of jurisdiction?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, obviously, I think I am going to make my colleague happier than he sounded when he was asking the question, because we voted against the budget. We voted against the ways and means motion. I think he will be happy to hear that.

Obviously, we will respect British Columbia's jurisdictions because the Bloc Québécois is not a party that is against common sense. It is a party that works toward Quebec's independence.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me start by thanking my colleague for not sharing her time with the member for Winnipeg North. Everyone in the House appreciated that.

I would like to hear what she has to say about a topic that has come up a lot, namely pharmacare.

Quebec already has a pharmacare plan, but it is a hybrid public-private system. It has its shortcomings. It was cutting edge at the time, but now it needs an overhaul. All of the studies say that universal public pharmacare would help control and lower the price of drugs and would generate savings for everyone, including workers, employers and the health care system too.

This budget contains a first step for diabetes medications and contraceptives. That is something that the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux and the Centrale des syndicats du Québec have been asking for.

We are in favour of the right to opt out with compensation for Quebec, but does my colleague not agree that we need a universal public plan, whether at the federal or Quebec level, to control and maintain drug prices?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, as members know, the Bloc Québécois is not opposed to good ideas. Our party is in favour of equity, if not equality.

However, the merits of this measure were not proven to the National Assembly, which overwhelmingly came out against it. I think that the government can make decisions. I am not sure if I should lump the NPD in with the group, because apparently there are all sorts of coalitions going on here. I am finding this out every day. It is somewhat disorienting. All jokes aside, the government needs to open a dialogue with Quebec and the provinces.

As has already been noted, Quebec already has its own program, so we do not want to be forced to do anything. There need to be discussions. Something certainly can be done, but it must be done with the consent of the National Assembly. This is a step that cannot be skipped.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is right. There are a lot of problems in this budget with regard to areas of provincial jurisdiction. I am thinking of things like child care, dental care and school food programs.

What is the government thinking? How can it implement these programs in Quebec?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree, the government should just focus on taking care of the things it is responsible for. I think that would be the most efficient way of proceeding. The Quebec government knows what needs to be done. Maybe it needs more resources. Ottawa is spending money in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction because it may have too much money. That is what we call the fiscal imbalance.

Ottawa should take care of its own responsibilities, and Quebec should take care of its own responsibilities too, with the resources at its disposal. I am not saying this will work, since Quebec would like to be in control of every area of jurisdiction, but the fact remains that we do not want our jurisdiction to be encroached upon.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know that ghost fishing gear and marine debris are huge problems in our waterways. When fish ingest them, they carry the plastic with them. It is infecting our whole ecosystem, yet the Liberal government cancelled the ghost gear fund. My colleague supported my motion back in 2018, and all of Parliament supported it, to direct the government to create this fund.

As a coastal member, is she disappointed by the government's withdrawal of the ghost gear fund, despite the fact that plastic pollution is choking our oceans?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is a timely one, since an article published yesterday said that the north shore, where I live, is experiencing the consequences of plastic pollution. I am talking about the north shore, but in fact it is in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and its estuary.

Any measure aimed at reducing plastic pollution would be welcome. I cannot say “solving” plastic pollution, because that might be too ambitious, but at the very least, if it helps reduce or end plastic pollution, for both the oceans and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is nothing new in Bill C-69. It is merely an extension of the budget, so it continues to indulge the oil and gas sector and maintains this government's predatory federalism without any consideration for Quebec.

My colleague from Manicouagan said earlier that we will be voting against the budget. I want to emphasize that. We will be voting against Bill C-69 because the atmosphere in the House has been going downhill for some time. The Conservatives are trying to lump us in with the Liberals in a very populist way. I saw it again this morning on social media, where the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles tried to associate us and the Liberals with pedophiles, telling people to call our constituency offices. I find this shocking, coming from a party that talks so much about law and order. Instead, we should be talking about law and order and bullying. That is the Conservative agenda, but we will let them play that game. My leader often says that no one should ever wrestle with a pig because they will both get dirty and the pig likes it. We will not be doing that.

I was talking about indulging the oil industry. There is nothing new here. With Bill C-69, Canada is behaving like a unitary state and confirming its role as an oil monarchy.

Before moving on to the truly problematic part, which is to say the power grab that is the consumer-driven banking act, I would simply like to point out that on more than one occasion, the Prime Minister has said that people do not care about jurisdictions. However, a Leger survey shows that 84% of Quebeckers want Ottawa to respect jurisdictions. Accordingly, the federal government is missing a wonderful opportunity to act with the banking act.

This legislation will federalize the entire financial sector and strip Quebec of its powers in this area. Rather than adopting a collaborative approach in Bill C-69, Ottawa wants to unilaterally lay down the rules that apply to banking services, an area of shared jurisdiction. As is the Liberal government's wont, it will give the big financial institutions in Toronto a significant leg up on their counterparts in Quebec, such as the caisse populaire. Under the proposal, the provinces will be excluded from consumer protection or privacy protection once the financial institutions interact with their clients through a technological platform.

To impose this framework, the federal government will need to act in three stages. It must determine the standard, task a federal agency with maintaining a registry of institutions conforming to this standard and designate a federal agency to serve as regulator, which involves verifying the compliance of the institutions on the registry. It is on this third point that there is a major issue jurisdictional interference. By acting in this manner, the federal government is interfering directly with civil law by regulating institutions coming under Quebec jurisdiction and by subjecting them to federal legislation.

This is evidence of what we have been seeing for a while now, namely the government's desire to behave like a unitary state, as though the federation did not exist, as though Quebec did not have its own powers. This is what we have seen with pharmacare. This is what we have seen with dental insurance. This is what we have seen with multiple instances of interference in Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction. It is Groundhog Day for interference.

The same is true of energy. I said right from the get-go that Canada is confirming its status as an oil monarchy. It is also confirming its very cozy relationship with the oil and gas sector. What do we see in Bill C‑69? We see yet another subsidy for the oil companies in the form of the infamous investment tax credit for so-called clean hydrogen.

As we know, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources is no longer interested in talking about hydrogen colours. Previously, there was green hydrogen, made from hydroelectricity, grey hydrogen, made from gas, and another one between the two, called blue hydrogen. The latter is made from gas, but it comes with carbon capture and storage strategies that are as yet unproven. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources prefers not to talk in these terms anymore.

In Bill C-69, we again see a tailor-made program that would allot tax credits between 15% and 40% for hydrogen production. It is no secret that this is mainly for the gas sector. I went to Berlin with the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and we took part in a meeting with Siemens, a major corporation that told us that the idea of producing green hydrogen from gas was destined to fail. The Siemens people said that the state would need to take on risk, the risk of higher prices. As we are seeing with Bill C‑69, the state will have to heavily subsidize the rollout of gas-produced hydrogen. There is also, however, a technological risk, according to Siemens, because the technology needed for this venture is not ready, and it will again take a massive infusion of public money to get there—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the member, but I would ask the other members to kindly continue their discussions outside because the noise is starting to be a problem.

The hon. member for Jonquière may continue.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you.

I was saying that the tax credit for green hydrogen is a pipe dream, according to a number of analysts who specialize in this area. Members may recall that the government announced its intention to end fossil fuel subsidies in 2023, yet in 2023 alone, it gave $18 billion to the oil and gas sector. The government also said that a definition of inefficient subsidies was forthcoming, but to my knowledge, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change is still unable to provide us with this definition.

Over the past four years, as we know all too well, $65 billion of our money, and a significant chunk of the money that comes from Quebec, has been given to the greedy fossil fuel industry. Moreover, if we extrapolate the cost of the measures contained in this budget up to 2035, this greedy industry will end up with a cool $83 billion.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, which met yesterday to study the appropriations. We saw almost nothing for one of Quebec's most promising sectors, the forestry sector. We have been hit hard by forest fires in recent years, but there was almost nothing to support small forestry businesses that will have to deal with situations that are, all in all, quite disruptive.

In closing, I would be remiss if I failed to mention clean electricity and the fact that the federal government wants to meddle in Hydro-Québec's rates. Ottawa is trying to meddle in Hydro-Québec's rates by saying that if it wants the 15% tax credit, it will have to pass this money on in the form of a rate cut, when we know full well that the rates are set by a board in Quebec and that this is therefore completely out of the question. Moreover, Ottawa says that a certain proportion of the people working on Hydro-Québec projects will have to be Red Seal certified tradespeople.

That means that if Hydro-Québec wants the tax credit, it will have to let the federal government select the employees needed to build Hydro-Québec's new infrastructure. This is completely ridiculous, and I do not see why Hydro-Québec should put up with these requirements.

For all these reasons, we will be voting against Bill C-69, and I hope it is clear to my Conservative friends that the Bloc Québécois is not in a marriage of convenience with the Liberals. Practically no one in Quebec is buying this narrative, as far as I can tell. Maybe they should pipe down and stop spinning this line.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, my question for the member from the Bloc Québécois is this: How much extra hydro energy does Quebec have, and what does it do with the product?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I did not fully understand my colleague's question. I apologize.

I can simply say that Hydro‑Québec has never received support from the federal government to pay for its facilities, unlike the oil and gas companies who, for the past 25 years, have benefited from generous tax credits and completely unbridled support from the federal government.

As I said in my speech, these large oil and gas corporations are possibly the greediest players in Quebec society. In addition to polluting our lives and tarnishing our record on greenhouse gas emissions, they are making record profits while we continue to pay for them. This should concern my colleague far more than Hydro‑Québec.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, in Bill C‑69, there is, for example, the government's commitment—

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. I cannot hear myself speak.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I agree. I do not understand what is happening. The noise continues.

We will check to see what is happening.

The hon. member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, if more members across the way attended the debate instead of lingering in the lobby, that would be better.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The member knows that we cannot make mention of members who are present or not. The noise is currently coming from the opposition side.

The hon. member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, the bill includes a commitment to introduce dental care and pharmacare.

The Quebec nation, speaking unanimously through its national assembly, told Ottawa it did not want this. What we want is the right to opt out with full compensation. We will enhance our own programs ourselves based on our own priorities.

Can my colleague tell me how a member from Quebec could possibly ignore the unanimous voice of the Quebec nation, as expressed by its national assembly, and see what Ottawa is going to do as political progress?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is completely right and he answered his own question.

How can anyone ignore the wishes expressed by the Quebec National Assembly concerning pharmacare?

I heard my colleagues in the NDP say that the unions were on board. I would like to point out to my NDP colleagues that many unions belong to OUI Québec, a sovereignty group. I do not know whether my colleagues are willing to respect the unions' wishes on that issue and support Quebec independence.

I would be glad to hear an answer on this subject.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois recently supported the major federal subsidies to build electric battery plants.

Why is the Bloc Québécois supporting the federal government's expansion in the province of Quebec?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what my colleague is referring to, but there is one thing we will never support, and that is Conservative common sense. We will never support populism and overly simplistic thinking.

What I am seeing on social media right now is certain people posting half-truths in the hope that the staff at our riding offices will be flooded with calls from all sorts of cuckoo conspiracy theorists.

In my view, the Conservative Party is making this atmosphere of unbridled polarization even worse. We will never support that. That is for sure.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, one thing is clear to us in the NDP. Access to dental care for everyone is a priority for millions of Quebeckers. It is a priority for the four million Quebeckers who have no access to dental care right now because they do not have private or public coverage.

We said we were coming to Ottawa to fight for this. We made it happen. We delivered on our promises. It is starting to become a reality, and we are very proud of it.

With regard to the Conservative Party's populism, my colleague reminded me that the member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles is posting vicious attacks on social media and lumping members in with dangerous criminals. He is pointing people to the offices of Liberal and Bloc Québécois members. I think that behaviour is despicable, and I would like my colleague to talk about the fact that the Conservative Party is turning into the Canadian wing of Donald Trump's party.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, basically, it is very simple.

What I can tell the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles is that, if people in my riding office receive any threats, I will hold him personally responsible.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

Three weeks ago today, the government's Minister of Finance delivered Canada's budget for this fiscal year. Today we are debating the budget implementation bill. In the current Parliament, it has been titled Bill C-69. That is a vile title. The last Parliament that lasted long enough to get to 69 government bills was the 42nd Parliament, the Liberal government's first Parliament.

It has been downhill ever since. The Liberal government thrives on divide-and-conquer misinformation narratives in order to keep Canadians unfocused on how much worse this country's prospects have become after nine years of aimless management. I say “aimless” benevolently, as if the Prime Minister and his flock do not actually know the harm they are causing the economy and the country.

However, I worry that it is much worse. I worry that Canada being the first post-nation state means we dismantle all that Canada has stood for, all that Canadians value in their institutions and all that new Canadians strive to be part of as they seek to build a new life in this once great nation.

After nine years, we are far less than we have been. Our economy is the sick child of the G7. Our international standing in the world has suffered greatly. Our friends no longer see us as a dependable ally. Our military is limping along, and we continue to underfund our capabilities in what is clearly becoming a more dangerous, less secure world. The world is now seeing more conflict than it has seen since the end of the Second World War, almost 80 years ago.

The Liberal government remains oblivious to what is on the horizon, because it is content to navel gaze and mislead Canadians about where we actually stand in the world.

Bill C-69 still has a clang to it that has crystallized what has been misguided about the government from its outset. The last Bill C-69, from six years ago, was successfully challenged all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. There, finally, the constitutionally offensive parts of the legislation were overruled. However, that was a legal journey that took years.

It was as if it could not be foreseen and avoided. We had years of divisiveness in this country, of project delays and of holding back taxpaying sectors of Canada's economy while shovelling money out the door to well-connected insiders. We had years of economic destruction and of watching our closest competitors move forward in a rapidly changing world while Canada's opportunities were held back. We had years of the Liberal government feeding propagandists billions of taxpayer dollars to trumpet its recycled narrative, to no benefit for the country but much benefit to the pockets of connected insiders.

The previous Bill C-69 was a vile affront like no other, and this one can only pale in comparison.

Budget 2024, as delivered, was a 416-page document, with lots of back-patting and nonsensical narratives, plus a 74-page supplement. It was entitled, “Fairness for Every Generation.” What a great marketing slogan that is. Was the title because excessive overspending would affect every Canadian equally badly? I would caution that it is particularly bad for young Canadians, those who are being saddled with paying for the cost of $1.3 trillion of Canadian debt, which is growing with no end in sight.

How do we tell new Canadians or those entering the workforce, “Congratulations, you are now inheriting your share of debt for money thrown away by a spendy government that knew nothing about fiscal management”? It is $30,000 per head, in addition to the provincial debt that, in many cases, doubles that number; their mortgage debt, if they are lucky enough to own a home; and their student debt, consumer debt and auto debt payments. Is it any wonder that Canadians are considered some of the most indebted people in the world?

Many times, I have clearly stated in the House that the metric the government tries to use, the debt-to-GDP ratio, is neither comparatively useful nor, in fact, honest. It tries to re-collect the amounts that Canadians have had deducted from their paycheques specifically for their retirement, both in the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan. The government pretends that those amounts, over $800 billion, should be used as collateral for the government.

It does not work that way elsewhere, but the Liberal government is content to mislead Canadians so they can use this in their justification of showing financial prudence. It is dishonest.

If the government's backup plan for maintaining fiscal stability in the future is to take back, and I should say “steal back”, the funds Canadians believe belong to them, independently managed for their retirement, then tell that to them directly. The Minister of Finance should directly say, “Canadian workers, all pension earnings are our collateral, used to capitalize our overspending.”

This budget implementation act that we are debating takes what was in that nearly 490 pages of budget information and puts it into legislative format, 660 pages of legislative changes to be addressed, debated and voted upon, an omnibus bill. It would be interesting if it had much to do with the budget, but as always, it is a mishmash of legislative changes, much of which have absolutely nothing to do with the 490 pages presented in the House of Commons three weeks ago.

I was really looking for the parts of it that were relevant to young Canadians who are trying to buy a home or who are trying to rent a home in a rising housing market with stagnant salaries, while inflation is making their purchasing power for food, rent, clothing, heat, light, education and the basics more challenging.

The budget was presented with much fanfare. It is called “Fairness for Every Generation”. The government seized on the problem being felt most acutely by Canadians, particularly young Canadians, and presented an array of programming to address the real issue of housing, the inability to house Canadians.

The cost of buying a house has doubled under the government's watch. The cost of renting a home has doubled under the government's watch. Has take-home pay doubled? Absolutely not. As a result, the ratio of housing prices and rent to income has doubled in these past nine years. Housing is not just twice as expensive. The ability to fund one's home now takes twice the percentage of one's take-home pay.

Canada's economy has withered in relation to our peers. Nothing gets done in this country unless the government writes someone a cheque to do it: “Please, set up business here with taxpayer money.” It will pay $4 million to $5 million per job provided, as long as it is in the right area or what it thinks is the right industry, flavour-of-the-day stuff, chasing what everyone else is chasing, risky business, taxpayer-funded corporate welfare and funds that will never be recouped in the economy.

I counted the number of initiatives the government would take to alleviate housing concerns, the most resonant concern to the public. There were 53 measures to address housing: building, financing, mortgaging, targeting, bribing, pontificating. I then went through the 660-page bill, and I found two points that were relevant to housing.

The first is the increase to the homebuyers withdrawal plan limit from $35,000 to $60,000. I would like to see the size of that target market, a Canadian who has over $60,000 in their RSP and does not have a home. That is definitely not the financial makeup of the great majority of Canadians who have found themselves squeezed out of Canada's housing market.

The second measure allows the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to increase its mortgage default insurance limit from $750 billion to $800 billion. Remember, that $750 billion was temporarily increased from $600 billion in 2020 to deal with the effects of the pandemic, long passed. I suppose some temporary effects last longer than others.

This is $800 billion of risk that the government bears for mortgages in Canada. That is in addition to the almost $1.3 trillion in debt the Government of Canada owes money managers around the world or the $350 billion of liabilities at the Bank of Canada.

Canada's federal government debt payments now total $54 billion a year. That is more than the government spends on health care. That is more than Canadians pay through the GST.

The issue with housing is a cautionary tale. Housing should be a sound investment, one that holds its value over time, especially if the homeowner provides the proper upkeep, a store of value for years when incomes will be lower. It is a savings plan and it is a contrast to paying rent, where one's payments will always rise with inflation and the value accumulated is paid to someone else. Sometimes that makes sense, but most Canadians benefit from owning a home.

For the sake of young Canadians who hope to one day raise their families in homes like their parents did or like they anticipated when they moved to Canada, let me advise the government to listen to all of the voices that are telling it this, including the Bank of Canada governor: Get the budget balance back. Stop causing inflation. Let the economy grow, and stop punishing sectors that are not its chosen sectors.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, where does one start when one hears a speech of that nature? We can tell it is drafted by the Conservative Party of Canada as it tries to mislead Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Let us compare that speech to reality. One of the things I raised was the fact that Canada is number one in the world in terms of per capita direct investments. That means people around the world, corporations around the world, are looking at Canada as a place to invest.

Let us compare the Liberals to Stephen Harper. In 10 years, the Conservatives created under a million jobs. In less than 10 years, we have created over two million jobs. Trust me and get outside, because it is not as bad as the member tries to portray. Canada is not broken.

Why does the Conservative Party want to try to portray something that is not true? Canada is not broken.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will start where he finished. I do not think I used those words in my speech at all. However, I am a little offended. The member should know I write my own speeches. That was a speech, and he can come check on my computer, that was, word for word, written by me.

In effect, the Liberal government has destroyed the economy. Let us take a look at what he has put out as stats. There is no investment coming into this country without government assistance, which is in my speech. The government will give billions of dollars if one sets up a plant in Canada. How good is that for the Canadian economy? It replaces what used to be private sector money investing in Canada. That is now going elsewhere.

The Minister of Finance misled Canadians and misled this member when she said that Canada is attracting the most investment from around the world. Yes, some is coming in. Much more is leaving. On a net basis, we are doing very badly. I hope the member will look at that.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I only heard the last two minutes of my colleague’s speech, but I heard him talking about housing, and that piqued my interest. The Liberals have been investing in housing for the past several years. The problem is that the government is not really investing. It is investing, but in the wrong places. Its plan is not working.

It injected $82 billion into the major national housing strategy in 2017. In 2024, more than halfway through the strategy, we still need to build 5.8 million housing units. We know that the private sector alone will not do the job. Sooner or later, the government will have to invest or intervene in the market, in particular to build social housing.

All the Conservatives do is say that they will be making budget cuts and more budget cuts, but I have not heard them offer even a hint of a solution to the housing crisis since they started talking about the problem in the House.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, in the past, the answer to housing was to have a market for people who build homes and for the buyers and sellers of homes. It was not a problem until the current government came to power, but now they are saying that the government needs to do something to adjust house prices in Canada. Why is that?

I am sure that there is not enough social housing in Canada. That is a small problem in Canada. Consultants in Calgary are saying that 20% of the market needs social housing support. That is too much.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, it is great to hear intelligent speeches from the Conservatives. It is great to hear not all Conservatives take a “play bingo” approach to saying as many slogans as they can in their interventions, so I really appreciate that very much.

In 2022, the RBC, the Royal Bank, invested $41 billion in fossil fuels. In this time of climate change, would the member not agree it would be better to invest in renewable energies, in projects like the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link project, which would get Nunavut communities off dirty diesel and transitioned to more renewable energies? Would he not agree that what the government can do is make sure companies like the RBC are not subsidizing fossil fuels but transitioning to renewable energies for the betterment of earth, so we can combat climate change in a better way?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question was well stated. The issue with climate change and the issue with energy in Canada is that we need all kinds of energy. The energy sector is projected to grow by 160%, as far as the energy that Canadians are going to consume goes. We are going to need all forms: renewable energy, geothermal, solar and wind. However, we are going to need to continue to have that base load of hydro, nuclear and oil and gas in order to make our economy function and to make sure that Canadians have the basics of life that are required. It is the backbone—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge has the floor.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. I thank the hon. member from Calgary Centre for his remarks this afternoon as we debate Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, and the measures contained therein.

We have heard a lot of chatter today in the conversation about Canada's growth profile and where our economy is going, so let us talk about that and go down that path for a minute or two. First, in terms of the IMF forecasts that were released in April, about a week or two ago, Canada will be number two in growth in 2024 with a 1.2% growth rate forecast. For 2025, the economic growth forecast for Canada in the G7 is in the top spot, ahead of the United States, ahead of Germany and ahead of the U.K., France, Italy and Japan, at roughly 2.3%.

This is very important, because it means that we have fully recovered from COVID, which we know we have, and that our economy is growing. In terms of global inflation and high rates, I anticipate in the months ahead we will see some rate cuts from the Bank of Canada. That is my personal opinion of course. However, a lot of headwinds are past us. We know we have much work to do, but we are seeing now, from the IMF, from Moody's and even from the Bank of Canada governor, currently, what our prognostications are for the Canadian economy.

When we look at Canada's fiscal position, and I spoke about it in a debate a week or two ago, our fiscal deficit in Canada is just over 1% of GDP. When I compare that to other jurisdictions, including the United States, the United States is at 7%, China is at 6% and many of the European countries are at 4%, 5% or 6%, so at this point where we are in the economic cycle and the growth cycle, a deficit-to-GDP of around 1% is very prudent. It maintains our AAA credit rating, and it allows us to undertake strategic investments in Canadians because, as we know, confident governments invest in Canadians and invest in Canada. That is what our government has been doing.

I will read very quickly the comment from the Bank of Canada governor on May 2, 2024, to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, it says, “growth in the economy looks to be picking up. We expect GDP growth to be solid this year and to strengthen further in 2025.” He also noted that “Overall, we forecast GDP growth in Canada of 1.5% this year and about 2% in 2025 and 2026. The strengthening economy will gradually absorb excess supply through 2025 and into 2026.”

There are some further comments, in terms of interest rates: “I realize that what most Canadians want to know is when we are going to reduce our policy interest rate. The short answer is we are getting closer. We are seeing what we need to see. We just need to see it for longer to be confident that progress toward price stability will be sustained.”

These are very important remarks from the Bank of Canada governor. As many folks know, I did my graduate degree in economics at the University of Toronto. I worked in the financial markets for 20-plus years in Toronto and in New York City, and I understand this well. I have seen many cycles, including the 2008-09 crash, the real estate boom and the tech boom and bust when I worked in New York City, so I have gone through those experiences, understanding full well macroeconomic cycles and the microeconomic policies that underpin them. I know full well where the economy is going, and the Canadian economy is going in the right direction.

There is always work to do, but we are going in the right direction.

As many may know, for a number of years I spent some time at a rating agency. Moody's on May 2, and I printed off its release, affirmed Canada's AAA credit rating. It says, “Moody's view [is] that Canada's significant credit strengths will continue to preserve its Aaa-rated sovereign credit profile.” We are one of only three or four countries in the world that has a AAA credit rating from two agencies. The United States does not have a AAA credit rating from S&P, I believe. The report says this is “underpinned by its high economic strength and very strong institutions and governance.”

As I read further in the release, it says, “these factors provide Canada with a strong foundation for future growth and a very high degree of economic resiliency to potential shocks, supported by robust monetary, macroeconomic and fiscal policy frameworks”, which is stuff I like to read about a lot.

It further states:

In addition, Canada's credit profile has very limited susceptibility to event risks, supported by stable political institutions, a strong and well-regulated banking system, and reserve currency status which underscores the government's deep and unfettered market access.

The next part is very important, and I know the member for Calgary Centre will appreciate this. It reads, “At the same time, despite an initial sharp deterioration in the government's fiscal position from the pandemic”, and that is when when we were there for Canadians and had their backs and the backs of businesses to ensure we would come out strong and robust, “Canada's debt ratios have since materially improved and the government is pursuing a gradual path of medium-term fiscal consolidation that will mitigate the impact of higher global interest rates on debt affordability and the sovereign's overall fiscal strength.”

The individuals who write these reports and do the analysis know what they are doing. They do it on a relative basis. They know Canada's fiscal position in the world, our relative strength and our economic outlook, and it is robust. Yes, we have work to do. Yes, Canadians are and have felt the pressure of global inflation on their pocketbooks, absolutely, but we continue to make those investments that we know will make a positive impact on the standard of living and on the lives of people not only today but into the future.

Let us just talk about some of those investments.

The Canadian dental care program has over 8,000 dentists signed up from coast to coast to coast, and tens of thousands of Canadians have received benefits. If there was one program that the seniors in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge asked for these last eight years it was to implement a dental care program. When many Canadians retire, they do not carry benefits into their retirement years, such as dental benefits, and they are forced to pay out of pocket for private insurance. However, this program is a game-changer, and we will see the benefits of it for years to come. Dental care is health care.

We can look at the national early learning and child care strategy, a $30-billion investment over a number of years to bring down the cost child care to an average of $10 per day in province of Ontario, and I have the privilege to represent one of the ridings in that province. By September 2025, on average, we will see $10-a-day child care.

My family and I were blessed to have a child later on in our years. I have seen the savings that are being delivered to residents in the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and across Ontario. We are saving up to $8,500 a year in child care expenses, and these are before tax dollars. It is a real savings.

We introduced the Canada child benefit, which is lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. We are no longer sending cheques to millionaires. This benefit is monthly, tax-free to families. In my riding, it is about $80 million a year the last time I checked.

In terms of growing the economy, ensuring that we see inclusive economic growth so that Canadians from coast to coast to coast benefit from it, we lift all boats in a higher standard of living. We are seeing the investments in the auto sector, with over $46 billion of announced investments in a key sector of the economy, a key sector in manufacturing, in research and development, and in IP. It is happening.

We are partnering with the provincial government, we are getting it done. I look forward to attending more announcements, much like the Honda announcement, with $15 billion being announced in Ontario's economy for manufacturing plants. Thousands of jobs will be maintained. Thousands of jobs will be created. These are the stories we need to tell, because we know that in Canada the best years are ahead of us.

We know that Canadians need help with global inflation, but I am optimistic. We are on the right path. We are on a path to maintain our standard of living and to raise it, and to ensure that all our kids, including my three daughters, have a bright and prosperous future in this beautiful country we are blessed to call home.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do agree with one thing my colleague said at the end of his speech, which is that Canada's best years are ahead of it. Unfortunately, it has to wait almost two years before it actually gets to that stage when we are going to get a better government and a better country going forward.

However, I will challenge the member, because he talks about how robust the economy is in Canada. CMHC, the government's housing agency, along with the Royal Bank of Canada, has said that less housing is going to be developed next year than this past year and the year before that. In effect, there will be less houses built since 2021-22. The number one problem in Canada right now is getting housing for Canadians, and yet we are not building them.

Could the member tell me why? Despite the fact that the government is shovelling money into the housing sector, we are still not building housing; there are no results. Does the member have any answer for that when he talks about the economy?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will try not to make this partisan. I want to provide some substantive answers to the member's question.

Our government has stepped forward and is working with municipalities directly. The $4-billion housing accelerator fund will see 750,000 homes pulled forward in construction. We made a $50-million investment in the city of Vaughan, which I have the privilege of representing as one of the members. In the coming weeks, I look forward to being with the mayor and council, and breaking ground in infrastructure investments and accelerating building of high-rises, more density along key transportation routes, and our $6-billion program to assist the cities with direct infrastructure funding.

We do need to make changes on development charges. We see that cities have become very addicted to development charges. It is an impediment to getting things built. We need to change that and we will help change that. We are stepping forward and in the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to give other members an opportunity to ask questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague just mentioned the federal housing accelerator fund. It is hilarious that the Liberal government had the gall to call it that. It took two years to make an announcement in Quebec under that program. There is not even a mention of anyone who actually moved into those units.

In the past year, I toured Quebec to talk to people about housing. People talked to me about a lot of things. Right now, municipalities are building housing units, managing zoning and issuing permits. Quebec and the federal government both have housing programs. Everyone told me that there are too many people involved in housing. We need to streamline the process.

The federal government has fiscal capacity. It could quickly sign cheques and send them to Quebec for social housing, but no, it continues to interfere and negotiate. With this budget, we will have housing in four, five, even eight years.

Is my colleague not just a little ashamed to call a program the housing accelerator fund when it is the Liberals who are delaying everything?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, the housing crisis is a problem not just in our country, but in many countries, including the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom.

The housing supply issue is one that all governments around the world are addressing, because they all face the same pressures. We are working with those provinces that wish to work with collaboratively, in this case, La Belle Province. In other areas where the governments are not as collaborative, we will work directly with municipalities and ensure they get their money in the ground and also build those homes that Canadians want to live in, to create a future for themselves and their family and to create those memories they wish to have.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to read a quote from Carla Lewis. She is the chair of the First Peoples' Cultural Council in British Columbia. She cites:

Generations of oppressive and assimilationist federal and provincial policies have aimed to wipe out First Nations languages. Through dedication and hard work, our people have fought for language rights to keep our languages alive. But many of our languages have few speakers left and most fluent speakers are elderly. Our languages hold our culture, history and ways of being. We can’t over-emphasize the urgency of the situation...

She is referring to the fact that last year the FPCC received $43.3 million in federal funding. This year in the budget, it is expected to receive only half of the funding. This is putting language learning at risk, despite the fact that we have seen a 20% increase in the number of people who are learning their language. It is also following the federal Indigenous Languages Act, Bill C-91, which Tla-o-qui-aht—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I need to give the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodridge an opportunity to answer the question.

The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodridge.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni for raising very important this issue. We know the heritage and language of any cultural group is at the grassroots of maintaining it and we need to ensure it is flourishing. We know the relationship with indigenous peoples is the most important relationship we have as a government. We need to continue to put in place policies that continue down the path of reconciliation, one of them being supporting indigenous peoples' language and culture the best that we can.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I will be splitting my time with the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

Before I start my speech, I would like to send happy birthday wishes to my best friend, Christa Kunuk in Iqaluit. I miss her dearly. I cannot wait to see her when I get home for the riding week.

I rise on behalf of Nunavut with what feels like the weight of the world on my shoulders. This weight significantly increased when, on April 16 in her budget speech, the Minister of Finance did not mention any of the following terms: Inuit, first nations, Métis, indigenous peoples. Not evening the word “reconciliation” was in the budget speech. I think of the number of indigenous peoples who must have felt invisible on April 16.

I remind all indigenous peoples what they voted for when they voted Liberal. According to the Liberal website, these are the promises that were made by the Liberals to indigenous people:

Let’s keep moving forward on real reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. Let’s come together to fight systemic racism. Let’s find the real solutions to the real problems we face. Let’s build a better future that gives everyone a real and fair chance at success.

On reconciliation, the Liberals promised the following: to confront the legacy of residential schools; to continue to work to eliminate all clean long-term drinking water advisories; action to confront systemic racism against indigenous peoples, especially in the justice system and health care system; to launch an urban, rural and northern housing strategy; and to protect the well-being of indigenous children and families.

The budget proposes more than $52.9 billion in new spending over the next five years. How much of the new funding will go toward the invisible? This is not entirely clear, as the budget repeated many of the commitments that were made in the past. Much of what was in budget 2024 for indigenous peoples was a recommitment of past promises.

For example, the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link project announced in the 2024 budget was not new funding. I was corrected by Nukik Corporation when I mentioned in the media that I was happy to see the new investment in Nunavut. Nukik Corporation told me that those funds were announced back in 2019. The Liberal government has been making promises for five years. For five years, the Kivalliq have been given lip service.

During this time of severe climate change, the Liberals were provided a viable solution that could work in parts of Nunavut. During this time of climate change, the Liberals were given a chance to have Nunavut communities transition off of dirty diesel. On this solvable issue, what did the Liberals do? They made promises.

When will the Liberal government finally listen to Inuit, to first nations and, indeed, to the Premier of Manitoba, Wab Kinew, who supports this project? When will the Liberal government go from lip service to acting on its promises?

I take this opportunity to remind Canadians that if there is any party that is fighting for indigenous peoples, it is the NDP, not the Liberals and certainly not the Conservatives. The Conservatives would make cuts. I know this because when Nunavut had a Conservative MP, when Nunavut had the same MP serve as a minister in the Conservative cabinet, that government cut the much-needed Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

I strongly believe that making this cut resulted in ongoing mental health issues and substance abuse, which are pervasive in indigenous communities. Former residential school students who were progressing in their healing were suddenly abandoned when the funding to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation was cut. The cuts resulted in intergenerational trauma continuing to be a part of our lives today.

Too many Inuit, first nations and Métis experience hurdles to achieving the same quality of life as the rest of Canadians. Neither Conservatives nor Liberals are committed enough to ensure that indigenous peoples can heal. They are not committed enough to ensuring that indigenous peoples can progress in their healing so that talk of intergenerational trauma could be a thing of the past.

It is the NDP who is willing to make the passing on of intergenerational trauma a conversation of the past. It is because of our work, as the NDP, that this budget will make a difference for indigenous peoples. We started out with 25 MPs, and now we have 24 great MPs who are fighting for indigenous peoples. It is the NDP who hears, listens and amplifies the priorities and solutions that indigenous peoples offer to Canada. It is indigenous peoples who tell us their realities, and it is the NDP who fights for them.

We have been told by the Assembly of First Nations that the housing and infrastructure gap is huge. For 2024-25 alone, it is estimated that $15.197 billion is needed for housing, $1.4 billion for education and $6.6 billion for infrastructure. We were told by the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami that the infrastructure gap has reached $75 billion across Inuit Nunangat.

I take this opportunity to thank my colleague and friend Daniel Blaikie, who was the member for Elmwood—Transcona. It was through his leadership and efforts as the finance critic that he showed great leadership. He collaborated with our NDP caucus. He pushed the liberals to ensure that the supply and confidence agreement would mean more results for indigenous peoples and Canadians.

New Democrats fought for indigenous people and secured funding for a red dress alert and for searching the Prairie Green Landfill, which the NDP MP for Winnipeg Centre has been calling for, and increased investments in the harvesters support program, which the Liberal government was going to sunset, despite its success. I will remind members that this program is run through the nutrition north program, which gives millions in subsidies to for-profit companies such as the North West Company.

We also fought for and secured $145 million to develop greater climate resiliency and to deploy mitigation strategies that protect communities, and we secured support for indigenous policing projects and a commitment to introduce first nations policing legislation. It was the NDP who extended Jordan's principle.

It will be the NDP who ensures that indigenous peoples have the investments they need to thrive.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the struggles of the people in the north. I wonder if my colleague could expand on what the need for housing is there and how this budget misses the mark.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I will talk about the urban, rural and northern housing initiative because that is something the NDP worked really hard for. That funding would help make sure indigenous peoples have a say in what housing will be for first nations, Métis and Inuit communities.

Without that $4 billion, which we were able to fight for, indigenous children will be going to school tired because they are sleeping in overcrowded housing situations. They will be going to school with more health issues because of the mouldy conditions in their houses. Overcrowded housing results in increases in tuberculosis and other respiratory health issues. Therefore, making sure that we secure that $4 billion over seven years is very important.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government is making us—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give the same amount of time for questions and answers, if possible.

The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, at the NDP's instigation, the Liberals have often overstepped jurisdictional bounds. Now it looks like excess tax revenue will once again be used to overstep those bounds, including in areas such as housing.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Would it not be better for the federal government to fulfill its own responsibilities in its own jurisdictions and send the provinces the money they are entitled to so they can tackle the housing crisis efficiently and effectively?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I think that Canada and the provinces are all settlers on indigenous peoples' lands, and all provinces and territories should always be working with indigenous nations.

I know that the housing crisis in Nunavik and northern Quebec is as severe as it is in Nunavut, and I hope that provinces, like Quebec, will work better to ensure that indigenous peoples are getting the housing they deserve.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, when my hon. colleague and friend from Nunavut speaks, she shames us all.

My partisan instinct might be to jump up and say, but I am from the Green Party. I want to be a good ally more than I want to make empty claims. I want to be there, as we all do, along with my colleague from Kitchener Centre, to stand up when it matters, to insist that we do more than use “land back” hashtags and that we actually pursue land back as a key step in reconciliation. We have to recognize that decolonializing this country is the project that would save settler culture people.

We have to fight together to create a fair country, and it is an honour to work in the same place as the hon. member for Nunavut.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I thank the member for her allyship. I always appreciate it very much.

Because there are too few indigenous members of Parliament, we are always first to ensure that we can work with any ally who is willing to advance indigenous peoples' rights.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member can give her thoughts regarding the NDP's position on the price of pollution. Does the member feel that the NDP is still in favour of having the carbon tax and rebate system that we currently have?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the kinds of questions I get sometimes, from either the Conservatives or the Liberals, on partisan issues like that are really quite unfortunate.

I know that, for example, subsidizing major for-profit corporations is not something the Liberal government should continue to proceed with when there are too many indigenous peoples living in poverty and too many Canadians experiencing homelessness because of the opioid crisis. There are much better ways to make sure we are all doing better to address a lot of these issues.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, it turns out that budgets do not balance themselves. After nine years of the Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberal government, they are zero for nine, as they are not even coming close to balancing the books here in Ottawa. Not only has the government not balanced the budget at all, but it has also doubled our national debt to $1.3 trillion and counting, with $43 billion alone being added in the deficit to our national debt this year. That is in just one fiscal year.

The budget is big, a document that is a couple of inches thick. One can go back to look at the charts to see if the Liberals ever plan to balance the budget. The answer is no. There is no date, no year and no circumstance that the Liberals and NDP have proposed to balance the budget. The worst part is that there are tons of broken promises that they have made, which they have yet to fulfill, that will only result in more spending, driving our deficit up even further in this country.

This is important in talking about the budget because balanced budgets have been a part of the common-sense Canadian consensus in this country for generations, for nearly the entire history of our country. There has been an idea that deficits are the exception, not the norm. Deficits were timely, targeted and temporary. Previous Liberal and Conservative governments, for the most part, over the years, followed that line of thought. Instead, we now have permanent and painful deficits hurting our country year after year, with no end in sight. Back in the day, when I was a mayor in rural eastern Ontario, the same principle and expression applied. It was easy to tell people what we would spend money on. The hard part was how to pay for it.

What we see here are never-ending deficits, with budgets that do not balance, along with endless tax hikes, whether it is the carbon tax, being the main point, the excise tax or numerous other examples of the Liberals and NDP being more than happy to add to the tax burden, particularly at a time when Canadians can least afford it. After nine years, they still use the same tired lines when it comes to their budgets. They say the wealthy will pay, that the rich will pay for all these new things. After nine years, they are still not getting that average Canadians are moderate to low-income families that are struggling to get by. They are seeing the carbon tax and the excise tax being added for them, for example, and they are seeing the value of their paycheques becoming less and less powerful the longer and longer the Prime Minister remains.

Deficits matter as well because they require money printing. This is half a trillion dollars by the Bank of Canada. The Prime Minister, in his nine years, has doubled our national debt, more than every other prime minister combined in our country's history. They are still not even close, being $40 billion off from getting the budget to be balanced. There is now more money being printed, and it is chasing fewer goods, which is resulting in record inflation that has not been seen in at least 40 years.

The Prime Minister has said not to worry as interest rates are low and it is not a big deal. Again, all that extra money printing has led to inflation. Canadian households have been hurt very badly by this with skyrocketing mortgages and rents. Interest rates have been driven up by this out-of-control inflationary spending. Food prices are increasing continually at levels that are unsustainable.

For the average Canadian in this country, at a time when the benchmark is that people should not be spending more than 30% of their household income on shelter, people are spending over double that. Over 60% of Canadian household income is now going just to putting a roof over their heads, before they buy food, put gas in their car or do anything else, just to make ends meet. Not only has all of this inflationary spending and the interest rates and mortgage rates that have increased hurt Canadian households, they have done a bad number on the finances of the federal government as well this year. Despite the financing of all this massive new debt with interest and mortgage rates all going up, the Prime Minister did not seem to think it was a big deal. The government planned to borrow the money when interest rates were low.

Since rates have gone up, as all this borrowed money and refinancing has renewed, we have seen an astronomical increase in the interest on debt-servicing costs alone. We spent $54 billion, not to pay down the national debt in any way, but just to pay the interest on the $1.2 trillion to $1.3 trillion in national debt that we have. We spend more now on those interest payments than we do on health care transfers. We are giving money to bankers and bondholders, as opposed to more money to doctors, nurses, hospitals and long-term care.

The solution is simple, and it is common sense. It is a dollar-for-dollar rule. Conservatives have said that for every new dollar of spending in a Conservative government, we would find a dollar of savings. That is not some wild, radical idea. Look no further than to the U.S. It was Bill Clinton, a Democrat, then president of the United States, and Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House of Representatives, who negotiated that deal. As a matter of fact, that same dollar-for-dollar rule was the last time the budget in the United States was balanced. It shows that it can be done here and, more important than anything, that we have to get our finances under control.

After nine years of the Prime Minister, the more he spends, the worse it gets. The more he spends, the higher our debt, our deficits, our interest payments and the burden, not only today but also on future generations.

I want to talk about the carbon tax. The carbon tax is the number one issue I hear in my travels throughout Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry and Cornwall. In this budget, the Liberals and the NDP keep their plan to be completely out of touch, extreme when it comes to their approach on the carbon tax. They are happy with where it is right now, which is about 18¢ a litre on the price of gas and 21¢ a litre on the price of diesel, and they want to quadruple it in the coming years, as part of their plan.

Here is the quick summary of exactly how they are going to do that. They never come out and tell Canadians the way that it is going to be and that it is going to be 61¢. We have to piece it together as they try to do the shell game and hide all of it. There is carbon tax number one, and again, as we all know, farmers will be paying $1 billion on their natural gas and propane in the coming years, just on that, with no rebates. Trucking companies that ship food, goods and services get no rebates. Small businesses get no rebates.

There is no confidence whatsoever. The Liberals have been talking for years about offering rebates, and they will continue. There is no detail and no plan to actually do that.

At the end of the day, those rebates are phony, because the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that just on that first carbon tax, eight out of 10 families are going to be, or are, paying more in carbon tax. For example, an Ontario family is going to pay hundreds of dollars, $478, by the time we look at everything, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

That is the first carbon tax.

The second carbon tax is a fuel standard that the Parliamentary Budget Officer says is going to add 17¢ a litre in the coming years. There are zero rebates for anyone, anywhere on that.

If it is not out of touch enough to have carbon tax one at 37¢ and carbon tax two at 17¢, coming in, then how out of touch, tax hungry and tax-increase obsessed are the Liberals and the NDP if they are going to tax the tax? They are going to tax the tax by continuing to put the HST on all those other carbon tax increases to get to 61¢ a litre.

I got a letter recently from the Army, Navy and Air Force Club in Cornwall. Do members know who also does not get a rebate? Community halls and community centres. They sent me their natural gas bill for just one month this winter. The carbon tax and the HST on it was $275 of an $1,100 bill, just to service that. Those are halls, community centres and legions that are paying a carbon tax with zero rebates, further driving up their costs, for just a simple not-for-profit cause in our community.

I want to address the NDP, as we always do, and the budget. If there was only something they could do about it. We hear them in question period. We hear them in the budget debate. They complain about all the terrible things the Liberals are not doing, saying that they promised something in the budget and that they never delivered. They talk tough. The leader of the NDP made a speech a couple of weeks ago, saying that he was not in favour of the carbon tax anymore. Then, he flip-flopped and said that he was again. He flip-flopped on his flip-flop, if members are keeping track. The NDP talk tough in question period. When the first vote on the budget was called here within the last week, once again, the NDP propped up the Liberals. There were no questions asked. It is just the way it is.

It is time to call a carbon tax election so that Canadians can have their say on the future of this country. I have zero confidence, after nine years, in the Prime Minister to manage our country.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member a question about the unbelievable fiscal management the Conservative Party thinks it has. He talked about nine years a few times, with nine years this and nine years that. The party in power before us, for nine straight years, ran a deficit. That is a fact. The Conservatives ran a deficit. Yes, they balanced the budget in the 10th year because they put some GM stocks and an EI rainy day fund in the pot to balance the budget, but they ran a deficit for nine straight years. That is a fact.

How can the member opposite justify saying that the Liberals are so bad running deficits through COVID, and other things, when the party that was in power before us ran one for nine straight years?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, after nine years, it does matter. The member passively mentioned they have only been in office for the last nine years, as if suddenly now there is something the Liberals can do about fixing the mess our country is in. As a matter of fact, they are the ones who caused the mess in the first place. In that casual little nine years he talked about, they have doubled our national debt. They have doubled housing prices, and they have sent millions more Canadians to food banks each and every year. They have been taking more of people's paycheques, when they have been trying to stretch it out. Inflation has been at a 40-year high. Everything the Liberals have touched in that nine years has been a disaster. They try to forget about their record, but trust me; we are going to hold them to it.

Conservatives did balance the budget. We had a plan to balance the budget, and that has been the common-sense Canadian consensus for years. We are going to keep doing the same to bring down inflation, to control spending and to stop the out of touch and just reckless financial approach the Liberals have had for far too long.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague indeed is correct. We are going to support the budget. However, it is in the context of the fact that we forced the Liberals to live up to some long fought for policy positions, like a national school food nutrition program, funding for dental care and funding for pharmacare. We have accomplished a lot in this Parliament, including anti-scab legislation. I am prepared to go on that record.

What have the Conservatives done in this Parliament, except rage farming, sowing division and complaining all the time? They have zero to talk about when they go to the next election. I am well prepared to hold up our record as the fourth party in this place, compared to the official opposition.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a perfect example of the NDP talking a big tough game. I cannot wait for the next election. Stop propping the Liberals up and call the election. Let Canadians decide then about the direction of this country, but no, NDP members are going to prop the Liberals up. The NDP and that member from Vancouver Island know that the idea of quadrupling the carbon tax in the coming years and that the chaos, the drugs and the disorder from their failed legalization of hard drugs in public spaces have been abject failures.

The NDP members talk about all the things they deliver, and then in their budget speeches, they complain about the Liberals never following through. Let us just dissolve Parliament, have a carbon tax election, and let us see if that member will even come back.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity]

Madam Speaker, on April 16, we tabled budget 2024. The budget promotes a fair and inclusive economy, an economy for every generation.

Pierrefonds—Dollard is a diverse riding, and as parliamentary secretary for diversity, inclusion and persons with disabilities, I am committed to advancing initiatives that promote inclusivity for all Canadians.

Today I will talk about the impact of the budget on my riding.

I will present how the budget promotes diversity and inclusion, how it addresses housing shortages and how it upholds international and humanitarian economic development.

The budget contributes to lowering the cost of living. Canada has a housing shortage. Our young people are also having a hard time buying a home. We are taking significant measures to address that. We are making housing more affordable for everyone. Budget 2024 seeks to use public lands.

We would create over three million new homes by 2031, and 250,000 of them would be on public property. In my own riding of Pierrefonds—Dollard, our government recently announced that we are building 393 homes or apartments by having a low-cost loan of $165 million. Those 393 homes represent a 1% increase in housing to the riding of Pierrefonds—Dollard. That is very important to address the housing crisis.

I want to say that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Whitby.

Economists suggest that Canadians should not spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs. We are tackling this housing crisis. Since 2015, nearly two million Canadians have found homes through federal initiatives. This is important. Our government is addressing this issue.

Also, on inclusive mortgages, the well-being of Canadians is important. It is critical to our government. We are doing two key initiatives to this effect.

The first is an inclusive and interest-free mortgage program. This program would allow Canadians of all backgrounds to enter the housing market. In particular, those of Muslim faith would have the chance to enter the market, whereas some did not in the past. This initiative would be open to all Canadians, regardless of background. It does look at the way in which mortgages are constructed to make it more inclusive. It is an important initiative in budget 2024.

We are also dealing with the security infrastructure program, also known as SIP. Our country has vivre-ensemble. We live well together. We have people from all backgrounds and from all faiths. However, unfortunately, there is hate and discrimination, which sometimes leads to violence toward property. That is why our government has the security infrastructure program, which protects synagogues, mosques and different community centres, including churches and other institutions.

This is, again, being financed within budget 2024 and would help to promote vivre-ensemble, to promote togetherness and to protect the security of all Canadians.

Budget 2024 also addresses diversity and inclusion. In particular, we have $273 million, over six years, which would go to Canada's action plan to combat hate. This would directly support community outreach. It would address discrimination also. These investments are important to social cohesion. They promote equity within society. This new legislation would dismantle barriers and would promotes togetherness.

Budget 2024 also announces a national food program. Over $1 billion, during five years, would help families in need. It would put food on the table. I remember, as a young person going to elementary school, I would receive a small milk carton. That was an aspect of a food program. We are committed to ensuring that all children, regardless of income, have food in their bellies so that they can learn well.

This program, the national food program, would help 400,000 children to have food in their stomachs. It would help a family with two children to get groceries, which represents $800 per year.

We also have the pharmacare initiative in budget 2024, which is critical. It would allocate $1.5 billion over the next five years to help people with diabetes pay for that medication and to help women who choose to use contraceptives to be able to have them. Those are important initiatives that our government is introducing.

Flooding also impacts my riding of Pierrefonds—Dollard. In 2017, we had devastating floods that ravaged our communities and that harmed families, and people lost their life savings.

Again, in 2019, we had flooding, unfortunately. This budget would help to address those concerns. In particular, we are offering a low-cost national flood insurance program. This would help 1.5 million homeowners be insured into the future. This is important, not only for my riding, but also for many communities that face flooding across the country.

I would like to give a shout-out to the Mayor of L'Île-Bizard—Sainte-Geneviève, Doug Hurley, and also to the Mayor of Pierrefonds-Roxboro, Jim Beis, for the important work they do to protect residents from flooding.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to lend my voice today in support of Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, 2024. This budget is about what kind of country we want to live in and what kind of country we want to build together.

For generations, Canada has been a place where everyone could secure a better future for themselves and their children, and where a growing economy created opportunities for everyone to succeed. However, to ensure every Canadian succeeds in the 21st century, we know that we must grow our economy to make it more innovative, productive and sustainable. We must build an economy where every Canadian can reach their full potential, where every entrepreneur has the tools needed to grow their business and where hard work pays off.

Building the economy of the future is about creating jobs in the knowledge economy, in manufacturing, in mining and forestry, in the trades, in clean energy and across the economy in all regions of the country. To do this, our government's economic plan is investing in the technologies, incentives and supports critical to increasing productivity, fostering innovation and attracting more private investment to Canada. This is how we will build an economy that unlocks new pathways for every generation to earn their fair share. Bill C-69 is a crucial step in opening up these new pathways.

Bill C-69 takes us forward on the understanding that, in the 21st century, a competitive economy is a clean economy. There is no greater proof than the 2.4 trillion dollars' worth of investment made around the world last year alone in the transition to net-zero economies. Experts say we are at a global inflection point, with clean energy investments surpassing investments in conventional energy, with the cost of renewable technology dropping significantly, including wind, solar and heat pumps, as technology advancements are made and deployed at scale, and with companies that outperform their peers in decarbonizing more competitive and yielding higher returns for stakeholders.

As the big anchor investment decisions around the globe are being made to secure the global supply chains for the emerging clean economy, we need to ensure Canada is best positioned to compete and lead the way by seizing the massive opportunities to attract investment and generate economic growth that will bring decades of prosperity. That is why our government is putting Canada at the forefront of the global race to attract investment and seize the opportunities of the clean economy with a net-zero economic plan that will invest over $160 billion to maintain and extend our lead in this global race.

The cornerstone of our plan is an unprecedented suite of major economic investment tax credits, which will help attract investment through $93 billion in incentives by the year 2034-35. That includes carbon capture, utilization and storage, the clean technology investment tax credit, the clean hydrogen investment tax credit, the clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit, clean electricity and, added in budget 2024, an EV supply chain investment tax credit. These investment tax credits will provide businesses and other investors with the certainty they need to invest and build here in Canada. They are already attracting major job-creating projects, ensuring we remain globally competitive.

For example, just a couple of weeks ago, I attended the announcement in Alliston, Ontario, where Honda made the largest investment in Canadian automotive history, investing over $15 billion. This is a huge vote of confidence in our economy. Out of all the countries in the world, Honda chose Canada to build its comprehensive, end-to-end EV supply chain, which will mean thousands of good-paying jobs for decades to come. The federal investment tax credits were essential in remaining competitive and securing that generational investment. From new clean electricity projects that will provide clean and affordable energy to Canadian homes and businesses to carbon capture projects that will decarbonize heavy industry, our major economic investment tax credits are moving Canada forward on its track to achieve a net-zero economy by 2050.

In November 2023, our government introduced Bill C-59 to deliver the first two investment tax credits and provide businesses with the certainty they need to make investment decisions in Canada today. That bill also included labour requirements to ensure workers are paid prevailing union wages and apprentices have opportunities to gain experience and succeed in the workforce.

With Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, 2024, we would be making two more of these major economic investment tax credits a reality to attract more private investment, create more well-paying jobs and grow the economy.

First, it would implement the 30% clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit, which would be available as of January 1, 2024. This is a refundable investment tax credit for clean technology manufacturing and processing, and extraction and processing of key critical minerals equal to 30% of the capital cost of eligible property associated with eligible activities.

Investments by corporations in certain depreciable property that is used for eligible activities would qualify for the credit. Eligible property would generally include machinery and equipment used in manufacturing, processing or critical mineral extraction, as well as related control systems.

Eligible investments would cover activities that will be key to securing our future, including things like the manufacture of certain renewable energy equipment like solar, wind, water or geothermal. It would cover the manufacturing of nuclear energy equipment and electrical energy storage equipment used to provide grid-scale storage. It would cover the manufacturing of equipment for air and ground storage heat pump systems; the manufacturing of zero-emission vehicles, including the conversion of on-road vehicles; as well as the manufacturing of batteries, fuel cells, recharging systems and hydrogen refuelling stations for zero-emision vehicles, not to mention the manufacturing of equipment used to produce hydrogen from electrolysis. These are the technologies that will power our future.

Bill C-69's clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit would power the investment that is needed to build them today and build them here at home.

The bill would also make the clean hydrogen investment tax credit a reality, which would exclusively support investments in projects that produce clean hydrogen through eligible production pathways. This refundable tax credit would be available as of March 28, 2023, and could be claimed when eligible equipment becomes available for use at an applicable credit rate that is based on the carbon intensity of the hydrogen that is produced.

Eligible equipment could include, but is not limited to, the equipment required to produce hydrogen from electrolysis of water, including electrolyzers, rectifiers and other ancillary electrical equipment; water treatment and conditioning equipment; and certain equipment used for hydrogen compression and storage. Certain equipment required to produce hydrogen from natural gas or other eligible hydrocarbons, with emissions abated using carbon capture, utilization and storage, would also be eligible. Property that is required to convert clean hydrogen to clean ammonia may also be eligible for the credit, subject to certain conditions, at a credit rate of 15%.

It is important to realize that these clean economy investment tax credits work to incentivize investment and remain competitive but also do not stand alone. They are just part of the tool box that also includes legislation like the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act; the Canadian sustainable jobs act and amendments to CEPA, which is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; regulations like the clean fuel regulations, the carbon pricing and oil and gas emissions cap; programs like the strategic innovation fund and many others; and the blended finance utilities that the government has launched, including the Canada growth fund and the Canada Infrastructure Bank. These all work together, and that is why we are seeing the results we are seeing.

Bill C-69's support for these investments comes at a pivotal moment when we can choose to renew and redouble our investments in the economy of the future, to build an economy that is more productive and more competitive, or risk leaving an entire generation behind.

With Bill C-69, we would not make that mistake. Our major economic investment tax credits are moving Canada forward on its track to achieve a net-zero economy by 2050. I could not be more proud of our work in this area.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, if one were to listen to the hon. member, one could not help but think that Canadians have never had it so good, but what we are seeing, and one just has to scan the headlines to see it, is that Canada's productivity is lagging. It has reached crisis levels. Productivity will take years to remedy. Weak productivity is threatening Canada's postpandemic recovery, and this has a direct impact.

Lagging productivity is a threat to Canadian living standards. There is a lack of investment, a lack of capital, fleeing capital and fleeing investment. Wages are not keeping up. Just last week the finance minister announced the government would increase the debt ceiling by another $295 billion, adding to the interest that needs to be paid on the debt for future generations. That is going to have an impact.

I do not know how that member can stand there to say that the Liberals are doing everything right, when all of the indicators are that they are doing everything wrong.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, obviously, I disagree wholeheartedly with the member's characterization of what the government is currently doing. We have landed massive investments in the EV supply chain. We are number three in the world in foreign direct investment. We have maintained a AAA credit rating.

The Bank of Canada governor was at the finance committee recently and said that the government's current budget has stuck to the fiscal guardrails that we have set out and will not be adding any fuel to the fire of inflation, which is good news for Canadians. These investment tax credits and other measures within the budget, including $2.4 billion for artificial intelligence, would help to bring in investment and increase productivity.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to supporting seniors, the government is nowhere to be found. I am still getting emails from seniors who do not understand why nothing was announced in the last budget. No, there was nothing for seniors.

This is about more than just dental care or pharmacare. That is not the answer I am looking for. Seniors also need more money in their pockets to get through this period of inflation, which affects them directly because they are on fixed incomes.

Why do the Liberals continue to insist on creating two classes of seniors? Why did they not use the budget as an opportunity to announce a 10% increase for seniors aged 65 to 74 as well?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, of course our government has a track record of supporting seniors right from day one, which was when we moved the age of retirement back from the Conservatives' 67 to 65. We made the largest contribution to the Canada pension plan. We have increased old age security for seniors over 75. We boosted the guaranteed income supplement.

This budget has measures that directly impact seniors. I was talking to a senior in my riding yesterday who was quite happy to hear about our housing plan, which will build more rental housing units. That was her main concern, and she was very happy to also hear that dental coverage would be offered to her and many of her friends, who do not currently have dental coverage. This will save seniors thousands of dollars in their denture costs and in oral health care in general.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know my friend across the way is a strong advocate for sustainable finance. A few days ago, reporter John Woodside of the National Observer tweeted, “An open-secret on the hill right now is that a key climate policy - the sustainable finance taxonomy - has been long delayed because of a feud between experts and [the Minister of Finance's] office. She wants fossil fuels included, experts want a credible taxonomy.”

Can the member confirm this rumour, and if so, can he explain to the House why the Minister of Finance is standing in the way of credible climate policy?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the member opposite and have worked with him on sustainable finance. I believe in a climate-aligned financial system. That is what our government has committed to. I mentioned many measures in my speech. There are many more to come.

The Sustainable Finance Action Council did exceptional work on developing a green transition taxonomy. Our government has clearly committed, both in this budget and in the fall economic statement, to assessing options and moving forward. I expect next steps will be forthcoming.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise today to speak to such an important piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that comes out of the concept of fairness and about creating opportunities for younger generations.

I am of generation X. The opportunities that I have had, quite honestly and quite frankly, are becoming more and more difficult for the generations after me, such as generation Z and millennials, to have. What members are seeing in this budget bill is about creating opportunities and creating fairness for those future generations. How do we do that?

There are different ways to approach government's responsibility to society. The approach that conservative, small-c conservative, governments typically tend to take is more of a libertarian-style approach of stepping away, letting the market run things, letting every person fend for themselves, letting every person either make it or not based strictly on their own capabilities, their own merits. However, there is also an opportunity for the government to be part of creating fairness, ensuring that systemic biases that exist in our systems, scenarios or environmental changes do not have a significant negative effect on future generations.

Quite frankly, that is the reality of where we are. I know that Conservatives will get up to say that this is all the fault of the government, that it is the government that brought in all of the policies that have created the circumstances of today, but nothing could be further from the truth.

We are seeing these circumstance throughout the world. Conservatives never talk about what is going on in the United States, in Europe or in other G7 countries because, if they were to do that, they would have to acknowledge the fact that Canada is positioned much better than some of our counterparts. It is small comfort to those who are going through particular hardships right now, but in terms of positioning ourselves, I would suggest that we are actually putting ourselves in a better position. We have a lower inflation rate than the United States, for example, which is our closest ally. By all measures, by all indications, it would appear that we are in a better position for the monetary policy of Canada, which is run by the Bank of Canada, to start using the tools that it has to lower interest rates.

I would argue that we are on the right course in getting our affairs in order to be able to provide fairness and opportunity for future generations. That is extremely important because I think there will be a lot of people out there who ask, “What about me? I worked hard. I did all of these things throughout my life. I did not get handouts. I did not get opportunities.” In particular, a lot of businesses or business owners would say that.

My reaction to that would be to not forget that, when one's economy does well, when one's middle class does well, when people are prosperous and, in particular, those who are coming up in age, such as millennials and gen Z, are doing well, everybody does better. The economy does better as a result. Businesses and wealthy people certainly do better when economies are in full gear and are significantly making an impact, realizing the opportunities that all generations participating in an economy have to benefit.

The next part I want to touch on is specifically with respect to providing opportunities for individuals with disabilities, to give them more opportunities to be in a better position to be able to contribute to our economy.

One of the really interesting things that I learned during my time as a municipal politician, when I sat on the accessibility committee for the City of Kingston, was that, when we talk about accessibility and about providing opportunities, I think a lot of people default to thinking of physical accessibility. They think about bringing down barriers to allow accessibility from a perspective of getting into a store, having the right-sized doorway, having a ramp for wheelchairs, etc.

However, accessibility quite often talks to economic accessibility. The reality is that, when we start to empower people and give them opportunities, we are unlocking new economic opportunity. For the disabled community in particular, not only are supports to be provided intended for the purpose of supporting individuals but also for giving them opportunities to participate in our economy so our economy can continue to grow and to flourish as a result.

I note there is, I would say, some somewhat valid criticism out there about the supports, particularly when it comes to the disability benefit, but I would counter that by saying that this is a starting point. This is the very first time in our nation's history that we have a program that is aimed specifically, from the federal level, at supporting disabled individuals throughout our country. We can build on it from this point. We can make it better. We can continue to strive for more and for better.

One of the things we are really worried about in this over $6-billion program throughout the country is making sure provinces do not take the opportunity with the disability benefit to say that the feds are giving $200 so they can claw back $200. It would never be as direct as that. Doug Ford in Ontario is not going to say that the feds are giving $200, so they are going to claw back. The way they would most likely do it is that they would freeze the supports and then they would let inflation slowly creep up and replace that $200.

We want to make sure provinces do not look at this as an opportunity to say that the feds are going to take care of this, so they can get out of the way and reduce their contribution, whether that is directly or, as I suggested, through inflation. There is work to be done there. I certainly will be an advocate to continue pushing because I believe, as I stated earlier, this is not just about providing for individuals who require supports more than others. It is also about unlocking economic opportunity as individuals have more opportunity to enter into our economy and to participate in our economy.

One of the programs in particular I was really glad to see in this piece of legislation, this budget bill, was a national school food program. I want to thank the countless number of schools throughout my community that put together petitions, individual petitions from each school, that called on the Minister of Finance to do this.

I want to give special kudos to Brenda in my community. I will not use her last name because I did not get approval to mention her full name, but I want to give special congratulations to Brenda for her work, for doing this and for going around to the schools.

When I called her to tell her about this, Brenda told me a story. When the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister made that announcement, I immediately called Brenda and, “Brenda, you now know your advocacy was worth something and it mattered.” She said that she was so glad to have the opportunity to talk to me about this because she would go to schools and some of the schools would ask her why she was even doing this. They would say that this was never going to matter and these petitions were not going to matter. However, they do. The voices in our communities matter.

I want to thank Brenda for the advocacy she did, going around to every school in the Kingston area to get these petitions together so I could then come here to present them. I know in one small way people using their voices to be heard affected the outcome of this. I send Brenda congratulations for all the incredible work she did in making sure our community's voices, when it came to developing a national school food program, were being heard. As a result, we are now presenting this program, which I know we would be able to build on in the years to come that will genuinely help kids get the best possible start every single day they go to school.

I told this story before in the House, and I will tell it again. In Kingston, we have the Food Sharing Project, and this is Andy Mills and a bunch of other people who have been doing this on a volunteer, not-for-profit basis. There are a lot of volunteers with a very low budget. They have been finding deals on food and bringing all the food together in a small warehouse in an old industrial part of Kingston, organizing all the packages and sending them out to the schools on a daily basis, literally on a shoestring budget. They have been doing this for decades.

I went to the warehouse with my family. We were invited on a tour. I said that I would bring my family one morning, and we could help pack all the boxes of food that would be sent out. Andy said, “Absolutely”. We went there, and it dawned on me when my seven-year-old said, “So this is where that food comes from”. From my seven-year-old's perspective, it was not free food for poor kids, or it was not food that was specially set aside in a classroom. It was there for everybody.

This program is about giving kids nutritious food to eat to start their day, and throughout the day, but it also does an incredible job of breaking down stereotypes that exist. They are stereotypes that, quite frankly, I am sure I witnessed and was influenced by when I was growing up, when I saw kids who did not have a full lunch when they came to school.

When my seven-year-old made that comment and said, “So this is where that food comes from”, and he connected all the dots, then it dawned on me that he had no idea. He just thought this was food at the school for kids to eat. That, in my opinion, is why a national school food program is so important. It is just a basic, fundamental opportunity to have nutritious food while in school. I am extremely proud to have been in the House to see this come forward in a budget.

I was very perplexed when Conservatives would not even vote for the program before there was even any money allocated to it. I find it even more concerning how Conservatives will continually stand up and talk about food bank usage and talk about the suffering and pain that Canadians are going through, yet they will not vote in favour of a national school food program, nor will they vote in favour, as they have indicated they will not, of putting money behind it.

It is quite rich and very hypocritical to stand up in the House and say that the government is not doing enough to support and to give families the food they need. Literally, we are talking about giving kids food in schools, and the Conservatives are against it. I find it to be very concerning.

I want to pivot to something else that we have seen coming from the Conservative benches in the last couple of weeks. In particular, we heard a speech the Leader of the Opposition was giving about legislation and criminal legislation. He made a point of saying that he would use every tool and resource to impose his laws, as if he were the supreme leader and as if he were the end of all. He could use the notwithstanding clause and could bring in whatever laws he wants; it is as easy as that. That is something that has never been done by the federal government since we have had our Charter of Rights.

It is very alarming when the Leader of the Opposition starts making these claims. He is basically saying that he has an idea, that he has a law, that this is the way the law is going to be and that he is going to impose it. If someone has a problem with it, they can vote him out a number of years later, regardless of the fact that it may not be constitutional. What is the point in even having a Constitution if someone does not believe in protecting minority rights? A Constitution is about protecting minority rights.

I have an answer to why Conservatives are acting like this. In my opinion, Conservatives do not care about the Constitution because they are just a reincarnation of the old Reform Party. The Brian Mulroney Conservatives are gone. Flora MacDonald, who came from my riding, a Progressive Conservative, would not even recognize what one sees over there right now. That is the former Reform Party of Canada, and as we know, it was never in favour of the Constitution. Stephen Harper—

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Hear, hear! Good. They are being honest.

Madam Speaker, this is the first time that I have accused a Conservative Party of being the former Reform Party. I have said this many times in the House, but now the Conservatives are actually applauding it. In all honesty, I respect their honesty on the matter. I respect where Conservatives are coming from. I respect that they are being honest about it, and I mean that genuinely.

They are the Reform Party. They do not believe in the Constitution. That is just the way it is. We have the Leader of the Opposition, who routinely suggests that he would use the notwithstanding clause, as he sees fit, to ensure that all the laws that he thinks should be subject to the law of the land shall be there. We have a Constitution for a reason, and that is to protect minorities and to protect the rights of minorities. That was the whole intent of it.

In fairness, I respect the fact that the Conservatives are so open about this. The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, on Friday, said that, to be clear, they would only use the notwithstanding clause when it comes to using it for the purposes of criminal justice. That is interesting. That sounds reasonable, at least to the layperson, does it not? Let us just think about what he is saying. He is saying, as it relates to criminal matters, that they are open and willing to use the notwithstanding clause. If the Reform Party had that same approach in the 1990s, it could have used that notwithstanding clause when the Supreme Court overturned the criminal offence of performing an abortion. What we are talking about here is the Conservative Party of Canada literally starting to talk about restricting and removing rights of Canadians.

This issue matters to me. I have a five-year-old daughter, and I want to make sure that my daughter grows up in the world with the same rights that her mother had. I cannot believe that we are even having this discussion about rolling back a woman's right to choose.

The member for Peace River—Westlock today, presenting on behalf of his constituents, said that he wanted to roll back the charter decision and ask the government to bring in more restrictive measures for individuals, in particular women, who are trying to exercise their rights to choose. We are entering very dangerous territory with that rhetoric. I know where their political angle is. They think the average person will not know what the notwithstanding clause is, what it means or what the implications are, so it really does not matter. They will just sound good in what they are saying, and people will believe them.

Do members know what? I am not going to weigh in on whether I believe that to be right or wrong, but I will say that even just using that language and going down that road, being willing to treat people in a manner in which they can make sure that they can do things because people are not going to be paying attention, is extremely dangerous. That is what we are seeing.

It cannot be a coincidence, literally almost a year ago to the day in the United States of America, when Roe v. Wade was overturned, that suddenly, Conservatives are feeling empowered and emboldened to start having these discussions now. We would not have heard that come from Conservatives a year ago or five years ago. Stephen Harper intentionally avoided talking about it because he did not want to go anywhere near the matter, even though he may have had his own personal opinions on the Constitution. He never went near it because he knew it was not smart to do so.

The Leader of the Opposition is looking at the opportunities in the States, parroting the alt-right MAGA Republican politics of the States and trying to utilize those exact same talking points and those exact same ways of operating in Canada.

I will commit to any and every Canadian who is watching this and, indeed, who is in Canada, that I will do everything I personally can to ensure that the Constitution and the Charter of Rights continue to mean something and continue to be something that they can rely on to protect the rights of minorities in this country.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague was filling the time because he did not have that much to say, so he went on about a whole bunch of things that had nothing to do with the budget implementation act. It was just rhetoric about defending the Constitution. Was he defending the Constitution when the Emergencies Act came out and Canadians' bank accounts were frozen? I would ask him that question.

I would also ask him about this. He was very proud of somebody in his riding who went and got a bunch of petitions to present to Parliament to actually start food banks as a national program—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

It was not food banks.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, he is right. I misspoke there. Actually, it was for a program to have food in schools because that is something that has to be done nationally, not locally and not provincially. It is done nationally.

In Calgary, food bank usage is up significantly, and their carbon tax is up significantly. Does my colleague draw any connection here to the pain the Liberal government has caused Canadians?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a very good memory. The member asked me a question the last time I talked about the budget, only a couple of week ago, and he did the exact same thing that he did this time. He did not listen to what I said, but he chose to listen to certain parts of it.

Had the member listened, he would have known that I talked about the fact that this is a local program in my community, where I went with my family to help them put together boxes of food to distribute to schools. I specifically talked about food banks and about how I find it ironic that Conservatives sit here and talk about food banks and talk about the hardships of Canadians, yet the member, while he stands there trying to preach to me about Canadians' use of food banks, will not even support a national school food program to put food in the bellies of children while they start their day at school.

With all due respect, I take a lot from Conservatives, but I will not be lectured on food programs, in particular, school food programs, from a Conservative member.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, for three years now, the Liberals have been saying that they recognize the decline of French in Quebec, that they will take steps to promote French in Quebec. However, we have yet to see them take any action. There were no measures in the latest budget either.

What does my colleague think? Do they want to protect French in Quebec or do they want it to continue to decline?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am extremely proud to live in a country that recognizes that we have two official languages, English and French. I am very proud to spend a lot of time in Quebec, as my cottage is in Quebec. I am very proud of the amount of time that I have spent personally going to Logibec in Quebec City to learn French.

The member might find some shortfalls in this particular budget, as it relates to new opportunities for what he is suggesting, but certainly, it is my view that we are a better country as a result of everything that has come from having two official languages. It makes us better, more diverse, more robust, and it makes us a better country. That is why, even though the Bloc Québécois is a political party whose members wish that they were not even sitting in the House of Commons and that they were not even a part of Canada, I know that my part of Canada, where I live in Ontario, is in a better country because of Quebec and Quebec's participation in our country.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, we just had a vote in the House of Commons, where the Conservatives and members of the Bloc blocked the pharmacare bill. What we see now is the Conservatives again speaking out against school lunches.

We saw Conservatives attack and try to destroy the dental care program, which, thankfully, has been a huge success already with 15,000 seniors in the first 72 hours being able to access dental care, sometimes for the very first time. Many of them are in Conservative-held ridings, yet Conservatives have blocked the programs that would make a difference for people. They blocked affordable housing, and we saw, of course, during the 10 dismal, horrible years of the Harper regime, how they were willing to destroy services for veterans, force seniors to work longer and rip away supports for families. It was the worst 10 years in Canadian history, under the Harper regime.

I think the Liberal government can do more, there is no doubt, but we cannot go back to the dismal years of Conservative rule. I want to ask my colleague what he thinks motivates Conservatives when they block all the things that would actually make a difference for people living through an affordability crisis. Why are Conservative MPs blocking things that would help their own constituents?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, for starters, we call them “Conservatives”. They have the same colour of blue, and they use the same name, but I would argue that this is actually the Reform Party. I think that it is entirely appropriate to question whether or not they are even Conservatives because, quite frankly, although she is no longer with us, I am sure that Flora MacDonald, who was from Kingston and the Islands, would look at the Conservative Party and would say that it really is not what she represented when she was in this place.

However, the member brought up the Conservatives' position on pharmacare. I was here to listen to that debate on pharmacare. Do members know how many Conservatives got up and said that only one in five Canadians want this? It is as though one in five Canadians needing something does not qualify us to actually do something about it.

To answer the member's question about the motivation of the Conservatives, they know that those one in five Canadians are not who they are banking on to vote for them. They know that those one in five Canadians are some of the most vulnerable in our communities who actually really need access to pharmacare, and they are willing to brush them aside because they know that they are not contained within the four out of five who they actually do rely on for their votes.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, holy smokes, four out of five are voting in Kingston and the Islands.

Division 38 of Bill C-69 is where the Liberals have put in some amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with respect to sending detained immigrants to federal penitentiaries. Not only are jails the most expensive way to house a person in this country, but human rights groups like Amnesty International have been sounding the alarm about this. At a time when all 10 provinces have already committed to ending their immigration detention agreements, instead of following the provinces' lead and working to end immigration detention, why is the federal government planning to use federal prisons for immigration detention?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will admit to the member that I do not have the exact details on his question, but I will say this. If human rights activists and others are pushing because they do not believe that charter rights are being upheld, I can guarantee one thing: This Liberal government will not use the notwithstanding clause to impose its rules upon them.

This is exactly the rhetoric we are hearing from the Conservative leader. He is basically saying that if he does not like the way the courts want to treat his policies or laws because they are unconstitutional, he will just use the notwithstanding clause and will still get his law.

I can guarantee the member that I would never sit in a political party that uses the notwithstanding clause in such a way as to be so precarious about how and when to use it just to impose the supreme leader's decisions, that being the leader of the Conservative Party.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, in the last year, during the formulation of the budget, we saw the Prime Minister come to Winnipeg three times: once to talk at Stanley Knowles School about child care; then to have meetings with the premier of the province to talk about health care; and then, more recently, to talk about housing. These are really important issues.

The leader of the Conservative Party, on the other hand, goes out and talks to groups such as Diagolon. When the member makes reference to the extreme right and the Reform Party seated across the way, I wonder if he could provide his thoughts as to who the Conservatives are actually listening to.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and our cabinet are willing to work directly with municipalities to do the important work they need to do. The Prime Minister is engaged in communicating with premiers, even those with whom he quite often does not see eye to eye politically.

On the other hand, we have the Leader of the Opposition, who is literally going out and insulting mayors of major cities in this country, hanging out with Diagolon and far-right extremists who support some radical views.

That is the reality of what we are dealing with here. We are set up to have a choice, just like the United States, between a far-right person like Donald Trump and Joe Biden. We are going to have the exact same thing here, and people can make their choice.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Calgary Centre, Carbon Pricing.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Barrie-Innisfil.

After nine years, the Prime Minister still does not get it. There are many things he does not understood. He does not understand that budgets do not balance themselves. He does not understand that Canadians cannot live on their credit cards forever. He does not understand that leading a country means much more than just smiling for the cameras.

After nine years, he clearly does not understand that Canadians are tired of paying for his and his government's incompetence. I say incompetence because, after nine years, too many families have seen their quality of life go down as a result of his inflationary policies. Everything costs more, including food, rent, gas, taxes, mortgage payments, everything people have to buy on credit, restaurant meals and recreational activities. The list goes on. Absolutely everything costs more.

The Liberal Prime Minister has made the public service so big it is literally bursting at the seams, which leads me to say that the government, too, costs a lot more after nine years of this Prime Minister.

The Liberal government hired no less than an additional 100,000 public servants. With so many new government employees, one would expect services to improve, at least proportionately. One might think that waiting for a passport was a thing of the past, that immigrants who are waiting for a family member are now all very happy with the family reunification and immigration processes, and that it is now easy to talk to a CRA or an EI agent. One hundred thousand more public servants means 200,000 more hands to work on finding solutions to people's problems. That would make sense, but no. That is not what happened, despite the additional billions of dollars that this government spent on expanding the public service.

The Prime Minister and this government's ministers created so much chaos that even 100,000 more public servants have been unable to correct nine years of complacency. Take, for example, passports, the people who are waiting for EI payments and the thousands of Canadians who have to pay back billions of dollars to the government because the Liberals' pandemic measures were a failure.

Let us talk about immigration and the former immigration minister, who not only created the worst management crisis ever at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, but also lost track of one million people. That minister is now in charge of fixing the country's housing crisis. I wonder what that minister has to say to Cédric Dussault, the spokesperson for the Regroupement des comités logement et associations de locataires du Québec, a renters' rights group, who said, “We hear from tenants who intend to commit suicide. This is more than just despair. They do not see a way out, and they want it to be over. That is what it has come to”. That is what it has come to in Canada after nine years of this Prime Minister.

This is just a glimpse of Liberal incompetence. In addition to hiring tens of thousands of public servants, this Liberal government has literally doubled the cost of hiring outside consultants. Many of those expenses were unjustified. Here is just one example: ArriveCAN. The government spent $60 million of taxpayers' money on an app developed in a basement by two people with no computer skills. That app was supposed to cost $80,000. Let us do the math. The cost ballooned from $80,000 to $60 million. That is how this government manages public finances.

As I said earlier, this Prime Minister is not worth the cost of his government, which has skyrocketed over the past nine years. Let us look back at 2015, when this same Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would run small deficits of $10 billion and balance the budget in four years. Since then, he has not only failed to keep his promise, but he has also become the spendiest prime minister in Canadian history. He single-handedly put Canada further into debt than all previous prime ministers.

I am not talking about him spending more than any previous prime minister. I am talking about the debts of all prime ministers combined. This Prime Minister has managed to spend more than all the previous prime ministers combined. He has increased Canadians' debt from $700 billion to $1.3 trillion in just nine years. I never thought I would use the word “trillion” in the House, but that just shows how out of control this government's spending is.

That means that today, just to pay the interest on this massive debt, Canadians have to fork over more than $57 billion a year. How much is $57 billion? People wonder, because it is impossible to grasp the scale of a number that big. It is more than what the federal government transfers to the provinces for health care every year. It is the equivalent of all the goods and services tax, or GST, that is collected when people buy goods and services. In other words, every time we pay GST somewhere, it does not go toward improving the environment, national defence or social housing; it goes to pay the interest on this Prime Minister's debt.

This Prime Minister has inflated the debt to the point that he no longer sees what effect this spending is having on Canadians. It is contributing to inflation, driving up the price of everything and forcing the Bank of Canada to keep interest rates high. That is what nine budgets from this Prime Minister has done. This ninth budget is no exception. Time and again, we see new spending, stagnating services, rising prices and daily revelations of corruption. This is the perfect example of an incompetent Prime Minister who is not worth the cost.

I also wanted to take this opportunity to talk about something that has been a concern of mine for the 25 years that I have been in politics. This theme has only reinforced my decision to be a Conservative in Quebec over the years. I want to talk about the mindset that, no matter what the Liberals do, no matter what the left proposes, whether it is the NDP, the Bloc Québécois or the Liberal Party, just one group suffers as a result of all their good ideas. That group is average Canadians. It is the Quebecker who works hard to support his family. It is the Quebecker who struggles to pay rent, to give her children a decent education, to be a good citizen by volunteering to help those in need. That is a fact. I talk to people in their homes. The only people paying for all this spending are not the Prime Minister, nor his ministers, nor the Liberal government, but the hard-working people at home.

Who pays more for gas when someone decides one day that it would be a good idea for gas to be more expensive so that people will use less? Who pays more for electricity because it is bad to waste electricity and because, if the price is raised, people will realize that it is too expensive and then use less? If they need it, they will have to pay either way. The Prime Minister said so himself when he was invited to comment on the rising price of gas before the carbon tax even came into effect. He said that that was exactly what they wanted, for Canadians to pay more. Worse yet, left-wing parties like the Bloc Québécois are not shy about saying that it is not enough. The Bloc says that the carbon tax — they probably also want to talk about the carbon pricing that applies in Quebec — should be radically increased. It is the public that pays every time these people say that they have a good idea.

Who pays for these taxes, these bags, these services, these user fees, this big government that is supposed to solve all the problems? It is Canadians. It was Canadians before, it is Canadians now, and it will be Canadians as long as we have a Liberal government. That is why the Conservatives have a common-sense plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. The “Liberal Bloc” does not want us to keep saying it, but it is a common-sense plan that will ensure that we can give Canadians back a little pride, so that Canadians realize that things were not like this before the Liberals took office and that it will certainly not be like this once they are no longer in power.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, we have heard Conservative or Reform members, or however one might want to address members opposite, say that the federal government does not have a role to play in health care. We heard them say that they do not support a pharmacare program, yet a vast majority of Canadians want a Canada health system that reflects the Canada Health Act and see the value of a pharmacare program.

Can the member clearly indicate why he and the Reform Party or the Conservative Party do not believe that the federal government has a role to play when it comes to a national health care system?

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

Madam Speaker, that is the leftist party or, pardon me, the Liberal Party of Canada.

I will take no lessons from the Liberal Party. Why? It is because every day when we pick up the newspapers and turn on the television, we see moving accounts of mothers who cannot find housing for July 1. In Quebec, July 1 is an extremely important date. Those mothers will have to find a place to live and are resigned to the idea of having to live in their minivans.

Business owners are going bankrupt because the cost of paying down their debt and input costs is now more than they can afford. Quebec has seen a 130% increase in small business bankruptcies over the past three years. That is unacceptable.

I always wonder why the Liberals avoid talking about these issues that affect Canadians and Quebeckers every day.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to know that Quebeckers are suffering because of with the costly Conservative-Liberal coalition that panders to the Canadian oil monarchy.

Some $47 million is being spent on the Governor General every year. What do the Conservatives do? They sing God Save the King. By 2035, it is going to cost us a collective $83 billion to prop up the greedy oil industry. That cost is $18 billion for 2023 alone. In the last four years, $65 billion has gone to rich oil and gas tycoons. The Conservatives are being taken for fools. They applaud. They want more.

It is pretty simple: What is costing the people of Quebec so dearly is voting Conservative.

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

Madam Speaker, hypocrisy abounds. It was the Bloc Québécois that voted for this government's $500 billion in additional spending. As a result, everything costs more now. It was the Bloc Québécois that voted for additional funding to build a pipeline. They are not about to shout it from the rooftops, but they voted in favour of additional funds to build the pipeline. The Bloc Québécois members are the ones telling Canadians and Quebeckers who use their cars to get around every day that they still do not pay enough taxes. The Bloc Québécois would like to see gasoline taxes radically increased in order to encourage people to use less gas, since it costs more. Once again, they are making citizens pay for ideologies.

That is what I call the hypocrisy of the Bloc Québécois.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing that I admit I have concerns about in the budget is the lack of funding for first nations languages. We have heard clearly from the First Peoples' Cultural Council that this is a significant concern. For me, I think about the many communities that are working with North Island College in my region to set up classes to teach language. I think about ‘Namgis, which has a facility where they nest young people to learn the language, and Tla'amin, which is doing something very similar. Does the member share my concern around first nations languages in the budget?

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

Madam Speaker, I share my colleague's concerns regarding the first nations. Even though my riding does not have all that many first nations representatives, I am very proud to see that Chief Billy Morin has just joined the Conservative Party. He will be a candidate for us in the next election. We are very proud to have people of that calibre working with us to improve everyday life for first nations across Canada.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand up on behalf of the people of Barrie—Innisfil in the House of Commons and, in this case, in particular, to discuss the budget implementation act.

If one listens to the Liberals, and I have been in the House for most of today, one would almost get the sense that Canadians have never had it so good as what they have right now.

The member for Ajax stood up before, and I recall asking him a question about Canada's productivity. We are seeing declines in productivity, investment and capital investment, other than government investment; it is at a point where our productivity is heading into developing nation status right now.

It is obvious that the ability of Canadians to have some sort of lifestyle or provide for a quality of life for themselves is clearly diminishing after nine years of the current NDP-Liberal government. There is not one day that I am in my Barrie—Innisfil office, not one phone call and not one email that is telling me that their life is better after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government. In fact, I would say that we spend most of our time, and my staff's time, in my Barrie—Innisfil office walking people in off the ledge, because they are so concerned about their economic future.

I recall that, a couple of months ago, I had a senior come into my office. Fortunately, he had a mortgage, but he had to renew it. With the new interest rates, mortgage renewal rates, the way they are, he was only going to be left with $600 at the end of the month to pay his property taxes, to pay his heat, to pay his hydro and to buy groceries. That is an indictment of nine years of failed economic policy, and it is having a severe impact on Canadians right across the country.

The budget does nothing to address that. In fact, I will subscribe to the idea that it actually makes things worse for Canadians, especially in the younger generation. In 2015, younger Canadians voted for the Prime Minister; he was talking about providing them with hope over fear and all the other things he was talking about. He said that things were going to be better for the next generation; in fact, things have gotten worse.

Young people right now do not just feel as though they have been lied to and let down. Rather, they feel as though they have been left behind after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government.

I will go one step further. Any young person whom I talk to right now does not just feel that. Young people are despondent right now, because they do not feel as though they are going to have the same opportunities as their parents had.

They have done everything right. They have gone to university. They have gotten educated. In some cases, some of them are working three or four jobs just to get by. However, because of the economic policies of the government, they still cannot afford to come up with the down payment to buy a home.

Those who have bought a home are now facing a mortgage renewal crisis that this country has not seen in generations. Moms are being kept up at night, trying to figure out how they are going to pay for their mortgages, because mortgage rates have tripled as a result of the failed economic policies of the Liberal government.

When one listens to the Liberal government, it is almost as though Liberals do not realize that they have been in government for nine years and that they have created the mess we are in right now through failed economic policies. When one injects as much liquidity into the system and one creates as much debt and deficit as we are dealing with right now, what does one think is going to happen?

The Leader of the Opposition was predicting three or four years ago that we were going to see interest rates increase as a result. The only lever that the Bank of Canada has to curb inflation is to raise interest rates.

We have heard from former Liberal finance ministers and from former Bank of Canada governors, who keep saying the same thing: It is almost as if the Bank of Canada is pressing on the brakes while the Liberal government is pouring more fuel on the inflationary fires.

There is no greater example of that than what is within the budget: There is $40 billion in additional spending and $56.1 in interest costs, just to service the debt. The debt has been doubled by the Prime Minister; his insatiable appetite to spend is putting at risk the economic prosperity of millions of young Canadians, including my kids. That $56.1 billion is more than we spend in health care transfers to the provinces, and it is almost an equal amount to what we take in on the GST.

It was the former NDP leader, Thomas Mulcair, who said just shortly after the budget that the GST is designed to pay for many of the services Canadians rely on. Every time somebody goes out and fills up their car with gas, goes out for dinner or buys a ticket to something, they pay the GST. They pay it knowing that it is designed to go towards providing for the social safety net that Canadians rely on in this country. However, right now, almost every single penny of the GST is going toward servicing the cost of the debt accumulated by the Prime Minister and the failed NDP-Liberal experiment.

As Tom Mulcair said, “It is no longer the GST. It is the DST, the debt service tax”. He could not have been more correct.

The government is hiding behind generational fairness, but the generational mess it has created for younger Canadians is not going to be fixed by the budget. It is going to be fixed by a government that lives within its means and that focuses on the revenue side of the ledger rather than solely the expense side. By that, I mean not attacking income-producing sectors of our economy that have historically created great wealth for our nation, such as our natural resource sector and agriculture sectors. Those sectors have contributed greatly to not just providing for that social safety net but also to being able to provide for Canadians.

In the natural resource sector, we have a big role to play in providing clean Canadian energy to the rest of the world, and there is no greater example of that than when the President of Germany came to Canada, begging for LNG. Energy security is the number one issue that Europe is facing right now. He came to Canada, and our Prime Minister shooed him away as though there was no business case for that. Two weeks later, the same German president signed a $27-billion deal with Qatar, which has fewer environmental, labour and human rights standards. That $27 billion could have come to Canada to be used to improve health care, education and the quality of life of not just the next generation but also future generations to come.

We have seen an increase in housing costs. We have seen rent and house prices double. We are seeing mortgage rates that, in some cases, have tripled. Hundreds of thousands of homes are now due for mortgage renewal, and these next couple of months and the budget would do nothing to allay the fears that moms have when they go to renew their mortgage, already facing an increasing affordability crisis and a housing attainability crisis.

The last thing I want to focus on is the fact that the government has raised the carbon tax again by 23%, and that is not the end of it. We are at $80 a tonne right now, and we are heading up to $170. After the 2019 election, the government said the price would never go up past $50 a tonne. We are already past that point, and it is expected to double, which is going to increase the cost of everything, such as the necessities of life, as well as housing costs, the cost of groceries and the cost of transporting goods. Everything will become more expensive in this country, and as our productivity continues to decline, so too will the quality of life of Canadians.

I am going to vote against the budget because it would do nothing to improve the quality of life for future generations or this generation today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, let us think of the improvement in the quality of life for the thousands of young people who are going to have the opportunity to gain employment through companies like the VW plant, Canada's largest manufacturing plant; 200 football fields could fit into it. That is not to mention the Honda plant. We are not alone. Not only does the Liberal government see that, but so does the Progressive Conservative Government of Ontario, because it is also supporting these two initiatives.

We are supporting industries, and, yes, it does cost money. Can the member from the Reform Party tell us why it is that they oppose this type of investment, when we see Progressive Conservatives getting behind it?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thought I made a pretty substantive argument as to why, in some cases, the budget was not going to work for Canadians. If the hon. member wants to sit here and hurl insults, it is his prerogative to do so.

The fact is that we do not know. In the absence of seeing any of the contracts that have been signed, either through Stellantis or Volkswagen, the only thing we know is that there are billions of dollars' worth of government subsidies being applied to these plants, on the credit card, by the way, because, again, we are at $1.4 trillion in debt. Just last week, the finance minister announced that she wanted to increase that debt ceiling by another $295 billion to $2.1 trillion.

Why does the government not provide confidence for Canadians and show just where the work is going to come from? All we are hearing right now is that there are a lot of temporary foreign workers, non-Canadians, who are going to be working in the plants. Show us the proof; that is all we ask.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, there was a time when people who voted Conservative in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada could be sure that the autonomy of their government would be respected and that the interference would stop. However, the Conservative Party voted against our motion calling for an end to interference and for the right to opt out with compensation for the provinces that did not want to implement certain programs that they already manage. It is a matter of not duplicating bills.

Can my colleague explain this disconnect? In future, what will they do to avoid this?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I fundamentally believe that here in Ottawa, the federal government has a role to play in assisting the provinces.

However, provincial jurisdiction must be respected. Our leader respects provincial jurisdiction and will work with the premiers of every province in order to ensure that we have a confederation that is functioning and united, not divided. The Prime Minister has a tendency to divide us along regional lines, race lines, faith lines, gender lines and the house status of our neighbour, and now, by creating a new class war, he has another reason to divide people.

I believe that if we are going to have a functioning confederacy, we need a prime minister who not only respects provincial jurisdiction but also works with the provinces and provincial leaders.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, the federal budget includes a commitment to start a procurement process to replace Via Rail's long-distance fleet, some of the oldest rolling stock used by passenger trains in the whole world, built in the 1960s and sorely in need of replacement.

I wonder what the Conservative Party's position is on replacing the long-distance passenger trains that are used by Via Rail.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, clearly the country is in desperate need of infrastructure replacement, and not just from a rail standpoint.

The difficulty I have with the budget, frankly, is that it does not necessarily focus all of its attention on that. I see a lot of debt and a lot of deficit. I see problems for future generations that are going to be caught up in many of the issues that the budget faces, not the least of which is the ability for young people to have hope for their future. They are being weighed down in mountains of debt and deficit as well. We need to control spending.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the budget implementation act and how budget 2024 impacts the good people of Charlottetown, whom I am proud to represent.

I would like to start by congratulating the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister for her hard work in judiciously addressing the most pressing priorities of Canadians while being mindful of spending. We have heard lots of discourse in recent weeks on the budget deficit, but not nearly enough on the importance of investing to meet the needs of those people who need it most.

Canadians deserve a government that can invest in the supports they need to live safe, healthy lives, while managing spending over the longer term. Far and away the most important issue for Islanders is, consistently, health care. The budget reaffirms the government's commitment to allocate $200 billion over 10 years to strengthen universal public health care. Through bilateral agreements signed by the federal government with all provinces and territories, the budget continues to work collaboratively to deliver good-quality public health care for all Canadians.

Budget 2024 also commits $1.5 billion over five years into the first national pharmacare plan. This includes free contraception, which allows every woman to choose the method of contraception that works for her and covers diabetes medication, improving the lives of 3.7 million Canadians living with diabetes. In Prince Edward Island, the 2023 pilot program improving access to affordable prescription drugs had previously reduced copays to five dollars for eligible medications used for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and mental health. The program also substantially grew the size of the formulary in Prince Edward Island to bring it on par with the other Atlantic provinces.

The national pharmacare program further expands on increasing accessibility of life-saving drugs for Canadians. In my home province of Prince Edward Island, one in three Islanders lives with diabetes or prediabetes. This investment will go a long way toward supporting them and preventing further complications by reducing the cost barrier to finding appropriate medication.

Finally, budget 2024 introduces the Canadian dental care program. Over the next year, more than nine million Canadians who are currently without health insurance will have access to the dental health care they need. I would like to underline here that I understand the apprehensions of dentists and other oral care providers in signing on to the program. The Minister of Health has been remarkably proactive in hearing these concerns and working to address them. We are already seeing progress. I am confident that providers will do the right thing and work with the federal government to address their concerns and to work in the interest of 400,000 seniors who have already signed up to the program from coast to coast.

I had the opportunity to meet in my office with a group of dentists, including the president of the Dental Association of Prince Edward Island. They went through the list of preoccupations they had with the program, but they ended on a very positive note, which is that, to a person, every single dentist and oral health care provider is there for their patients, acting in their best interests. The demand and the need for the program have been manifest by the number of people who have signed up. I am confident that health care providers will, at the end of the day, act in the best interests of their patients to help ensure the success of the program. I firmly believe that, and I have faith in them to do that. I also have faith in the minister to ensure that their concerns will be met.

The second priority I would like to talk about is housing. There are several commendable measures in the budget, too many to list, but I would like to touch on a few of them. The first is the additional $400-million investment in the housing accelerator fund, which has been fast-tracking the construction of 750,000 new homes over the next decade, since its launch.

In my province, the housing accelerator fund agreements with municipalities will lead to 895 new homes over the next three years across the province, 300 of which will be in the capital city of Charlottetown. It is a program that works. It is a program that is sought after by municipalities. It is a program that is exceptionally popular. It is a program that will continue to deliver the affordable, sustainable housing that Canadians need.

Another initiative I would like to speak to is the removal of GST on student residences in post-secondary institutions. Prince Edward Island is home to over 8,000 students. The initiative will help institutions provide safe housing for students on campus. It is something that is a preoccupation of university presidents. I have had conversations with them. It is a welcome initiative from the government, recognizing an important need both on P.E.I. and across the country.

The budget, in fact, significantly invests in post-secondary education and in the future of millennial and gen Z youth as they navigate the educational landscape. Indeed, with investments in new strategic research infrastructure and federal research support, core research grants, and increases to the Canada student grants and Canada student loans, budget 2024 sets students up for success by ensuring that anyone can have access to world-class post-secondary education without cost barriers. This will also ensure that Canada remains at the forefront of innovative research and technology in a rapidly changing global environment.

Not only does the budget work for post-secondary students, but it also establishes a national school food program, providing nutritious meals to 400,000 children from K to 12 every year. While schools remain under provincial jurisdiction, the $10-a-day child care bilateral agreements from coast to coast show that our government is more than capable of collaborating with progressive provinces and territories to support those people who need it most.

Much like the Quebec early learning and child care infrastructure informed $10-a-day child care, the Prince Edward Island school food program can serve as a successful template on which to model a national program. I was pleased to have the minister responsible tour and see the Prince Edward Island program in broad light in the last three or four months.

The program launched in 2020. It served 600,000 meals in 2023 and will serve an estimated 800,000 meals this year. There is much to learn from the structure and impacts of the program, and it can certainly be scaled up to meet national needs. The government has worked hard to lift children out of poverty, and the school food program will continue to do so, ensuring that they have access to the nutrition they need now to prepare them for tomorrow.

I would like to speak about some measures that will positively impact Prince Edward Island in particular. In budget 2024, the government proposes extending five more weeks of employment insurance payouts to seasonal workers for another two years. While this does fall short of returning Prince Edward Island to one EI zone, it does extend much-needed relief to the almost 3,000 seasonal workers on P.E.I.

Another measure in the budget is freezing the Confederation Bridge tolls and maintaining ferry fees to Nova Scotia until 2026. These measures are important in keeping travel from P.E.I. to the rest of the country affordable. It will benefit Islanders who regularly travel for work, to see their loved ones, or to access health care.

I was also pleased to see the establishment of the new Pituamkek national park reserve on the north coast of Prince Edward Island. Not only does this area have ecological significance due to its low contact with humans, but it is also important in understanding and preserving Mi’kmaq culture and settlement patterns. It is thus an important initiative that will help us interpret the past, while protecting biodiversity into the future.

Through these measures and more, budget 2024 delivers a sound plan for Canadians that I am proud to support. It solidifies the economy, supports the middle class and those working hard to join it, and truly delivers fairness for every generation.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is the chair at the Standing Committee on Health, and I really want to commend him for the important work he does there. It is a difficult committee to be running these days, especially with the toxic drug crisis study we are doing.

My colleague is also a coastal MP and he knows how important the ghost gear fund is to coastal people for removing polystyrene or plastic pollution. Ghost gear is about 70% of the plastics we find in our oceans. We have the longest coastline in the world. We just hosted the INC-4 and what do we do in this budget? The government removed the funding for the ghost gear fund.

Will my colleague be going back to the minister and demanding that the government reinstate this world-class program?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I can assure my colleague that the health committee is more manageable in part because of his presence.

With regard to his question on ghost gear, this problem has dramatically increased in our part of the world thanks to hurricane Fiona, so the short answer to his question is yes. This is not the time to be cutting funding for programs to retrieve ghost gear, certainly not on the east coast. The fact he is raising it means that is probably also the case on the west coast. I would be happy to work with him to advocate for the reinstatement or an increase in funding on this issue.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, as the chair of the health committee, someone who should have their finger on the pulse of the health care crisis we are facing in just about every province and territory across this country, how can he possibly go back to his constituents or any Canadian and explain that, as a result of this budget, we are paying $54.1 billion in taxpayer money just to manage the debt the Liberal government is placing on Canadians? That is more than the funding the government is transferring to the provinces and territories to cover health care.

How does he go back to his constituents and explain the government is spending more on managing the debt than it actually is helping provinces with health care?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I will go back to my constituents with immense pride with the investments a confident country makes in its people and the investments a confident country makes in the most pressing challenges of the day. When I go back to my riding and talk about this budget, what people are going to want to know about is health care. That is job one. The answer to that is $200 billion, and I am proud to tell them this government is investing in health care.

I have absolutely no qualms about the fact that Canada has a AAA credit rating, which is something only two of the G7 countries can boast, that the debt-to-GDP ratio is among the top in the world, that the OECD has indicated we will be in that same category with respect to productivity by the end of 2025 and that we are investing massively in clean energy and the industries of tomorrow. Yes, with great pride I will be happy to talk to my constituents about this budget.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about how progressive Quebec is and what great strides they have made, and he is right about that. The Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms came into force in 1976. Labour Code reforms to protect workers from scabs date back to 1977. Child care dates back to the late 1990s.

We have proven on more than one occasion that, when our tax dollars come back to us, we use them wisely for the good of the people. Why the ongoing interference in this budget?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I am from Prince Edward Island, and we always welcome federal investment. I understand Quebec's concern. Her story is very different from mine. I am convinced that the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec have a good relationship. We need to have some tough conversations. I expect the conversation to be ongoing. I hope that the provincial and federal governments will always act in the best interests of their citizens.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is good to be here to speak on behalf of the amazing people of North Island—Powell River on the budget bill.

I want to acknowledge that it is really hard times. Not only in Canada but in many countries across the planet, we are seeing massive challenges during this time. I feel fundamentally that we have to raise the bar of dignity in this country so that people can live with dignity and respect, and we know that is not happening enough.

I will talk a little bit about the things I am supportive of in this budget and also share some of my concerns.

The first thing I want to bring up is the launching of the new national school food program. My colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, and I were with our leader in Comox Valley. We were standing with representatives of Lush Valley, which does tremendous work in our region providing safe, local food and works with a lot of schools in the region to make sure there is healthy food provided. What they were very clear about was that they were grateful for how much the provincial government in B.C. had stood up and given funding, but they needed to see that funding matched because the need is increasing so much.

We know that young people across Canada are faced with challenges, and it is very hard to learn when one has not had breakfast. One of the things about this program that I fundamentally believe in is that it has to be accessible for everyone. When we talk about dignity, it means making sure that what one person gets the other person gets, and that there is no feeling of “you go off and eat because we know you are poor”, which is so destructive. I am really proud of the work that is being done here. I know that Lush Valley and many organizations across my riding will be grateful for this money because it will provide food in a way that is open and friendly and make sure that nobody, even these young children, lose their dignity in that sense.

I was also happy to see the health transfer grow. It is not as much as I would necessarily like it to be, but in my riding, health care is, in some cases, at a pretty significant crisis point. The provincial government has stood up and done a lot of profound and important work, but there is still so much more that needs to be done and that needs revenue.

I think of the folks in Port Hardy. I was there not too long ago, and we were talking a lot about the fact that their emergency room is closed for several hours in the night and how hard it is when people have an emergency and they have to go to Port McNeill. From Alert Bay, they have to take a ferry now instead of going to their hospital to get the help that they need.

In my riding, there are a lot of people aging, and they want to age in place. They want to age in their communities because they know one another and they support one another. That is really important, so I am glad to see this increase. I really hope it supports these people in a meaningful way. We need to see health care being taken of. We need emergency rooms open, and we need health care to be accessible. We need to make sure that it helps people stay in their communities of choice. We have a large country, which is something unique about Canada, but we need to make sure that this increase really helps.

I appreciate as well the expanding of the Canada student loan forgiveness program to pharmacists, dentists, dental hygienists, midwives, early childhood educators, teachers, social workers, personal support workers, physiotherapists and psychologists who choose to work for rural and remote regions. This is really important, because it creates an attraction strategy to show people the beautiful places to live all across Canada. However, the one thing that concerns me about this is that I do not see anything here that would maximize retention.

We know that a lot of people go to smaller communities, they live there for a few years and all too often they will leave once their student loans are paid off, in this example specifically. We need to see support in terms of retention. When I talk to health care providers, sometimes the concerns are things like not enough child care or not enough resources for them to do some of the things they really need to do. We need those services in rural and remote communities. We know that once people settle in those communities, often their lives are so much stronger because of the close connection of the community. It is unfortunate right now because what we are seeing is this constant spinning door of people coming into the community and leaving. We really need to look at retention. I am happy this was done, but I want to see more retention.

In terms of affordability, I was happy to see some of the work done around cracking down on predatory lending. We need to make sure that there is a higher level of accountability because too many people are low-income and they are going to these lending places and are having to pay such a high level of interest that they can never catch up.

I am actually hearing this about people who are providing care for seniors. They are making so little money that they are continuing to have to borrow just to make ends meet and that creates a system that we do not want. It does concern me because the other thing we know is that, in the previous budget, we saw a commitment to making sure that the people who were providing those services would get $25, at the very least. We know that the provinces and territories have not signed on to this, so something is not working to make it attractive enough.

We need to see the wages improve for people who do that care work, who go into people's homes and help them and who go into long-term care facilities and into assisted living facilities and do that important care work. We know it is largely women and unfortunately they are not being paid enough. Therefore, I am glad that there is some accountability for these lending organizations that are very predatory, because the harms can be fundamentally bad and it really leaves people grasping.

I want to thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for his incredible work. We saw the doubling of the volunteer firefighters tax credit and the search and rescue volunteers tax credit, from $3,000 to $6,000. This is incredible. What we need to understand is that, in rural communities, they would not be able to get insurance on their homes if it were not for the amazing people volunteering as firefighters, because that creates some safety. Therefore, we have to make sure that those amazing volunteers get more. This got us to $6,000, and we want to see it even higher because we know that people who look after our communities and keep us safe need the recognition.

I am excited about the fact that we see some money going into indigenous loan guarantee programs. We need to see indigenous communities getting the supports they need to build their businesses. We know that our legislative agenda, both provincially and federally, has been to isolate indigenous communities from participating in our economy for far too long. We are still trying to overcome some of those systemic problems, so it is good to see some movement.

I was also pleased to see a bit more tax for those who are making a ton of money off of the labour of everyday Canadians. We know that there is the implementation of a 15% global minimum tax to ensure that large multinational corporations start to pay close to their fair share, wherever they do business. That is really important because it is about time that we see that.

There are some things that did concern me about this budget. I was glad that we came along and made sure that Indigenous Services did not see the big cut in funding that was predicted and being forecast. We worked really hard to make sure that funding was not removed.

I am also very concerned about the first nations funding for languages. We have heard very clearly from the First Peoples' Cultural Council that this is a big concern. For my riding, North Island College has worked with several indigenous communities across our riding to build courses so that people can come in and learn the language. That is for everybody, and it is quite profound to see both indigenous people and non-indigenous people coming to learn the language of the first people of the territory that they live on. I think of the 'Namgis First Nation, which is creating a whole cultural revolution in its region and really helping children, often who are exposed mostly, if not 100%, to their own language first for a period of time so that the language will be strong in them. I know that Tla’amin Nation near Powell River is doing a lot of tremendous work in this area as well. Therefore, it is too bad not to see that language funding there because we know that is a key part.

I look forward to answering any questions.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's approach to taking us through this budget legislation and highlighting the work that is being done in a constructive way, as well as pushing the government to do more in areas that are of concern.

I, too, hear from many constituents within my riding of Waterloo. There are a diversity of perspectives and concerns. Something I want to ask about is the importance of national programming, of different political parties working together to deliver for Canadians, and finding a way, a collaborative approach, to push each other to do better and to do more.

I think about the national food program, which was referred to. A young constituent in my riding named Scarlett could not understand why some people had access to that food and others did not. To see this as part of our budget is something that she and her grandma were really excited about.

I would like to hear from the member as to the importance of finding a way forward to deliver for our constituents. Are these programs we are hearing about programs that we can take for granted, or should we be concerned with ensuring that there are protections in place to ensure that more Canadians benefit from these types of programs?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the member for a long time at committee, and I really appreciate her work ethic.

My response is something that I hear a lot from my constituents. Sometimes we see the province doing a lot of work. In B.C. there are a lot of supports being put into place to provide food and housing, but there is not as much with the federal government pitching in as a partner to deal with these big issues, which are the result of underfunding from multiple governments, not only the Liberal government, but also Conservative governments. They are too big to have just started recently and are a cumulative reaction to being underfunded for a long time.

Therefore, I am glad this funding would be here, but we definitely need to see more resources on the ground. It just comes back to our bar of dignity and how low we are going to let people sink below it in our country.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member something. Veterans' issues are noticeably absent in this budget. However, the one issue I have been seized with, and I know the member has been seized with it as well, is having the Persian Gulf War veternas deemed as having wartime status. Only two times in our nation's history have we done that, both for the Korean War veterans and the merchant mariners, all of which was 30 years after service. In this case, we are 30 years after the Persian Gulf War.

The Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Veterans Affairs have it within their power, with one fell swoop of a pen, to deem it as wartime service. I wonder if the member is as disappointed as I am that we did not see any of that in this budget.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I have a shared passion for the people who have served our country.

I am disappointed to see not very much for veterans. We have definitely seen Persian Gulf veterans coming forward. I know at committee, which I sit on, there have been multiple motions trying to get to that study to showcase the reality and to acknowledge that these veterans are not receiving the amount of resources they need to make due in a way that is respectful. We have to acknowledge their service and the detriment of that service, regardless of whether it was called a war or not.

I hope to get this done quickly. I hope the government will work with us, but I know collectively that we will be pushing this forward because it is about time that the Persian Gulf veterans are treated the right way. My grandfather was a Korean vet, and it took those veterans a long time to get acknowledged as well. Service is service, and we need to acknowledge that sacrifice.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked at length about the importance of helping the people who really need help. Does my colleague think that the oil companies need help?

This budget clearly contains a new subsidy for oil companies in the form of a tax credit, supposedly for “clean” hydrogen. The amount of the tax credit varies from 15% to 40%, depending on the carbon intensity of the hydrogen produced.

Does she think that oil companies need a new subsidy? Do they really need help?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has a really important question. I do not think the oil patch needs more support right now. We know for a fact that the industry is making more money than it has in the last 30 years. The cost at the pump is directly linked to profits going to people in those companies and their shareholders. Working people are not getting the benefit.

The government needs to take accountability for that and make sure that the people who are working hard to get the resources get the money, instead of our money, as taxpayers, going to make the lives of the shareholders easier.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in today's debate in support of Bill C-69, the budget implementation act.

Today, too many young Canadians feel as though the deck is stacked against them. They can get a good job and work hard, but far too often the reward of a middle-class life, a life that is secure, comfortable and prosperous, remains out of reach.

That is why we are taking action today to ensure fairness for every generation, and why we are stimulating the kind of economic growth that will allow every generation of Canadians to reach their full potential.

To ensure every Canadian succeeds in the 21st century, we must grow our economy to be more innovative and more productive. To do this, the government's economic plan is investing in the technologies, incentives and supports that are critical to increasing productivity, fostering innovation and attracting more private investments in Canada. This is how we will build an economy that unlocks new pathways for every generation to earn their fair share.

A competitive economy is a clean economy. What better proof could there be than the $2.4-trillion in net-zero investments made around the world last year? Canada is at the forefront of the global race to attract investment and seize the opportunities that come with a clean economy.

That is also why our government announced an economic plan to achieve net-zero emissions that includes investments of more than $160 billion. The plan includes an unprecedented package of investment tax credits to help attract investment with incentives totalling $93 billion by 2034-35.

In budget 2024, the government announced the next steps in its plan to attract major investment to Canada to create well-paying jobs and to develop and deploy clean energy and technology faster.

The important piece of legislation that I am here to discuss today delivers two investment tax credits: the clean hydrogen and the clean technology manufacturing investment tax credits. Passing these two tax credits into law will secure a cleaner, more prosperous future for Canadians today and tomorrow.

The clean hydrogen investment tax credit would support investments in projects that produce clean hydrogen through eligible production pathways. This refundable tax credit, which would be available as of March 28, 2023, could be claimed when eligible equipment becomes available for use, at a credit rate that is based on the carbon intensity of the hydrogen that is produced.

The clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit would be available as of January 1, 2024. This is a refundable investment tax credit equal to 30% of the cost of investments in machinery and equipment used to manufacture or process key clean technologies, and extract, process or recycle certain critical minerals essential to clean technology supply chains.

Now we are coming to one of my favourite subjects, which is the mineral exploration tax credit and critical minerals. Another piece of important legislation in this bill includes the one-year extension of the mineral exploration tax credit. The mineral exploration tax credit provides important support to junior mineral exploration companies working to unlock Canada's incredible mineral wealth, creating jobs and growing our economy. This extension is expected to provide $65 million to support mineral exploration investment.

Our country's abundant minerals and metals play a key role in the Canadian economy. Canada has the talented workforce, the infrastructure, the innovation and the environmental management capacity to develop these natural resources sustainably. As a result, Canada can create well-paying jobs that contribute to economic growth.

By investing in mining and exploration, the government, through its economic plan, is helping to promote sustainable resource development, create good jobs, grow the economy and foster indigenous economic participation.

We also plan on further advancing indigenous economic participation through the indigenous loan guarantee program. An economy that is fair for everyone is one where everyone is able to fully participate.

With budget 2024, we are taking action to ensure indigenous communities are able to share in Canada's prosperity and benefit from the new opportunities ahead. Bill C-69 would help launch the indigenous loan guarantee program, with up to $5 billion in loan guarantees to unlock the access to capital for indigenous communities, create economic opportunities and support their economic development priorities.

Under this program, successful applicants will be able to obtain loans from financial institutions at lower interest rates.

The budget also provides for an investment of $16.5 million over two years to Natural Resources Canada, including $3.5 million over two years to provide funding for capacity building in indigenous communities. This investment will help indigenous communities apply for the program and support its implementation.

Establishing the indigenous loan guarantee program is a very important step towards indigenous self-determination as well as reconciliation between Canada and indigenous peoples.

The measures I touched on today will support our efforts to attract investment, increase productivity, boost innovation and create good-paying, meaningful jobs.

We are at a pivotal moment: We can choose to renew and double down on our investment in the economy of the future, choose to develop a more productive and competitive economy, or risk leaving an entire generation behind.

Let us not take that risk. We owe it to our businesses, to our innovators and, most of all, to the upcoming generations of workers to make sure that the Canadian economy is positioned to thrive in a changing world.

I urge all members to support the speedy passage of this bill so we can implement these important measures to support Canadians. I am thankful for the opportunity to make this case today.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the almost nine years that the government has been in power, we have seen that it has not reinstated co-op housing and scaled it up to the 25,000 units a year we were building in the seventies and eighties. The Conservatives built none.

We were able to get the Liberals to come gradually on, with a small amount in the last budget, but we are still not seeing that built. Now we have a pile of money in housing, but they have not told us how many units they are going to build of co-op housing. We are short almost 700,000 units. One just needs to go outside to see what this looks like; there are homeless people everywhere. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have a free market approach to an affordable housing crisis. There is nowhere in the world where the free market has solved an affordable housing problem. It is a myth and a falsity, and it will not happen.

Will my colleague please tell us when the government is going to get back into non-market housing, because it is going to be required instead of these free market trinkets, and actually build some non-market housing to solve this affordable housing crisis?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in this budget, we have rolled out the most ambitious and, I would say, one of the boldest housing plans we have seen in our country. That plan will see us unlock almost four million homes by 2031. What I find very important about our plan is that it is being done in consultation with municipalities and provinces in determining what their needs are. Municipalities are best positioned to tell us what they need in their communities. With that, the planning and the programs my colleague asked about will be unfolding as those conversations and those important consultations get under way.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, sticking with the theme of housing, which has been such an important part of this supposed budget but was nowhere in the budget implementation act, if we are really working toward housing solutions here, why has every organization, including the government's organization, the CMHC, or Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, indicated there are going to be fewer and fewer homes built in the future because of the government's policies? We are not solving anything.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the housing plan was rolled out a few weeks ago, we received a lot of feedback from key stakeholders and people who are very much involved in and knowledgeable of the housing sector. This plan was endorsed by and received positive reinforcement from many of those stakeholder groups. The many consultations we had with those key groups involved in the housing sector allowed us to come up with these measures.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the Official Languages Act was first enacted, the Canadian government has been saying that it wants to protect the French language in Canada. However, in Quebec, home to 90% of francophones, it has used its official languages legislation to support only English. For two years, the Liberals have been saying that they now want to protect French, even in Quebec. However, we see nothing in the budget on that front. We saw no changes in previous budgets either, or in the action plan for official languages.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a proud Franco-Ontarian, I understand the importance of the French language. This government's dedication to protecting the French language, in Canada, in Quebec and outside Quebec, is very important. We have introduced bills and we continue to work towards achieving that objective.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the budget implementation act, budget 2024. In its budget, the Liberal government makes the audacious claim that its ongoing investments are “making life more affordable for Canadians and improving access to housing.” I thought I would compare that to what is actually happening on the ground in communities across Canada and in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove.

What has happened in the last nine years under the Liberal government? Instead of making life more affordable, two million Canadians are regularly using food banks, and that demand is growing. The demand is growing to the point that some food banks are starting to ration what they can give, even turning some people away. That is hardly making life more affordable.

How about improving access to housing? The average house price in Canada has doubled in the last nine years. In my riding, in Langley, the Fraser Valley and part of metro Vancouver, the increases have been even more dramatic. The average price in Canada for a house nine years ago was $400,000. Today, it is double that at $800,000. When we add to that the tripling of interest rates, making mortgage payments has become very difficult for some Canadians.

I was talking to someone in my community just the other day who told me that he bought a house with his brother and parents a couple of years ago. At that time, with the relatively lower interest rates, their payment was $4,000 a month. They renewed it just a little while ago. Interest rates have gone up dramatically, and their payment has doubled to $8,000 a month. So much for helping the middle class and making housing more accessible.

The people in Langley, and certainly this family I talked to, say they are not looking for government handouts. They want lower interest rates so they can make their payments and eventually pay off their houses. I am speaking of one family, but I have heard this from many others. Canadians do not believe that whatever the Liberal government is trying to do is making life more affordable for Canadians or improving access to housing. It is quite the opposite.

The House resumed from May 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about budget 2024 and the budget implementation act. In the budget report, the Liberal government makes a claim that the GDP, the gross domestic product of our economy, is set to grow by 3.5% this year. GDP is a good measurement because it talks about the health of the economy, and admittedly, a 3.5% growth is not bad, if that is indeed what it is going to be, but members are not to forget that this is just a forecast. However, factoring in unprecedented population growth in Canada, and we are 3.5 million people more now than we were in 2019, the statistics look rather anemic.

David Williams, vice-president of policy at Business Council of British Columbia, notes that annual GDP per person in the province of British Columbia is actually shrinking. Per person GDP has been decreasing steadily under the Prime Minister. The calculations have been done by economists, and it works out to about $4,200 per person. Canadians are not getting richer, despite the optimistic spin the Liberals and the finance minister are putting on what is really an anemic economic performance.

Budget 2024 also announces once again, just as the Liberals have done in every budget since I was elected five years ago, that their economic policies will improve Canada's productivity numbers. Our poor productivity metrics is a well-known problem, which has been admitted to by our current Minister of Finance.

It works out to the following: For every $100 an American worker produces, their Canadian counterpart pumps about $72 into our economy, so only 72% is efficient. That does not mean Canadians are not working as hard as Americans. We are probably working as hard or harder than our American counterparts, but we do not have the tools, the technology or the investment to grow the economy. As America's productivity improves, Canada's is lagging due to mismanagement and bad leadership by the Prime Minister.

His former minister of finance, Bill Morneau, in a book he published shortly after he resigned from his position as the finance minister, said that he tried try to get his boss, the Prime Minister, to focus on the problems with Canada's lagging productivity, but the Prime Minister showed little interest. He said that the Prime Minister was more focused on wealth redistribution rather than on wealth growth, looking at the things that grow the economy, such as encouraging private investment in innovation and resource development, making strategic tax cuts and deregulation, getting new Canadians working sooner and developing strategies for scaling up our technology sector so that job growth happens here in Canada rather than south of the border in Silicon Valley, Boston or Texas.

I would add to this as well that a strategy for growing our productivity is freeing up interprovincial trade. Economists say that would add substantially to our productivity. What are we getting instead are tax increases on Canadian investors, which is scaring people away so their investment dollars might just go somewhere else.

I pointed out that the current Minister of Finance has also commented on this, and she has recently said that economic growth, business investments and productivity are an urgent challenge for Canada, if not the most important challenge for Canada. It sounds like the Minister of Finance understands that this is a challenge for Canada, as did the former minister of finance, but in Canada, our Prime Minister admits he does not spend a lot of time paying attention to these sorts of things, such as monetary policy or the impact his fiscal policy might have on inflation and interest rates.

Leadership sets the tone. What we have here again is lots of promises. The Liberals will say, “Sunny ways are just around the corner”, and that we should just believe them this time. As always, our Prime Minister gets an A for announcements and an F on delivery.

In talking about the budget, I just want to touch on inflation, interest rates and debt servicing. Under the misguidance of the current Prime Minister, Canada's inflation hit an all-time high. The Bank of Canada had to respond with higher interest rates, which are having a negative impact on citizens, on homeowners and on businesses, as well as on the national economy. With a debt of over a trillion dollars now, interest rate payments are over $50 billion a year, which is more money than Canada transfers to provinces for health care.

I just want to summarize with this: Struggling families cannot afford higher taxes and more inflationary spending that drives up the cost of everything and keeps interest rates high. There used to be an understanding here in Canada, an unwritten social contract saying that if one worked hard, got an education or on-the-job training, and then got a good job and a powerful paycheque, that one could save up to buy a house. One could buy the house, maybe pay the mortgage off in 25 years, or if one made a few extra payments early on, in 20 years, and then save up for one's retirement. It was simple but secure. Under the Liberal government, that dream is all but dead. To hear the Liberals speak, sunny ways are just around the corner. The Liberals have been around for nine years, promising that “this time you can believe us”, but they are not delivering.

It is time for the Conservative Party to take over the governing side of the House to get Canada's economy back on track. It is time to turn the hurt that the Liberals have caused into the hope Canadians desperately need.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the member across the way that, in fact, Canada is not broken and that we are on the right economic track. The Conservatives are very good at spreading misinformation. That should not be a surprise to anyone who follows the debate.

For example, the member said that we are scaring away investors. Last year, Canada was number one in the G7 countries for GDP, based on the population base in terms of direct foreign investment for the first three quarters. Worldwide, we were number three on a per capita basis.

How can the member or the Conservative Party across the way try to mislead Canadians by saying we are scaring away investment when we see that kind of reality staring us in the face?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that, with Canada's very high real estate costs, many of our investment dollars are going into real estate. One economist called it a “black hole” for investment. That money could otherwise be going to much more productive industrial use.

I believe this is what Canada is lacking: investment in technology and industries that are really going to grow our economy. That is one reason our productivity rate is so much below the rates of other competing nations and, in particular, the United States, our closest trading partner.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member raising the cost of housing as a prime issue. He called it a “black hole”. I would say that, in some regards, the financialization of housing is parasitic, particularly when it comes to workers and working-class people.

The hon. member raised the way in which housing costs have ballooned out of control. I would put to colleagues the parable of the carpenter. Some 10 or 15 years ago, the average wage for a carpenter was about $42 an hour. The house that they would build would be about $300,000 to $350,000 for a home. If we fast-track to today, this present moment, the same carpenter, that master craftsperson, has an average salary of $49 an hour, but the homes they build are $700,000 to $800,000 for a home.

Does the hon. member agree in the economic theory stating that the surplus value of workers' wages is being redistributed to the ultrawealthy and captured by the banks, the financial class and the real estate class of this economy, which do not actually produce the wealth? It is the worker who produces the wealth in this regard.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the average worker should be able to afford a home in this country. A well-paid carpenter should be able to afford an average house. It may not be the luxury house that he happens to be building or framing; however, every person in Canada who has gone to the effort of getting an education or on-the-job training, and who has a good job, should be able to fulfill the dream of owning a house.

As for the black hole, I just want to clarify that the cost of real estate is so high and there is so much money going into real estate. Sometimes the government states that our debt-to-GDP ratio is not that high, but if we factor in all the debt, private debt for mortgages, the numbers are quite astronomical, and that is a drag on our economy.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we do not really have a lot of time in this place to dive into things like productivity. What increases Canada's productivity? Why do we lag in productivity? I have long found a line by Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, pretty compelling. It is, “Productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run, it’s almost everything.”

I have heard answers to that over the years, and I know I do not have time now to get into the research of why that is. The notion that Canada and our economy is based on hewers of wood and drawers of water makes our productivity quite low. Countries with high productivity have value added in their exports. They do not ship out raw logs, raw bitumen or raw product. They have a lot of value added with worker contributions.

As our exports increasingly become low-value, unprocessed resources, productivity falls. However, I do not hear from many of my colleagues in this place, or anyone, decrying that we are shipping out raw bitumen or raw logs. That is what hurts productivity.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for that very thoughtful comment. Indeed, shipping out raw materials is not as productive as actually further manufacturing products. However, I made a point in my speech about the importance of Canada developing its high-tech sector, to scale it up into international competitive standards. We are failing in that.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the wonderful opportunity to be able to speak to Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, on behalf of the residents of Davenport, who I am so privileged to be able to represent.

I voiced support for Bill C-69 right off the bat for a very simple reason. As do many of us here, I want a better future for young Canadians, who are going through adulthood in a world that is plagued by crises ranging from war and climate change to global inequality and economic instability. Our federal government wants their hard work to be rewarded, as it has been for us.

We want them to see and believe that our country can work for them and for their future children. That is why budget 2024 is so important.

Budget 2024 is our plan to build a more resilient, affordable, inclusive Canada where every Canadian can afford to buy or rent their own home; where everyday bills are not a major source of stress; where corporations no longer take advantage of hard-working, middle-class families; and where everyone has a fair chance at a good middle-class life. Passing Bill C-69 is how we will arrive at that destination.

I am going to focus on three key sections of what is a very big budget implementation act, but I will say that the theme of the overall budget this year is fairness for every generation. While I might focus a lot on gen Z and the millennial generation, there is fairness for every generation in our budget and in our budget implementation act.

The first section I am going to talk about is with regard to cheaper Internet, home phone and cellphone plans. A major part of our plan is making life cost less.

Inflation has now been back within the Bank of Canada’s target range for three months in a row. However, more work is needed to help reduce the cost of living, including the cost of essential services in day-to-day life.

Last year, we made a commitment to reduce the cost of cellphone plans by 25%, as too many Canadians still pay far too much for their cellphones and Internet. That is why budget 2024 announces our intention to amend the Telecommunications Act, to better allow Canadians to renew or switch their Internet, home phone or cellphone plans.

Through these amendments, carriers would be prevented by the CRTC from charging Canadians extra fees to switch companies. In addition, they would be required to help customers identify new plans, including lower-cost plans that exist, at the end of a contract, and they would also have to provide a self-service option for customers to switch between or end their plans.

Together, these amendments would help more Canadians save money by getting fairer prices and paying fewer fees, no matter where they live. In addition, to ensure that Canadians can keep their expensive devices working for longer, budget 2024 announces that we will launch consultations this June to develop a right-to-repair framework with the goal of increasing product durability and repairability. On top of saving consumers money, this framework would aim to facilitate a more circular economy by reducing the number of products in landfills, a win-win if I have ever seen one.

The next thing I want to talk about is more affordable and modern banking. “Fairness for every generation” also means a banking system that is more flexible. We all know that banks charge a multitude of fees, from ATM fees to monthly service fees and non-sufficient funds fees, or NSF fees, which are charged when there is not enough money in a bank account to cover a cheque or pre-authorized transaction.

Budget 2024 states our intention to support Canadians who are struggling financially by introducing regulations that will cap these punitive fees at $10. These new regulations would also require banks to alert consumers when they are about to be charged an NSF fee, provide a grace period to deposit additional funds and restrict multiple fees for the same transaction and the number of fees that may be charged in a 72-hour period.

I know that a number of banks already do some of these things already. What we want to do is make this uniform right across all financial institutions in Canada.

Because more and more transactions happen online, our government is also working to modernize the services offered by Canadian banks to keep up with the needs of Canadians.

Budget 2024 announces that the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, or FCAC, is in negotiations with banks to secure enhanced agreements to offer modernized zero dollars per month and up to four dollars per month bank accounts that reflect today’s banking trends, including more transactions. This would especially help youth and students who are just opening their first bank accounts.

That is not all. Bill C-69 also includes legislative amendments to expand the mandate of the FCAC to supervise Canada’s consumer-driven banking framework. Budget 2024 proposes to provide $1 million to the FCAC to support preparation for its new responsibilities and to begin development of a consumer awareness campaign. It also proposes $4 million over three years to the Department of Finance to complete the policy work necessary to establish and maintain oversight over this framework, including a national security regime.

However, before we go any further, let me explain what this could mean for Canadians. Known to many as open banking, consumer-driven banking allows consumers and small businesses to safely transfer their financial data to service providers through a data-sharing channel known as an application programming interface, or API. This happens quite literally at the click of a button. Currently, an estimated nine million Canadians share their financial data by providing banks, credit unions and other providers with their confidential banking credentials. This process, known as screen scraping, is incredibly unsafe and puts both consumers and our entire financial system at risk.

A Canadian consumer-driven banking framework would empower Canadians to access and share their financial data without having to share access to their bank account. It would also provide access to new products and tools to help Canadians better manage bills, track a budget, make more informed financial decisions, secure a loan and even help young Canadians when it is time for them to buy their first home.

An era of open banking is here, and Canada deserves to be part of it. I would add that it cannot come too soon. We know that most countries around the world have already moved forward with open banking. Also, having spoken recently to the Canadian Bankers Association, I know it is very supportive of open banking and has indicated that open banking will also put a regulatory regime in place that will protect against fraud and other risks to Canadians online.

The last section I want to talk about is doing more to crack down on predatory lending. In terms of protecting Canadians, our federal government is also working to prevent more vulnerable individuals, like newcomers, low-income Canadians and youth, from being deceived and trapped by illegal lenders who try to bypass the criminal rate of interest. Last year, our federal government advanced amendments to change the definition of “criminal rate” in the Criminal Code from an effective annual rate of interest that exceeds 60% to an annual percentage rate, or APR, that exceeds 35%.

Building on these changes, federal budget 2024 proposes additional Criminal Code amendments against offering or advertising credit at a criminal rate of interest. These amendments empower law enforcement by prohibiting offering credit at a criminal rate of interest and allowing for prosecutions of illegal and predatory lenders without needing the approval of the Attorney General.

Federal budget 2024 also announces that we intend to work with provincial and territorial governments to harmonize and enhance consumer protection measures in respect of consumer lending, focusing in particular on high-cost loans and payday loans. Actions taken could include everything from capping the costs of optional insurance products for high-cost loans, including payday loans and strengthening payday loan regulations, to enhancing monitoring and data collection practices in the high-cost loan market. These proposed measures would limit the risk of harmful debt cycles and help more Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets.

Our government is taking action to build a fairer Canada, with transformative measures that will give people back control over their personal finances and banking choices, cap banking fees and give Canadians better access to digital banking, lower-cost accounts and stronger consumer protection. We can unlock the promise of Canada so that younger generations can build a better life, as their parents and grandparents did before them, but we cannot do it alone.

I hope that my hon. colleagues will support Bill C-69 and join us in our vision of a better, brighter future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with the hon. member on the finance committee. We have both spoken about the importance of productivity in the economy, though maybe from different perspectives.

The government has been in power for nine years now and this is its latest budget. There is a gap between U.S. and Canadian incomes and GDP per capita, which is now at a record deviation, meaning that the gap between what Canadians are earning and what Americans are earning has never been greater. At what point will that gap start to be reduced?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, enjoy working with my hon. colleague on the finance committee.

The issue around productivity and business investment is not a new one in Canada. Actually, we have been tackling productivity for more than 30 years, and business investment for the last 20-plus years. I would say that it is not just federal budget 2024 where we have made huge investments in our economy, in our economic infrastructure and in Canadians so that we can continue to give Canadians the tools and the skills to be able to succeed and for Canada to have a prosperous economy, both now and in the future. I think a number of the measures that we have in our budget will help with the productivity issue, as well as with the business investment issue.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2021, the Centre de recherche sur les milieux insulaires et maritimes, CERMIM, set up the LOREVA project. This is a project to locate, recover and recycle ghost fishing gear. Ghost fishing gear refers to the snow crab traps that have remained on the bottom of the St. Lawrence. The project was financed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' ghost gear fund. We developed a technique using an underwater robot that preserves the seabed. It is one of the finest techniques currently available for preserving marine species. We collected over 200 traps and more than 35 kilometres of rope. That is the equivalent of five tonnes of plastic material that was recovered from the St. Lawrence.

There is nothing in the budget that renews funding for this ghost gear program. I wonder why the government refuses to extend funding for this project.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question, but I actually do not know the answer.

I will say that I am very proud that we have made a historic amount of investment in research, scholarships and new strategic research infrastructure in our federal budget 2024. We have put $5.9 billion, which includes $2.4 billion for core research grants and to foster top-tier Canadian talent via more scholarships and fellowships through Canada's research granting councils. I am not sure if any of those dollars will actually help with the very important issue that my colleague has mentioned, which should be addressed.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was really disappointed in the budget. As I have said very clearly, I think auto theft is an issue in this country, but the government put $45 million toward auto theft and $22 million toward the issue of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. That sends a really strong message that this country values cars more than it values indigenous peoples. I am hoping that the government can do better, because that was shocking.

Today, my private member's bill will be put forward for second reading. It is in support of putting in a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income in response to call for justice 4.5 of the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls, which is something all parties have committed to uphold, all 231 calls for justice. I am wondering whether the hon. member will support my call to implement a guaranteed livable basic income.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the hon. member's bill. In the last Parliament, I also had a private member's bill to introduce a guaranteed basic income. I was very proud to do so, so I am very happy that the member is also supportive of that.

On indigenous peoples in Canada and funding in the federal budget 2024, I am very proud of the historic investments our government has made over the last eight and a half years that we have been in government. I know that we have a lot more to do, and I look forward to working with the member and other colleagues in this House to continue to strengthen and invest in a new nation-to-nation relationship.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The bill before us is a combination of the worst features of Liberal budgets over the past nine years. It is more out-of-control spending, more massive deficits, higher debt, higher interest payments and more waste.

After nine years of Liberal budgets, everyone agrees that Canada is a mess. Listening to the Prime Minister over the last few weeks, we have heard him say just how broken he believes that this country has become since he became the Prime Minister. His admissions have been frank. He has said that Canada is no longer fair for Canadians. He said that life sucks under his leadership. He has said, “It used to be that the deal was, if you worked hard at a good job, you could afford a home. That doesn't seem the case anymore.”

He has talked about the hardship that he has caused:

In today's Canada, more people are renting than ever before and that number is growing at double the rate of those able to buy a new home compared to a decade ago. Nearly two thirds of young Canadians rent their homes and they spend a greater share of their income on housing than other generations.

He has talked about the desperation that he has caused: “The idea of a really strong, exciting future seems further and further away now than it did just a few years ago...[the] loss of hope and optimism is devastating for people's morale.” He also said:

Maybe young people want to start a family, but they don't know how they can afford something bigger than a one-bedroom apartment and with the costs of groceries, monthly bills and all the other realities of life going up, up, up, well, that can make it hard to save for the future, hard to get ahead.

The Prime Minister is right. Over the past nine years, Canadians' lives have become harder. People are suffering more today than at any other time in recent generations.

Over two million Canadians are lining up at food banks every month because they cannot afford to feed themselves. There are networks of Canadians sharing tips on how to dumpster-dive because they do not have enough money to pay for food. Mothers are adding water to their kids' milk so that it will go further. Homeless encampments are now popping up in communities that have never witnessed this type of homelessness or hopelessness before. Seniors are turning down the heat in their homes during freezing winters because they are unable to afford to heat their home anymore.

Canadians are suffering, and the Prime Minister has been forced to admit it, but he seems curiously oblivious as to how all of this happened. At least he wants people to believe he has not intentionally devastated their lives. He seems legitimately dumbfounded by it all. I half expect him to launch an inquiry to try to figure out who did this to Canada. Who has been in charge for the past nine years?

It is not a secret: He did it. His recklessness and extremist economic policies have devastated the lives of Canadians of every generation across this country. Over the past nine years, he has doubled the national debt, driving inflation to 40-year highs and forcing interest rates to skyrocket faster than at any other time in our history. Over the past nine years, he has made it easier on his wealthy friends to become wealthier, while the middle class and those trying to join it no longer dream of doing better. They just hope that they can survive.

Seriously, over the past nine years, the Prime Minister has added more to the national debt than every other prime minister before him combined. That is a staggering stat. He has doubled the national debt in Canada in just nine years. He has added more to the debt while he has been Prime Minister than all 22 previous prime ministers added together over 147 years.

He was warned that the debt would cripple our national economy. He was warned that his policy of printing and pouring $600 billion into the economy, not backed by economic growth, would drive up inflation, followed by sharp increases in the interest rates. He laughed it off, saying that the interest rates are at record lows, and he disregarded the simplest of economic principles by claiming that interest rates would remain low for a very long time.

However, his ignorance of economic and monetary policy did not save Canadians from the inevitable fallout of his reckless deficit spending. Inflation skyrocketed to levels not seen in 40 years, driving up the price of everything. Food, homes, vehicles and all of life's essentials became more expensive as the Prime Minister's newly printed cash chased fewer goods.

In response to the Liberal-created inflation crisis, the Bank of Canada tried to douse the flames by increasing interest rates, just like the Prime Minister had been warned would happen. Rates shot up faster than at any time in our history. Those higher rates forced some families out of their homes. Those needing to refinance or renew their mortgages faced higher payments, and some of those have doubled. Those who were forced to sell or who lost their homes are now forced into an overheated rental market, driving up rental rates even further.

Since the Prime Minister got elected, mortgages have doubled, interest payments have doubled, and now rent has doubled, and the crisis has grown and expanded. Unlike he promised, everyone is paying higher interest rates. Everyone who has a student loan, small business loan, line of credit or who has any loan of any type, is now paying the price for the Prime Minister's extremist and lazy economic policy.

The horrifying reality is not only that Canadians are being forced into austerity in their personal lives by this Prime Minister's reckless deficit spending, but also that Canadians are now paying the price at the national level as well, with higher interest rates on the national debt, a debt that is now twice the size from when the Liberals took office. The devastating information found in the Liberals' budget document, which was just released a couple of weeks ago, is the revelation that Canadian taxpayers are now paying more in interest payments on the national debt than they are for health care for all Canadians. That is the cost of running up the national credit card way past the max.

As a matter of fact, put a different way, every penny that is collected from the GST, in every transaction across Canada, is now being sent to wealthy bankers and bondholders for the interest on the Prime Minister's destructive debt. The devastating news that is found in the budget document is that the Prime Minister now intends to add $300 billion more in binge borrowing. The Prime Minister said that under his leadership, the wealthy are getting richer, while regular Canadians are getting left behind. He is right.

However, the Prime Minister's buddies who are the bankers and bondholders are not the only ones getting rich under his leadership. The Liberals have opened the floodgates of the public treasury to the consultant buddies as well. The government is now handing over $21 billion, every year, of borrowed money to these guys for projects—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have one minute for debate the next time this matter is before the House, plus his questions and comments.

Bill C-69—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am very encouraged by the budget implementation bill. There are many aspects of it that one could talk about.

I want to highlight something the Prime Minister highlighted just last week in Winnipeg North. We gathered at Elwick school and had a great elevation of an important issue, the national school food program. It is going to feed literally hundreds of thousands of children and ensure they have food in their stomachs while they are learning in the classroom.

Could the minister provide her thoughts on how such important budgetary measures are going to affect the lives of Canadians?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, I am very excited about the national school food program, which we estimate is going to lift 400,000 children out of poverty across this country. It is something we will work on with the provinces, territories and, of course, indigenous communities.

We know that developing brains need good nutrition, and Canada needs everyone to be able to reach their full potential. That is why it is important that we work in partnership with communities, school boards, provinces and territories to make sure that every child, no matter their income level, has a fair chance to get a good head start that day and be able to nourish their brains as they nourish their minds.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely disappointing to be sitting here and have the government decide, once again, to use the blunt force object that is time allocation rather than allowing a fulsome debate on the bill.

This is an implementation bill on a budget for which we have had countless constituent emails come to my office from people with very serious concerns. However, here the government is ramming this through again. It is very clear that it is afraid to hear what Canadians have to say on this.

Is the government concerned about the further inflationary spending that is being brought forward through the budget and what the impacts will be on Canadians?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear my colleague opposite speak about their concerns around the budget. In fact, the Conservative leader, without a second thought, said he would vote against the budget to support fairness for every generation. It includes many measures that the Conservative Party has been calling for, indeed, for example, more aggression on getting houses built across our country. The Canada housing plan would see 3.87 million new homes unlocked by 2031 and would ensure that the dream of home ownership is in reach for young Canadians, something that I know she and many members of the party opposite have spoken about in the House.

I would urge her to move this bill quickly to study. That is where we will be able to hear a variety of perspectives on this bill. We will be able to move more quickly to ensure that Canadians have what they need to have a fairness in their lives.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important to be able to move legislation so that we can actually get something done. Canadians expect us to get something done here.

One of my concerns is that, in dealing with the issue of a national food program, a school nutrition program, if this passes, it is going to rob the Conservatives of their ability to stand up in the House. This morning, we heard the member for Peterborough going on about how concerned she was that children were not eating, although we have offered a national school program. She said that that it was just bureaucracy. That is what they think of feeding children; they called it “bureaucracy”.

I would like to ask the hon. member, the minister, about this. We are the only G7 country without a national nutrition program for school children, yet we have the Conservatives trying to block this. They are gaslighting people, and they actually claim that children are going hungry, while they will not let a program to feed children go ahead.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker. the hon. member noted that, in fact, we have a gap here in Canada, and that is feeding hungry children in school. We know that brains actually need that nourishment to develop and that Canada needs every ounce of potential if we are going to meet the challenging conditions of today and tomorrow.

We hear the members opposite in the Conservative Party speak about the need, on one hand, to take care of children and to take care of communities, but on the other hand, to not move forward quickly to ensure that programs are in place so that, no matter a person's income, they can access food, with dignity and with pride, in school, the way it should be.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise on behalf of the constituents of the riding of Waterloo. They have brought many items to my attention and have raised many concerns. They want different levels of government to work together.

Within this budget implementation act, I understand there would be increased health care funding. There would be the national school food program that we have heard about. There would be funding for nearly four million homes. The region of Waterloo, within the riding of Waterloo, has received really good support through the housing accelerator fund. There would also be support for renters to ensure that they are able to understand their tenant rights so that they will not be put out of their homes.

Some constituents have also been raising the issue of free contraceptives. I know it is a hard conversation in this place, especially as the official opposition does not recognize that a woman should be able to have full control and decision-making over her body. It is unfortunate that we are still having that debate, but we know where Liberals stand.

I also know that this is about affordable dental care and much more.

I would like to hear from the minister as to what this budget implementation act would do when it comes to affordability and when it comes to making lives better for Canadians, especially for constituents within the riding of Waterloo.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her elocution of her constituents' concerns and of their thoughts. In fact, this entire budget is wrapped around the concept of fairness for every generation.

There are many exciting measures in the budget that would actually bring down the costs for Canadians, that would support Canadians, no matter what stage of life they are in, and, in fact, that would get us to a place where we have everybody reaching their full potential. There are things like expanding the Canada student loan forgiveness program so that pharmacists, dentists, dental hygienists, midwives, early childhood educators, teachers, social workers, personal support workers, physiotherapists and psychologists who choose to work in rural and remote communities could have any Canada student loan forgiven. That takes it a step beyond what we have already done, which is to remove interest on student loans, because the government is focused on making sure people reach their full potential.

The member opposite also spoke about contraceptives. In fact, we know that many people struggle with access to medication. That is why we are taking those next important steps on pharmacare, including the provision of diabetes medication and, importantly, contraceptive medication. We do believe, on this side of the House, that women should have the right to full autonomy over their bodies.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the budget and the BIA are increasing taxes on Canadians who cannot afford any more and on parents who cannot afford to put food on their tables to feed their children because taxes keep going up, in particular, the carbon tax. The reason we do not support the budget is that the NDP-Liberal government keeps increasing taxes on Canadians. Why is the government so bad at managing the calendar that it needs to limit debate on every single piece of legislation at every single stage?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would propose this question: Why are Conservatives so much in the way of actually making life more affordable for Canadians?

In the budget measures that we have proposed, there are many things the Conservatives themselves have called for that would make it more affordable for Canadians. In fact, we see a highlight of, yet again, misinformation that is being shared around the carbon tax when, in fact, eight out of 10 families get back more than they pay, and it is part of reducing emissions. I happened to overhear a conversation in this place earlier this morning. People were talking about the fear of the fires out west. We know we have to do more to protect the climate and to protect Canadians. The budget has measures for that, and we need to move quickly because Canadians are expecting us to work together on their behalf.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to just repeat that last question in a bit of a different way because, in this place, we should have a government and we should have a strong opposition who holds that government to account. Unfortunately, what we have is an official opposition who only gets in the way.

Every single time that we are trying to do something and actually get results, what do we hear from the Conservatives? We hear Conservatives yelling because they cannot handle hearing a woman ask a question, and then actually listen quietly. When the Conservatives want the floor, they want to be able to speak and to be listened to, but when it is their turn to listen, they do not want to listen. That is what is always really interesting about the Conservative way.

Why is it that every single time—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

If the member wants the floor, Mr. Speaker, you can give it to him. However, I believe I have the floor, so you might want to remind him who has the floor, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to hear from the minister—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. I do not know where all this disorder is coming from, but let us get the hon. member for Waterloo to finish up the question.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to hear from the minister why it is that whenever we are trying to respond to the very challenging times and to the needs of Canadians, we always have to use these kinds of tools to actually get the work done.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the loyal opposition has a very important job, and that is to work with all members of Parliament to make sure that the laws that we pass and the spending that we undertake actually benefit Canadians.

The Conservatives have an opportunity today. We can get this bill to committee. The questions that their constituents have, the comments that they have themselves, the experts that they've consulted with and those kinds of things can be fleshed out at committee, as members know. In fact, that is an important part of studying the bill.

Therefore, I would urge members not to stand in the way of fairness for every generation. We are talking about those who need the support. We are talking about measures that would make life more affordable for Canadians. That is all the Conservatives seem to want to talk about, but when the rubber hits the road, they do not want to do anything.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister why her party hates democracy so much. The fact is that we have not had a single hour of debate on Bill C-69, a 657-page piece of legislation, and the Liberals are already limiting debate. I know that the Liberals' leader once said that he most admires China, and I know that they find the opposition's questions and perhaps having a different perspective gets in the way. The member for Waterloo said that she thinks it is terrible that the opposition would actually have a different perspective. Why do the minister and the government think that debate on government bills is something that should not happen?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting to be standing in this place talking about democracy with a member of the loyal opposition who voted against the support that Ukraine needed to defend democracy. It is ironic that as we talk about whether Liberals defend democracy, it is actually this side of the House that works with other countries that are working so hard and, in fact, that are losing lives to defend democracy, yet the Conservatives are going to attack our record of democracy—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I just want to make sure that we keep our noise down to a minimum.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the House, we have seen the Conservatives blocking the dental care legislation.

Six thousand seniors, on average, in each of the Conservative MPs' ridings, have actually signed up for dental care so far, and we know that millions more are joining as we speak. Tens of thousands of Canadian seniors have benefited from dental care.

We have seen the Conservatives opposing the pharmacare legislation, even though 17,000 of their constituents, on average, would benefit from the diabetes medication components, and 25,000 people in their ridings, on average, would benefit from contraceptive coverage.

We now have the Conservatives blocking Bill C-69 as well. We are talking about affordable housing. These are all things that the NDP has forced the government to put forward in a minority Parliament. This is important.

My question to my colleague is simply this. Why are the Conservatives systematically opposing measures that would help people in their ridings?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his hard work on many of the measures that he outlined and that are, in fact, featured in this budget.

I cannot answer why it is that Conservatives oppose measures that help their own constituents, but it is a good question for their constituents. I think that is why it is important that we get this bill to committee because we will hear a variety of perspectives on what is in that bill and how it will help Canadians.

The member opposite talked about dental care. I just want to share that I have someone in my family who will actually benefit from the Canada dental care plan. I am very excited to say that there are so many seniors in my riding getting care for severe dental caries who had no coverage anywhere else in this country. This is life-changing. It is about alleviating pain. It is about increasing dignity. I know we can do better as a country. I hope the Conservatives will help.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in budget after budget, the government has allocated more funding towards indigenous services. However, we have seen various reports by the PBO and by others outside indicating that the dollars being spent by the Liberal government are not leading to an equivalent increase in the ability of ISC and its programs to achieve the goals it has set for itself. In other words, it is more spending, but it is not improving the lives of first nations and indigenous peoples to the measure that it should.

Are there any specific, tangible steps that the minister could provide to assure members of the House and Canadians that the new spending being brought forward in this budget would actually go to the grassroots, to the first nations leaders and to the people who need this funding?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that the member opposite does not realize that, in fact, after a decade of not spending anything in indigenous services equity, including, for example, keeping indigenous education suppressed below the provincial average, meaning that children in indigenous communities did not have the same fair chances to graduate and that graduation rates were abysmally lower than non-indigenous students, we changed that. In fact, we created equity within education systems.

We are excited that, in this budget, there will be increased amounts of money available for post-secondary education so that anybody who is ready, willing and wants to go to post-secondary, whether it is trades, college or university, will be able to have the supports to be able to succeed, increasing the capacity of every community.

These are the kinds of investments we are proud of. Over 25% of the new spend in this budget is dedicated to indigenous priorities. I would challenge the member to speak with the national chief and others about how he could be an advocate for ensuring that communities have the autonomy they have the right to.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister this question. Does she see a pattern of behaviour here where the Conservatives constantly want to roadblock programs Canadians desperately need, whether it be dental care, pharmacare or the hot lunch program, the food program for Canadians?

I am also seeing a pattern of behaviour by the Conservatives of blocking the passage of important legislation at committee. We experienced that at the immigration committee when we tried to address the lost Canadian issue; the Conservatives took away the right of second-generation-born Canadians to pass on their citizenship to their children if they were born abroad.

From that perspective, I would like to ask the minister if she could comment. In order to move things forward, to get things done for Canadians, what options does the government have?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier we were talking about a national food program. We cannot starve our way to prosperity, but that is what the Conservatives seem to want to try yet again. They want to starve their way to prosperity, and that is not how we get ahead as a country. We get ahead as a country by taking care of each other, and this budget is about that. It is about fairness for every generation.

I think everyone in the House would say that we appreciate and welcome constructive debate among each other. That is what we do. We are members of Parliament. We are always ready to work with each other, with our opposition colleagues, to make life better for Canadians. When see that pattern of obstruction, the Conservatives are not obstructing the government, they are obstructing Canadians who are waiting for this bill to pass so they can see improvements in their lives.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, talking about pattern of behaviour, we see in the House a party, the New Democratic Party, not acting as the opposition party it was elected as, but as the government's lapdog. It is absolutely pathetic. When we talk about Canadians and what—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This has been a recurring incidence of very poor unparliamentary language, so I would ask the member to withdraw.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I just remind folks to be judicious in the words they use in explaining things.

The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster has the floor.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation was introduced in this place on May 6. There has only been four sitting days since that time and we are seeing, again, time allocation on a bill at a stage. I will go back to my first question I asked not long ago, which I did not receive an answer from the minister.

Why is the government so terrible at managing the government calendar that it needs to limit debate on every stage and every piece of legislation?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we hear two parties in the House talk about the obstruction of the Conservatives in the House. Therefore, it is a little rich as the members opposite get up and name-call and yell at members of the opposition, who are just doing their job as well.

We all have a job here, and I would encourage us all to stay focused on what that job is, which is to ensure that we work for Canadians, that we work on programs that will support Canadians, and that we work on law and policy that will support Canadians to reach their full potential. There are no shortages of problems in the world and we can be part of that solution if we actually work together.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's comments addressed parts of Bill C-69, but unfortunately, as we know, it is an omnibus bill. As an omnibus bill, it includes other parts that are not intended to help Canadians who are most in need or help indigenous communities, but to push through, without proper study, quick and dirty amendments to the Impact Assessment Act.

I intend to move a motion later today to ask that the impact assessment portions of this omnibus bill be removed so they can be properly studied, not by the Standing Committee on Finance but by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I wonder if the minister has any thoughts on that.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every item in this legislation appears in the text of this year's budget, either in its chapters or in the legislative annex. We look forward to the robust debate that will happen through this debate and certainly at committee. It is important we ensure we work together. As I said, Canadians are expecting us to work quickly together to ensure they have the measures they need.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I made reference to the national food program. There are all sorts of other aspects of the budget that are so important, such as the red dress alert. I know the minister is familiar with the program. Ottawa is working with the province on the very important issue of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and others. Through co-operation with stakeholders and different levels of governments, this has become a reality.

I am wondering if the minister can provide her thoughts on this important initiative, as well as the importance of working with stakeholders and governments.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member of Parliament for highlighting the importance of the parts of the budget implementation act that address indigenous priorities. Indeed, the red dress alert is an indigenous priority. It is something indigenous families have been calling to have for a very long time. It is a pleasure to work with members in the House to ensure we can get that alert up and running.

I was very proud to be one of the ministers who launched the inquiry into the missing and murdered indigenous women after a decade of Stephen Harper refusing to do that, saying it was not on his radar. Indigenous women and girls know they have an ally. This government will continue to work with partners across the country.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the government is so scared to have an actual fulsome debate on the budget, if it is so proud of the budget. It spent weeks going out selling the budget to Canadians before putting it into the House of Commons, yet, as my colleague has stated, we have had four sitting days to have conversation on this.

The government is absolutely atrocious when it comes to managing its own schedule. It expects everyone else to pick up the slack when it fails to deliver results for Canadians. We are here, holding the government accountable. It is shameful that the New Democrats continue to prop up the government, allowing it to get by with something that they would have previously rolled over to prevent any kind of time allocation. What we see over and over again is them supporting time allocation and curtailing debate.

Why is the government so afraid to have a debate on the budget? If it is as good as the Liberals say it is, why will they not just let us have this conversation and debate?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think what Canadians expect is for parties to work together in the House, to find compromises to ensure that things can move forward that will benefit them and their families. That is why the NDP works closely with the Liberals to ensure that there are measures in the budget that actually meet the needs of constituents in their ridings. The Conservatives have an opportunity to do that as well.

That member talks about being scared. When they are calling members opposite names and when they are trying to drown people out by yelling at them, that is when they are scared. We see a pattern of obstruction by the Conservatives, while the other parties are willing to roll up their sleeves and work hard for Canadians.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. The minister opposite is implying that somehow we are calling people names or yelling, neither of which is accurate.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I appreciate the debate that we are having today, but that is falling into debate.

With questions and comments, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives oppose every measure that can actually help people. The NDP is bringing a lot to this minority Parliament.

There is one thing I do not understand. Why are the Conservatives blocking all these bills that address affordable housing, dental care, pharmacare? There is even a measure about lunches for school children. All these measures are being blocked by the Conservatives. They do not want it to pass through Parliament. It is a bit like the tiranny of a minority party—they want to block all the bills that will help people.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. Why do the Conservatives oppose every measure that helps people, including their own constituents?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. The Conservative Party's obstruction in the House is sad to watch.

We have to work together. Canadians are waiting for us to implement many of the measures in the budget. In fact, the Conservatives have called for many of those same measures.

Let us talk about housing for a moment. The Conservatives have talked about the need for ambition on housing. This budget proposes a lot of ambition in partnership, something I believe the members opposite are forgetting about, with provinces, territories and municipalities. Canadians cannot wait for that kind of action. In fact, what they want to see is that kind of collaboration.

Of course, let us have debate and let us talk about what we need to achieve on behalf of Canada, but there are many ways to do that in a way that is not obstructionist. We see the Conservative Party continuing to obstruct the House and committees. We hope we will see a change of heart very soon.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that every single member who has been elected to this place has a really important role to play, whether in government or in opposition. When it comes to a minority Parliament, one of the ways of advancing important legislation and programs for Canadians to respond to their needs is to work together.

What I am finding challenging in the conversation today is that I hear some constructive feedback from some members, saying this is a way we could move forward. Then I see an official opposition that never had to play nicely in the sandbox and does not remember the primary principles of kindergarten, where we can work together to deliver for our constituents across the country.

I will always fight for the constituents of the riding of Waterloo and I will try to work with whomever I can to ensure they have the programs and services they need.

When it comes to legislation like this, what is the value and importance of members remembering why we are elected and how do we deliver for constituents? Do we do better by working together or do we just blindly oppose and not get anything done?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member opposite mentioned kindergarten, because it reminds me of a time when I was a lunchroom monitor. It was a lowly position, but a very important one. I went to the school every day to help ensure that students were safe in the playground and safe in the lunchroom. One of the hardest things to see as a lunchroom monitor were the number of children who did not have enough to eat. I will remind members this was 15 or 20 years ago.

My colleague from the NDP mentioned that Canada was the only G7 country without a school food program. This kind of suffering can be alleviated, and alleviated quickly, because we have provinces, territories and school boards that are eagerly awaiting the implementation of a national food program. Many allies and advocates have worked very hard to propose to the government how best to do this to ensure that no child is in school hungry and that every child has an opportunity to succeed.

We will continue to work with the majority of MPs in the House who want to see this budget pass.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the minister's own portfolio. The government's indigenous procurement policy obliges that when indigenous companies are hired under the policy, a certain proportion of those subcontractors be indigenous. However, documents shared with the government operations committee show that there is absolutely no tracking of subcontractors.

Does the minister think it is acceptable that adherence to the requirements on indigenous subcontracting are not being tracked by the government?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that I am very excited about in Bill C-69 is that 25% of the new spending is proposed for indigenous priorities, including a major loan guarantee for which indigenous partners have been calling for economic reconciliation, to ensure that when natural resource projects or other major projects in the country go forward, indigenous people also prosper, stopping what I would say is a pattern of exclusion. This is going to enrich all of us. I look forward to the member's support.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Respectfully, there may have been an issue with the translation because the minister did not seem to hear the question. What she said had nothing to do with the question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We are out of time.

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #761

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I declare the motion carried.

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to canvass the House, I suspect would find unanimous consent to allow the 17 statements by members before question period.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from May 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege today to rise to speak to the 2024 budget. It is a plan to build more homes faster, help make life cost less and grow the economy in a way that helps every generation get ahead. When I talk to my constituents in Scarborough Centre, they tell me that they want to see our government work to ensure fairness for every generation, including for the youth just finishing school and ready to enter the world, for the families trying to get by and save for the future, and for the seniors looking to live the dignified retirement they have worked so hard for. That is the goal of this budget: growth that lifts everyone up and fairness for every generation.

Let us start with housing. It is consistently the number one priority of my constituents. I will admit our government has not always gotten this right. Successive governments from both parties and at all levels of government, including cities, provinces and the federal government, have failed to work together on housing with the seriousness this issue deserves. That is why we are in a housing crisis in Canada. It is a crisis that impacts every generation. Young people are moving back home after college or university because they cannot afford to move out on their own, homeowners are worried about keeping their homes when their mortgages are up for renewal and seniors are trying to either age at home with dignity or find assisted living that meets both their needs and their budgets.

Inaction in the past does not mean we should not act today. We must act on housing and this budget lays down the federal gauntlet in a serious way with an ambitious plan to unlock 3.87 million homes by 2031. If we are going to do it, we will need to work together, and the federal government is ready to do its share and then some. We would invest $1.5 billion in the Canada rental protection fund to help affordable housing providers acquire units and preserve rents at a stable level for decades to come, preventing those units from being redeveloped into out-of-reach condos or luxury rental units.

The $6-billion Canada housing infrastructure fund would accelerate the construction and upgrading of housing, enabling water, waste-water, storm-water and solid-waste infrastructure that would directly enable new housing supply and help improve densification. More money would be available to cities that legalize more housing zoning for smart density and more missing middle homes. We would leverage the $55-billion apartment construction loan program to partner with provinces to build more rental housing across the country. Provinces would need to make their own investments, cut red tape to begin building faster, and agree to expand protections and rights for renters in order to access federal funding. Solving the housing crisis requires a team Canada approach. Working with the provinces, we are creating the Canadian renters' bill of rights to protect renters from unfair practices, make leases simpler and increase price transparency as well as crack down on renovictions, introduce a nationwide standard lease agreement and require landlords to disclose historical rent prices of the apartments.

We are taking action to make it easier for homeowners to increase Canada's supply of housing by adding additional suites to their home. The new Canada secondary suite loan program would enable homeowners to access up to $40,000 in low-interest loans to add secondary suites to their homes.

More homes need to be built closer to the services that Canadians count on. Transit that is more accessible and reliable means Canadians can spend more time with their friends and family members. It is crucial that all orders of government work together to achieve this. Any community seeking to access long-term, predictable funding through the federal government's permanent public transit fund would be required to take action that directly unlocks housing supply where it is needed most, by eliminating mandatory parking requirements and allowing high-density housing within 800 metres of a high-frequency transit line.

These are just a few of the concrete measures, backed by real dollars, that we are taking to jump-start housing in Canada. We are ready to work with the provinces and cities that are ready to get serious on housing, and we are ready to take on the gatekeepers if they stand in our way.

However, we need to do more than just focus on housing. Affordability is impacting all facets of life in Canada and around the world, and we are taking action. In Scarborough and in many communities across Canada, many children are going to school hungry. It is hard to learn on an empty stomach. Our next generation deserves the best possible start in their lives. That is why we are launching the national school food program to help 400,000 more kids get the food they need through existing school food programs.

Our child care program is saving families thousands of dollars every year, but there still are not enough child care spaces. We will help public and not-for-profit child care providers to build more child care spaces and renovate existing centres. We are investing $8 billion to build more child care spaces, offering student loan forgiveness for rural and remote early childhood educators and training more early childhood educators.

We are taking action to help seniors on a number of important fronts. Since 2017, we have invested $11.8 billion in long-term care and community care, but more action is needed to keep our seniors safe. We will introduce a safe long-term care act to support new national long-term care standards to help ensure safe, reliable and high-quality care and improve infection prevention and control practices. The old age security program, which includes the OAS pension, GIS and other allowances, is the government's largest program. It will provide $80.6 billion to more than seven million seniors in the year 2024-25. Old age security annual program expenditures are projected to grow by close to 24% to almost $100 billion by 2028-29 for Canadian seniors.

Oral health care is an important part of overall health care, and we are rolling out the Canadian dental care plan, starting with Canadian seniors. Since May 1, more than 50,000 Canadian patients have accessed care through the CDCP, and more than 9,000 dental care professionals have signed up to provide care. This program will improve health outcomes and save money for Canadians, starting with our seniors.

We have introduced legislation to help make essential medications more accessible and more affordable for Canadians. The budget includes $1.5 billion to support the launch of the national pharmacare plan. The first phase will ensure the effective rollout of pharmacare by providing immediate support for health care needs of women as well as people with diabetes. More areas will be added very soon.

Budget 2024 is a plan to take bold action to build more homes faster, help make life cost less and grow the economy in a way that is shared by all. This year's budget would drive our economy toward growth that lifts everyone up, because that is fairness for every generation.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech, but I did not hear any explanation from that member as to why, as the first speaker, she thought it was appropriate that time allocation be put on the budget bill on a half a trillion dollars of spending, limiting debate before it even starts. I would like her to explain to this House, if she could, why she thinks that not having sufficient debate on this spending is a good idea.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a budget for fairness for every generation. It is really very important that Canadians are looking to all of us to come together and make decisions that will help build more houses faster. Action needs to be taken today, and many Canadians are relying on us, so it is really very important that we put our partisan politics aside and make sure that the implementation of the budget starts as soon as possible, so that Canadians can start seeing the results. We can start building housing; we can make sure that the kids do not go hungry at school. This budget would help 400,000 kids get food during these food programs.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech.

Earlier, during oral question period, we heard the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance tell us how important the Quebec nation and the French language in Quebec are for her.

However, there is nothing in the budget to subsidize French. From 1995 to 2002, I found that 94% of funding of official languages in Quebec went to support English. Furthermore, in the action plan for official languages 2023-28, it is the same thing, with 94% of the money going to supporting English.

I know that my colleague believes in people's right to self-determination. In her opinion, should the federal government not stop using official languages funding to undermine Quebec’s self-determination?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to highlight that in Bill C-13 there are major investments for the French language. Within the 2024 budget, we are here to support Quebec by investing $3.4 billion to support young researchers in Canada and in Quebec, $1.28 billion to fight homelessness and $1.5 billion to protect and to expand affordable housing. These are some of the measures being taken in this to make sure there is help to support Quebec.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know economists have been saying for years that there is going to be a need for more rental housing. The capitalist society realized this very quickly, and corporations started buying up more affordable apartment buildings. I think about REITs and about one specific REIT, Boardwalk, which recently made its profit announcement. It talked about the fact that it is using CMHC funding and is taking advantage of low interest rates through CMHC that average Canadians do not have access to.

My question to the member is this: Why is the Liberal government continuing to put the needs of corporate Canada ahead of people who need a place to rent?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really want to thank the hon. member for her question and for making sure that we have more rental units available here in Canada.

Rental units are really very important and our government is doing its best to make sure that we see the construction of more rental units. That is why we will leverage the $55 billion apartment construction loan program to partner with provinces to build more rental housing across the country. Rental units, for sure, are really very important, and we have taken many initiatives to make sure that there is a greater stock of rental units in Canada.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to lead off second reading debate for His Majesty's loyal opposition on Bill C-69, the NDP and Liberals' budget implementation bill. I am disappointed that there will be so few Conservatives allowed to speak on this bill. That being said, we will deal with it at a later date in committee. I know the House will be shocked to learn that I will be voting against this budget bill, and I will tell members why.

As the opposition critic for industry, I have been focused on Canada's declining prosperity since 2015. The public policy choices of the Liberals have caused this decline in prosperity because of three major choices the Liberals made. Number one is that we have too much debt in Canada. Number two is that the world no longer buys enough of what Canada makes, our exports. Number three is that too many oligopolistic industries are charging Canadians too much for their services.

Let us start with the first point: too much debt. When the government debt grows faster than the economy, which is how the Liberals have been managing the country's finances, we eventually hit a wall. Liberal debt has caused inflation, which has caused interest rates to rise. Liberal inflation and interest rates have doubled housing costs and have hurt Canadians. For the ninth year in a row, the NDP-Liberals are running a huge deficit. This year alone, it is $40 billion, and a balanced budget is not even in their thinking.

Let us look at the numbers the budget the Liberals are so proud of proposes. The Liberal spending spree continues with $61 billion in new spending initiatives. The national debt will rise to a record $1.37 trillion. Interest on the national debt will rise from $26.6 billion in the last year of the Harper government to $64.3 billion. Debt interest payments will be more than what Ottawa spends on health care and twice what it spends on national defence.

The budget projects the government's spending to grow to $608 billion, which is $328 billion more than the first year of the Liberal government in 2015. That is a 117% increase in spending alone under the Liberals. That increase alone is more than the entire Harper budget of the last year. In case someone is worried about it, revenue, which is taxes, will rise from $282 billion in 2015 to $586 billion. In other words, government tax revenue has gone up by $304 billion, or 108% under the Liberal government. However, spending has gone up 117%, hence the debt.

If government spending made for a stronger economy and for more powerful paycheques for Canadians, we would be leading the world on our standard of living. However, that is not what Canadians are experiencing. Instead, what we have is a homegrown affordability and productivity crisis. The price of everything has gone up, and productivity per worker has declined. Since 2022, inflation-adjusted GDP per capita, which is an indication of living standards, declined from $60,000 to $58,000 in only a year and a half into 2023 and is now below where it was in 2014, a decade ago.

In other words, declining incomes at a time of rising costs of food, fuel, heating and everything, while our incomes are sliding back, make it more difficult for people to afford daily life. It is a double hit on Canadians thanks to the NDP-Liberals. Clearly, the record spending by the NDP-Liberal government, with the Liberal finance minister adding 62% of Canada's national debt, is not making people better off; it is making things worse.

This is the result of the disastrous policy choices of the NDP-Liberals on deficits, spending, government manipulation of the free market and policy choices to destroy Canada's competitive advantage over other countries, and those are our natural resource industries.

Let us turn to my second point. The world is not buying enough of what Canada creates anymore. As a small nation globally, in terms of population, Canada needs to export in order to maintain and to grow our living standards.

I spent most of my career in business, and when one's company has a competitive advantage, one innovates and works extremely hard to grow and to protect that competitive advantage, otherwise one's business declines and eventually dies. To export what Canada does successfully, we need to offer something other countries do not. In the world of nations, what is Canada's competitive advantage? It is our natural resources. Those include renewables, such as agriculture, fisheries and forestry, and non-renewables, such as minerals, oil and gas. We have been blessed like few others. We need to lead in exporting those commodities and the technology to harvest them.

We do not hear Saudi Arabia saying that they are glad they do not have all those forests to manage like Canada. We do not hear Germany saying that they are glad they do not have all that Canadian oil and gas to manage. In fact, Germany is begging for our oil and gas. However, In 2016, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I apologize, Madam Speaker.

In 2016, the Prime Minister told the World Economic Forum “My predecessor wanted you to know Canada for its resources. Well I want you to know Canadians for our resourcefulness.” While that is a cute thing, let us look at how that has worked out. In 2019, natural resources accounted for 14.9% of Canada's economy, dropping from 19.5% in 2015. At the same time, Canada's prosperity began to decline, as measured by GDP per capita, and it is now the worst in Western democracies. By the way, Klaus Schwab apparently has resigned from the head of the World Economic Forum, so there is a job opening for the Prime Minister.

Why is productivity important? When productivity rises, it means that more output is generated with the same number of hours worked, which boosts profit for business and creates wage growth without lowering business profitability. The growth and export of Canada's natural resource sector not only is the driver to restore our productivity and prosperity, but also is the most important factor in restoring Canada's productivity. It is our competitive advantage globally.

The challenges that the natural resources sector has faced are because of the specific Liberal government policies, which are the key driver of Canada's overall economic decline. The policy choices of the Liberal government with its unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act, which is basically a no-capital-back act, has diminished our ability to get things to market. The Liberals do not recognize that the policy choices they have had on Canadians are driven by their decisions.

According to a report from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, displacing only 20% of Asia's electricity that is generated by coal with clean Canadian liquefied natural gas is the equivalent to eliminating all of Canada's emissions globally. Our goal should be to displace 40% of Asia's coal generation, which would remove two of Canada's carbon emissions from the globe while driving more powerful paycheques at home as Canada resumes its place in the world as an energy superpower. Why would the NDP-Liberals think that destroying this industry is anything but harmful not only to Canadian prosperity but also to reducing carbon emissions? They will have to answer this to voters, hopefully in the not-too-distant future.

However, there is good news. Common-sense Conservatives would proudly restore Canada's competitive advantage by developing all of our renewable and non-renewable resources. Canada's productivity recovery begins with our resource sector. It also begins with restoring fiscal sanity to our finances. We would fix the budget, reduce spending and ensure new spending is matched dollar for dollar with spending reductions. Common-sense Conservatives know that the value of Canada's competitive advantage is our natural resources, and we will get projects permitted in under 18 months.

Does the Liberal budget do anything to get clean, ethical, liquefied natural gas to Asia to replace harmful coal generation? There is not a word, not a peep, not a sentence in the bill on that. This is not a serious budget, since it would not do anything to improve our productivity, and it would do nothing to improve the world's climate issues. However, there is hope on the way and hope for the planet, and it is called an election, which cannot come soon enough for Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is somewhat consistent, yet disappointing, that the Conservative Party does not see fit to support many of the initiatives the government is looking to provide through budgetary measures, such as the national food program for kids. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400,000 children would benefit from that particular program. There are programs dealing with pharmacare and dental care, and the Conservatives continuously vote against these programs by voting against the budget.

I am wondering if the member can explain why the Conservative Party does not believe it should be standing up for Canadians and providing the services that are needed across the country.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thought my speech made it clear. This budget, with its fiscal irresponsibility and efforts to continue to destroy the Canadian competitive advantage of our natural resources, is so significantly dire that we are at a crucial economic turning point for our country. If this is not reversed shortly, we would be in a spiral that would be very difficult to get out of. All we have to do is look at countries such as Argentina, and others with similar resources that had governments that were not willing to develop their natural resources, to see what our economic future under the Liberal vision entails.

Conservatives also believe that we should have a balanced budget. The Liberals used to believe that. In 2015, they said they would balance it in 2019. How has that gone so far? We are now up to a $40-billion deficit after nine years. Every single year, there is a deficit. I guess the Liberal promise in 2015 is not worth any more than the Liberal promise today of this budget.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member of South Shore—St. Margarets for his speech. He is eloquent as usual. I really appreciate my colleague. Among other things, I like his thoroughness.

I find the previous question on the long-term consequences of the budget interesting, particularly in terms of the debt and the deficit, especially as we will be dumping that on future generations.

Why can we not balance the budget? It is because the federal government wants to interfere in something that is not its responsibility or in its area of expertise, by investing in pharmacare, health insurance and dental insurance. These are all things that are not its responsibility.

Can we take this money, lower federal taxes and allow the provinces to invest more? If not, can we stop dumping this on future generations? Perhaps there are solutions to explore. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of that.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, the member from the Bloc and I served together for quite a while on the industry committee, and he added a lot of great value.

Conservatives and the Bloc share the same concerns with the constant and historic desire of the Liberal Party to always tell provinces what to do and how to do their job. Apparently, the Constitution that Pierre Trudeau negotiated and signed is something that members on the Liberal side do not hold in high regard because they are constantly breaking the provisions of the Constitution when they intrude in provincial jurisdiction by using the federal spending power, as the member pointed out.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that my colleague used the World Economic Forum in his speech to keep the Conservative base happy. I sometimes think that the current leader of the Conservative Party is really unhappy with the WEF because former prime minister Stephen Harper never let him go when he was a cabinet minister.

I want to know why my colleague is so tone deaf to the real cause of inflation. If we look at every single major corporate sector that is responsible for the prices that consumers pay, we will see that the increases in costs for shipping containers, fertilizer, oil and gas, and food retail all coincide with massive corporate profit increases over the last three years. Why do the Conservatives refuse to acknowledge this? Are they that intent on running interference in this place on behalf of their corporate Bay Street friends?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, my colleague would know from living in B.C. that RBC has a report out now on the housing crisis in Vancouver, which says that it now takes 106% of people's gross income for them afford the average mortgage on a house in Vancouver. That is before paying taxes, buying food or doing anything else. People still do not have enough money. That is the only place in the world where that exists.

That is a homegrown issue caused by the government's insane spending, where it has added more debt to the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages has the floor.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, fairness across generations is the quintessential Canadian promise that every individual deserves an equal opportunity, with hard work, determination and a little support, to join the middle class, to secure savings, to purchase a home, to grow a family, and to enjoy retirement and their golden years in dignity.

That is what budget 2024 is all about. Budget 2024 is crucial for the health, well-being and prosperity of my community in Windsor—Tecumseh. The foundation of prosperity and a strong middle class are good-paying manufacturing jobs. We know that. More and more, those good-paying manufacturing jobs are in the growing clean tech sector.

In this budget, there is record investment in clean technology and record investment tax credits to create tens of thousands of new jobs in the growing zero-emission economy. It builds upon clean tech and climate change investments in the fall economic statement and in previous budgets. It is already working.

We have seen over $50 billion in auto investment in just the last four years, including the historic Honda investment in Alliston and Port Colborne, the historic Northvolt investment in Quebec, the historic VW investment in St. Thomas and the Stellantis battery plant that our federal Liberal government delivered for my community in Windsor—Tecumseh, the first battery plant in all of Canada.

I drive past the battery plant on the corner of EC Row Avenue and Banwell Road every single day on my way to work. It is an incredible thing to see. The battery plant is the size of 120 hockey rinks. It stretches as far as the eye can see. Driving by it, hundreds of pickup trucks belonging to local skilled workers, iron workers and millwrights can be seen. There are 2,000 workers, Canadian, local, unionized workers, building our battery plant.

When it is completed, the battery plant will employ 2,500 local, unionized Canadians. What a remarkable turnaround. Eight years ago, under the previous Conservative government, Canada lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs. My community had an unemployment rate of 11.2%.

However, today there is optimism. Today, we are building a bright future. Where Conservatives destroyed manufacturing, Liberals are rebuilding the manufacturing heartland of Canada, right here in southwestern Ontario and in Windsor with a new battery plant and thousands of new jobs. Soon, there will be the return of the third shift at Windsor assembly plant, where proud auto workers in my community will build the Dodge Charger Daytona, the first electric muscle car in North America. Windsor is back, and it is because we have a Liberal government standing by auto workers in Windsor with historic investment, respect and a true partnership.

Like many other communities across the country, we also face challenges. One of those challenges is the rate of childhood poverty. Windsor-Essex has some of the highest rates of childhood poverty in Canada. Just last week, I met with the incredible people at ProsperUs, a unique local partnership of 40 organizations, including labour and industry, that are tackling childhood poverty by building wraparound supports from cradle to career in some of the most vulnerable neighbourhoods. It has built a unique neighbourhood opportunity index that gives us neighbourhood-level data on the health of our children and of families.

In many neighbourhoods, we see moms and dads, often single parents, working hard, juggling multiple part-time jobs to take care of their children, and sometimes it is not enough. It is hard to make ends meet. Oftentimes, the struggle to balance time and money means that kids go to school hungry. We can have the best teachers in the world in front of a classroom, but they will not reach the student in that classroom if the student is hungry. That is why our Liberal government, through this budget, is investing over $1 billion in a national school food program. That is historic for Canada, and it will be transformative for my community.

The national school food program is the result of decades of tireless advocacy by local leaders such as United Way Centraide Windsor-Essex County, VON and the Ontario school nutrition program, as well as the teachers, principals, volunteers and parent councils that have been providing school nutrition on a shoestring budget for years. It would lift 400,000 children across the country, put over $800 back in the pockets of parents and ensure that hundreds of thousands more kids would have access to nutritious meals to kick-start their day. More than food, this is about a fair start, a fair start for all of our kids, regardless of their background or postal code, so that they can be their best, and so that they can help build our Canada.

Our budget 2024 is about investing in people and communities. The national school food program is just one example, albeit a great example. It is what differentiates Liberals from Conservatives. Liberals invest. Conservatives cut. Liberals believe in neighbour looking after neighbour. Conservatives believe that one is on one's own. We already know this because the Leader of the Opposition has telegraphed this.

Conservatives will vote against clean tech investments such as our battery plant in Windsor. Conservatives will vote against a national school food program for kids. Conservatives will vote against record funding to build more homes and support renters. Conservatives will vote against dental care for seniors. Conservatives will vote against a fairer tax system that asks the super wealthiest to pay a little bit more so that we can strengthen the programs that help young people, working families and seniors.

These measures all share a common goal, which is to lift people and to lift communities, to build a Canada that we want, a Canada that rewards hard work and that is fair. I see it in my community of Windsor—Tecumseh. It is not just about building and helping Canadians today. It is also about building a Canada that is fair for future generations and for generations still to come.

Here I turn my attention to the environment. Liberals care about passing along a healthy environment, clean air and clean water to the next generation. Last year, I remember stepping out onto my front step, seeing a sky that had turned a burning bright orange while breathing in the thick air and smoke from the wildfires burning millions of hectares of forest in Quebec, New Brunswick and Alberta. Is this the future that we want to pass on to our kids? Budget 2024 confirms our commitment to fight climate change, to take real action to prevent wildfires and floods ravaging our communities.

The Conservatives oppose climate action. They oppose investments in wind and solar, and in electric vehicles. Not only do they not have a climate plan, they are actively working to dismantle Canada's climate plan, which is already reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Along that vein, the Conservatives will also vote against the historic investment of $36.1 million in budget 2024 for the creation of the Ojibway national urban park in my community. There is over $40 million in this budget to open and operate an Ojibway national urban park, which our community has fought for, defended and championed for decades. The Conservative Party will vote against an Ojibway national urban park, too. I know our community will be watching for how our local Conservative MPs will vote. Will they vote with their Conservative leader to cut funding for Ojibway, or will they vote with their community and vote for Ojibway?

Ojibway is a testament to the resilience and perseverance of grassroots advocates, community leaders, environmental stewards and, above all, first nations. It underscores the power of strong partnerships, local advocacy, solidarity and a government that believes in conservation and in fighting climate change.

Budget 2024 will have a huge positive impact in my community, so much so that it feels like this budget was written by Windsor—Tecumseh for Windsor—Tecumseh. In my community, we are building a battery plant and thousands of jobs. We are taking care of the most vulnerable through programs such as the national school food program, and we are fighting climate change, preserving our land and waters and building an Ojibway national urban park. That is what this budget is all about. It is about stronger, healthier and more prosperous communities and a stronger, healthier and more prosperous Canada.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, I was dismayed by the lack of transparency by the government. In the last number of months, over $50 billion has been announced in different EV subsidy contracts. As a member of that committee, I was given only two hours, along with the other committee members, to really scrutinize what the government was committing Canada to for only two of those contracts. In many respects, it is committing Canada to mimicking the programs in the United States. However, we cannot really be sure, because we do not actually know.

How much time should members of Parliament have to review 50 billion dollars' worth of contracts?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, here is what I know. Eight years ago, when the Conservative government was in power, my community had an unemployment rate of 11.2%, and 300,000 manufacturing jobs were lost across Canada. Today, we see $50 billion of automotive manufacturing investment under the Liberal government. We are reviving the industrial manufacturing heartland of southwestern Ontario. Communities such as mine and those such as St. Thomas are building battery plants. We are seeing tens of thousands of automotive jobs being created in my community. Our focus is on bringing investment, creating well-paying jobs and lifting up manufacturing communities such as mine.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, we will vote against the budget, not because we are against pharmacare or because we are against the creation of a park or because we are against the creation of 2,000 jobs and more in the world of automotive technology. We will be voting against this budget because it creates duplicate services in Quebec and in the provinces that already have drug coverage, by refusing to grant them the right to opt out with full compensation. We are going to vote against it because, strangely enough, it disrespects the Constitution.

My question is this: Are we to understand that the government's refusal to respect the Constitution means that it wants to reopen the Constitution? If it reopens the Constitution this time, will it negotiate in good faith, which it did not do in 1982?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely brilliant at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. I really enjoy her questions, her insight and her incredible hard work.

We need a team Canada approach in order to be able to lift communities across Canada. When I see over $100 billion for clean-tech industries in this budget, I know it is going to impact not only communities such as mine in Ontario but also communities such as those in Quebec, especially with the Northvolt battery investment. It is going to help lift communities across the country from coast to coast to coast.

When I see the Canada disability benefit, pharmacare and child care, when I see all these programs, I know that these investments in budget 2024 will lift communities and Canadians from coast to coast to coast. For that very reason, I urge my hon. colleague to continue to work with us as team Canada and vote in support of this incredibly important budget.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the very proud spokesperson for employment and workplace development, I am baffled that the parliamentary secretary stands to deliver the comments he did in his speech. Just last month, provincial and territorial labour ministers united across all parties and coast to coast to coast to call an emergency meeting to decry the $625-million cut to workforce development programs for people across the country. This would imply that, somehow, in a just transition, we do not need labour training anymore.

Could the hon. member, the parliamentary secretary for this file, please explain to those provincial premiers why the government made cuts to those very important programs?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is no government in the history of this country that has invested more money in skills training in Canada. Whether it is through sectoral workforce development, UTIP or apprenticeships, the government has made more investments in skills training than have all other previous governments combined.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, to respond quickly to the last speech, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh made many comparisons between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

One key thing the Conservatives want to do is fix the budget. That is because the Liberals love to take. They love to increase taxes. They say, “Work hard. We're going to take more of your money and then we're going to mismanage it and not tell you how it was spent”. That is the basis of this budget, and it is why I am opposing it.

After nine years under the NDP-Liberal government, life is more expensive. The budget should have invested in a more productive economy and encouraged investment, innovation and economic growth by cutting taxes.

Instead, the budget maintains this government's reckless deficits and raises taxes. This year, taxpayers will have to shell out $54.1 billion to pay interest on the Prime Minister's debt. That is more than we send to the provinces under the Canada health transfer.

After nine years of this policy, is the average Canadian better off? I do not think so.

After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, life is more expensive. The budget should have invested in a more productive economy while encouraging investment, innovation and economic growth with lower taxes. Instead, the budget continues the government's reckless deficits and raises taxes. This year, taxpayers are on the hook for $54.1 billion just to pay the interest on the Prime Minister's debt. That is more than we send to provinces through the Canada health transfer. The budget is yet another incremental push toward socialism.

With everything the government has done, it has never been about making life better and more affordable for the average Canadian. It is about how the government can take more of people's hard-earned money and more control over their lives. After nine years of this, is the average Canadian better off? I do not think so. Nine years of this—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am going to cut the hon. member off. Just as a reminder to members, if they plan to finish their speech, they should not end their speech too quickly.

The hon. member will have seven and a half minutes the next time this matter is before the House, plus five minutes for questions and comments.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, nine years of the same failed policies from this government have resulted in small businesses getting pushed to the brink of collapse and many are shutting their doors altogether.

According to the superintendent of bankruptcy, business insolvencies in the year ending March 31 increased 56.7% year over year. The Business Development Bank of Canada reported last year that we now have 100,000 fewer entrepreneurs than we did 20 years ago, despite a massive increase in our population. In 2000, Canada had three entrepreneurs for every 1,000 people. By 2022, that number dropped to 1.3 per 1,000.

April's labour force survey showed an alarming loss of more than 11,000 jobs in Canada's construction industry. In the same month, housing starts dropped by 2.2%. One of the biggest challenges businesses are facing is finding workers, largely because those workers cannot find an affordable place to live. How are we supposed to build the homes Canadians need if our construction industry is shedding jobs by the thousands each month?

A result of the challenges businesses are facing is that Canada's productivity has drastically declined. Recently, the Bank of Canada's senior deputy governor, Carolyn Rogers, declared Canada's low productivity to be an emergency. In 1984, Canada produced 88% of the value generated by the United States economy per hour. As of 2022, we produced just 71% of the value that the U.S. does per hour. This ranks us second-to-last among our G7 peers, with only Italy witnessing a larger decline in productivity over the same period.

Adjusting for inflation, Canada's GDP per capita is lower now than it was in 2014. Budget 2024 ignores this emergency, pours more fuel onto the inflationary fire and sends a signal to investors that Canada does not want them to invest in our economy. Even the former Liberal finance minister, Bill Morneau, has criticized this government for its reckless spending and tax hikes that will take Canada in the wrong direction.

For Canada's economy to thrive, it must be competitive with the economies of our allies but, right now, it is not. Why is this the case? Canada has an uncompetitive tax system and burdensome red tape policies that continue to drive job creators and our brightest minds south of the border. In America, there is a competitive tax system. According to a recent study from the Fraser Institute, which ranked Canada's provinces and America's states by highest combined marginal income tax rates, nine provinces rank in the top 10 and all 10 provinces are in the top 13.

Why would an entrepreneur stay in Canada when they can go to pretty much any state in America and keep more of their money to invest back into their business or save for their retirement?

At the core of Canada's economic problems are a lack of affordable housing, an uncompetitive economy, an out-of-touch budget and rampant crime in our downtown cores. That is why Conservatives are so resolutely focused on our four key priorities: axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. The carbon tax is driving up the cost of everything. It costs more for farmers to produce food, more to ship goods and more for businesses to keep the lights on. Businesses struggle to find workers because those workers cannot find affordable places to call home. Nine straight budget deficits and hundreds of billions of dollars in added debt have driven interest rates higher than they have been in decades, making it harder for entrepreneurs to access the capital they need to grow their businesses.

People are scared to go to our downtown cores and support local businesses because they are worried about being a victim of the rampant crime that has increased by 39% since the government took office. Addressing these issues is paramount to turning around our economy and becoming competitive with our global leaders once again.

Frustratingly, the budget failed to axe the tax on our farmers and food. The budget failed to put forward a real plan to build the homes Canadians can afford. The budget failed to cap spending and implement a dollar-for-dollar rule. The budget failed to address the productivity emergency Canada faces. In fact, it will only make it worse. After nine long years, this budget is just more of the same from this costly and reckless NDP-Liberal coalition.

For these reasons, I will be joining my Conservative colleagues in voting against this terrible budget.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I go to questions and comments, I just want to remind members that if they are going to have conversations, they should maybe take them outside. I have my speaker on, and yet I can see that it can be disruptive. A few members were having conversations. I just want to remind members that they would want to be tuned in to the discussion in order to ask questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. deputy government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will have a chat with the member for St. Catharines later about that.

My question for the member is as follows. Conservatives have been going on for months now, talking about fuelling inflation with more, I think they called it, budget inflation. They keep talking about how inflation is going to skyrocket and get even more out of control as a result of the budget.

However, none of that happened. We have now seen four straight months where inflation has stayed within the Bank of Canada's target of 2% to 3%. Today's inflation numbers are the lowest that they have been in three years.

Why does the member continue to suggest that false narrative, that the budget is contributing to inflation, when reality suggests that he is completely wrong?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the member for Kingston and the Islands. The target from the Bank of Canada is in fact 2%.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I actually agree with my colleague on several points. We are not necessarily voting against measures that are good for Canadians. Rather, we are voting against jurisdictional meddling and interference.

I would like to hear my colleague thoughts on the importance of upholding a contract, especially the most important contract of all for a country, namely, a Constitution.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague. The federal government must do a better job of protecting our Constitution. Our party, the Conservative Party, wants a policy of open federalism.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, with this minority government, the NDP has used its balance of power to make meaningful gains for people and their families.

Among other things, there is the dental care plan. It is incredible progress for the less fortunate and for people in the middle class. This year, seniors can sign up to be reimbursed for 80% or 100% of their dental care. Millions of people will benefit. In the first week, 45,000 or 50,000 people have already taken advantage of the program.

If my colleague's party comes to power after the next election, heaven forbid, will it drop the dental care program for seniors or will it maintain the program?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie failed to mention the broken promise of the NDP-Liberal government, and that was to provide a national pharmacare program. It did not provide a national pharmacare program, even though it said it was going to do it in the last election platform for the NDP.

With respect to dental care, I will note representatives from the B.C. Dental Association have said that they do not want to participate in this program. As we have said on this side, the program is so cumbersome and has so much red tape, it does not actually achieve its objectives, because the NDP-Liberal government is so poor at governing.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. If the hon. member has anything to contribute, he should wait to the proper time.

We have time for a brief question from the hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, every time our Liberal friends across the way get up, they tell us how good Canadians have it. In fact, just a moment ago the member from Kingston and the Islands got up, telling us Canadians have never had it so good, and to look at inflation, it is only 2.7%.

Perhaps my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon could explain how harmful the reckless spending of the Liberal government has been, and how that spending has stoked the inflationary fires in Canada.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, two weeks ago, I was on a Mission friends and neighbours Facebook site in the community of Mission, with about 25,000 community members. There was a mother on there who asked if it was just her who could not get by with $350 a week for groceries any more.

All we have to do to see the impacts of inflation is to look at the cost of food, specifically beef, and fresh fruit and vegetables. Unfortunately, due to the policies of the reckless government, fresh fruit and vegetables have become out of reach, even for the middle class.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today to discuss the budget implementation act.

I was listening to the previous Conservative member. Unfortunately, we seem to be, and it is not surprising to anyone here, falling into the same pattern, which is just a verb the noun slogan after slogan, but not really saying anything.

It is shocking that the community of the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, who spoke before me, experienced one of the worst environmental disasters in Canadian history a couple of years ago, with significant damage to his community. It is still struggling to deal with it years later, and the only answer he has is to make pollution free again. It is the only answer Conservatives have on that side. I have said before that the only plank in the Conservative environmental agenda is recycled slogans. However, this is a real crisis. To have that member see his own community go through what it went through and to still come here and repeat an empty slogan that he knows will not have any impact, it just speaks to the modern Conservative movement. There is no seriousness on climate change, no seriousness on getting homes built and no seriousness on building our economy. It is just verb the noun. That is all Conservatives have. They can say it over and over again, but they do not have a plan.

I was at an announcement last week in Niagara. It was a great announcement from governments that have a plan and that invest in workers and in their communities. It was based on a partnership with Honda and the major Honda announcement that happened in Alliston. Asahi Kasei, a Japanese company that produces battery separators, announced it is going to invest $1.6 billion in developing a factory in Niagara, which will be transformational. It was great to see the Premier of Ontario there, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Innovation. These are governments that are looking to invest in Canadians, in the future and in the economy of the future.

Conservatives, again, verb the noun, have no plan for any of this because of items like putting a price on pollution. It is about investing in critical minerals so that Canada is poised to be a leader in EV manufacturing and the jobs of the future. Conservatives will stick their heads in the sand and say that it is the same old thing, that they do not need to do anything and that they will make it free to pollute. They are not going to get the results. From the investments in Honda, we are going to see thousands of manufacturing jobs in Ontario.

It was unfortunate that when the previous Conservative government was around we saw thousands of manufacturing jobs leave Ontario, one after the other. We could go through a tour of factories in the Niagara region that closed under that government's watch, and it did not care. It did not have a plan for the future. Here we have an opportunity to be a leader in the EV space, enough that a Conservative premier and government in the Province of Ontario know it is important and step up to invest in workers. The Conservative leader would tell us that he would not invest in these types of factories we have seen in Niagara, in the London area, in Windsor and in Alliston.

We are creating an infrastructure, and international companies, some of the largest in the world, are eager to invest. That shows actual work on the ground to get things done, to plan for economic growth and for the economy of the future. There is a change happening. Again, we can stick our heads in the sand, and I know Conservatives like to do that frequently, but these changes are happening, and we need to be at the forefront of that.

Also, I am happy to report that, last week, a controversial housing development in the city of St. Catharines, the municipality I represent, which may not seem large to certain members from the GTA as it is a 500-unit development, was approved. It is good news, seeing more and more housing approved and the mayor and city council taking the charge on housing. I had the opportunity to speak with one of the owners of the property after the development was approved. She told me that the federal government's investments are going to ensure that approximately half of the units being built would be rental units.

We have seen across the country, especially in southern Ontario, the very low vacancy rates that exist and the acknowledgement that we need more rentals. It was a big step to remove the GST from purpose-built rentals. The changing of the capital cost allowance, from approximately 4% of mortgage costs to 10%, is making the math work, and that is what we have heard from developers. We have heard that, with interest rates, labour costs and other items, it is becoming a challenge to get those shovels in the ground. We can all agree, I hope, on all sides of the House that we need to see more rental housing built, and this is just one item. We are seeing announcements like that across the country.

We are seeing partnerships with municipalities that have bold plans to build more housing. Again, not to boast, but the City of St. Catharines was a recipient of the housing accelerator fund because it does have a bold plan for housing. I am happy to see that the current budget would top up the housing accelerator fund, so we would see more municipalities join the list, eliminate red tape when it comes to permitting, and increase the density of lots. Four units as a right is something that we want to see and something that would get more housing built.

The house that I currently live in is on the plot of what was an old farmhouse on a very large lot. Development had happened all around it decades before, and the house was taken down and four units of housing were built, a couple of semi-detached homes. Now, there are four families living on this property rather than one. Changes through the housing accelerator fund will make that easier. We will make it so that we can speed up the process and get construction started quicker.

There is no magic bullet for solving the housing crisis, but I think we can solve the housing crisis. Canadians have solved it before, and we can do it again. We estimate it will take about 3.87 million homes being built, but it is something that we can do. It is something that can be done, whether we use new ways of building houses or old ways.

If we look back to what we did after the Second World War, there was a housing catalogue. Someone could just pick a house, and it could get built and speed up those processes. We can do that. We can ensure that there is a housing catalogue. The developers can just pick the house, or a family can pick the house they want, get it built and not go through the process of getting that permit approved, which speeds up the construction of that house.

That is an old idea, but it can work in a modern setting, especially with larger density projects. We can use new materials. We can use factory-built housing. We can encourage that. Also exciting, and it may not be the most fun announcement in terms of housing-related infrastructure, is that something the budget is keenly about, and something that we need to be part of, is ensuring that water and waste water are there to make sure that the housing gets built.

The Conservatives, as I was starting to talk about, talk about the slogan. They are against all of these actual proposals to get housing built. It is unfortunate to see that their actions do not match their slogans.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague about Témiscamingue, a region not far from yours, Madam Speaker.

Témiscamingue got some bad news today. The Foire gourmande de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue et du Nord-Est ontarien, a gourmet food fair in my region and northeastern Ontario, is facing an uncertain fate. Témiscamingue has gotten a lot of bad news lately. For example, three forestry-related processing facilities have closed their doors, agriculture and public safety are under threat, and funding for a new pool in Témiscamingue, a project led by Complexe des Eaux profondes, has not materialized. The federal government has not stepped up for any of this.

As the MP for Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Témiscamingue in particular, I expect the federal government, which collects half of our sales and income taxes, to be there to meet people's needs, but the federal government is not there at all.

Can my colleague tell me what purpose the federal government serves these days?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always look forward to the Bloc seeking more federal investment and more federal participation in municipal infrastructure projects. We work very closely with the Government of Quebec. On the housing file, the Minister of Housing entered into a partnership with Quebec, and Quebec stepped up and matched the funding, unlike any other province.

I look forward to getting the budget passed and seeing this infrastructure money in place. I know Quebec will do the same thing it has done before, which is to step up, be there to invest and be partners to help the people of Témiscamingue. Hopefully this could address many of the issues the member talked about.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to have this plan to build houses, but we have a 25% shortage of labour workers. How is he going to concentrate on hiring more people or attracting more people to come to Canada to help build the homes that are so desperately needed?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member made sure to get in the slogan, and that was great.

We have to be looking at alternative ways to build housing. As I said in my speech, we need to be looking at factory-built housing. We need to be looking at innovative ways.

The member is right that it is a serious situation now. It is getting worse as skilled trades workers are getting older. We can do it through immigration, education at the provincial level, working with our provincial counterparts, and new and innovative ways. The construction industry oftentimes falls behind other industries in being more innovative. However, I know it can. This budget is going to invest in that, and we are going to be ready to build the homes of tomorrow.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about his environmental concerns, which I share, and the fact that the Conservatives refuse to have a price on pollution; that is not a plan to help us or help our communities.

However, at the same time, his government is spending $34 billion to buy a pipeline that will triple the production of the dirtiest oil in the world. Is that not contradictory?

He is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not believe it is a contradiction. It is ensuring that the amount of oil we are producing gets to tidewater so we can have supply. The world needs oil right now. We do have to transition away, which is why we are investing in the jobs of tomorrow and in EV technology. Canada can be a leader in battery production and be the energy leader of the future.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, would the parliamentary secretary agree with me that, if Conservatives spent more attention on making lives better for Canadians instead of on what Tim Hortons coffee cups lids are made out of or on the plant-based options Häagen-Dazs is offering, if they had the kind of passion they show toward those issues for actually solving problems for Canadians, we would be a lot further ahead?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think an hon. member went to the grocery store and picked up the wrong ice cream, and instead of telling his family he made a mistake, he decided to do a social media post about it.

The Conservatives never step up when it comes to delivering results for Canadians. They vote against things such as the Canada child benefit. They vote against things such as affordable child care. They vote against taking care of the environment. They vote against every affordability measure the House has in front of them. They are not serious. They do not have a plan. They only have slogans.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a privilege to speak in the House on these decisions. We are talking about the implementation of the budget.

I will be a good sport and highlight the positive elements of the budget. Everyone is in favour of doubling the tax credit for volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers. Extending the family allowance by six months for parents whose child has died, that is just being compassionate. We support that. Raising the ceiling on eligible expenses for newsroom staff and increasing the tax credit, we are in favour of that.

Yes, we agree when it comes to supporting clean technology, but we have to be careful. We need to be very vigilant about the interference we see into Hydro-Québec's pricing. The increase in the amounts available for the home buyers' plan is also a good thing. So far, so good. We agree with capping the excise duty on beer, wine and spirits at 2%. We also agree on halving the excise duty rate on the first 15,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada for two years. This is one of our rare requests that have been granted. We agree. As for the school food program, we agree, but we need to be vigilant. We have always said so.

As one of my colleagues mentioned earlier, half of our taxes are here, in Ottawa. We need that money to help our people. We want the money, but we want it distributed to organizations that are already working in Quebec.

There is a worthwhile measure on underused housing. It would eliminate filing requirements, reduce the penalty for failing to file a return and create an exemption for residential properties held as a place of residence or lodging for employees. I think that could be a good thing for the agricultural industry in particular. The budget talks a lot about grocery prices. The government is saying that it is going to control them. We know what to do. We need to increase competition and stop authorizing mergers that do not make sense and that take place even after the Competition Bureau advises against them.

The budget also very briefly mentions that the government will do something to help cattle producers. We do not really know what the government will do. The Bloc Québécois has some ideas. All the government has to do is ask us about them. For example, could the government give $100 per hectare to maintain grasslands? That would have a positive impact on the environment and on greenhouse gas emissions, and it would give our farmers a potentially worthwhile source of additional income.

What is in this budget for the future of agriculture and agri-food? There was talk of the advance payments program. We know that the government lowered the limit to $100,000, which is completely ridiculous, given current prices. Farmers were asking for $350,000. It was set at $250,000. It might be disappointing, but at least they got something. Sadly enough, that is how the farming community thinks now. They are so used to being disappointed that they tell themselves that at least they got something.

The big problem I see is that it is only for this year. The government is offering $250,000, but only for this year. What does that mean? It means that, next year, farmers will have to come crawling back to the government to ask that it maintain the same limit for the advance payments program and not reduce it once again to the ridiculous amount of $100,000. However, if the government really wanted to show good will and respect for agricultural producers, it would have increased it to $350,000 on an ongoing basis. Farmers have better things to do than come here begging. They have crops to tend to, they have animals to care for. There do not seem to be many people here who understand that.

There is much more money for the local food infrastructure fund, the LFIF. I think that is great. The amount doubled. Will it be enough? We will see. Some sad things happened in the ridings, as members know. Several of my colleagues told me about people submitting a grant application only to be told that the rules had been changed because there was so little money in the program and that only small producers were being accepted. Producers that were no longer eligible for the program were told, “Sorry you spent two weeks completing your application and maybe hiring an accountant or experts to help, but it was all for naught. Better luck next time”.

That is not professional. The government needs to take things seriously. Even so, I applaud the LFIF budget increase and the capital gains increase for intergenerational transfers. It is not enough for me, but, in any case, it has gone up.

Then there is innovation, like the $10‑million exemption for capital gains realized on the sale of a farm business to an employee ownership trust. That is a good measure, but it got no attention. Hardly anyone talked about it. I fail to understand why members of the government do not put good initiatives like that one front and centre. It seems like they are too busy stammering over their mistakes to remember their successes.

However, a few things were missing that should have been included. Take the excise tax on berry- and maple-based alcohol. An exemption was recently created for mead. It would be easy to include these products in the exemption too. It would make sense. They are made by very small businesses that need the money. What is the government waiting for?

Earlier on, I spoke about making the $350,000 increase under the advance payments program permanent. What is the government waiting for? It would cost next to nothing. It is just interest.

Let us talk about the emergency on-farm support fund. Members will recall how devastating the 2023 season was for southern Quebec, where extremely heavy rains drove many market gardeners to ruin. Northern Quebec had the opposite problem: Terrible droughts forced cattle farmers to sell off part of their herds, not because they wanted to sell, but because they did not have enough hay to feed them. Farmers are in a bad way when they get to that point, and no one is getting the picture. These people cannot receive compensation from a program because, since they sold cattle, they made more money this year than last. Their financial position does not look bad on paper, but once in a while, we have to look up from the paperwork and go see for ourselves. It takes something important, but these people are important.

That is why we need an emergency fund that is agile, permanent and fast. I know this is a complicated topic and it may sound dry, but if I may summarize, there are a bunch of agricultural programs that do not work. However, there is one that has been set up as a last resort if nothing else works.

This program is supposed to be triggered quickly. It is an emergency program called AgriRecovery. I am still waiting for more information. Everyone is waiting to hear more. The provinces and Quebec have to apply to the federal government. Quebec applied in November. Today is May 21. They call that an emergency program? Far from it.

I do not want to be unreasonable. I know there are complex calculations involved in these claims and that people are going to be compensated for things that are new to us, but could someone at least start working on those calculations? As far as I am concerned, if it takes from November to the end of May, someone, somewhere, is taking their sweet time. That is the only explanation.

I really liked what a witness told me in committee last week. I asked Mr. Forest if there was anything he wanted to emphasize. We had 30 seconds left. He looked me straight in the eyes and said that, on a farm, we have to be efficient, and when something happens, we have to act quickly and figure things out. He said that farmers need programs that are as responsive as they are. The government needs to get going on this. He added that people are not participating in the current programs because they are not working anymore. When programs stop working, they need to be changed. It is as simple as that.

We expect something to happen, like an investment in agri-food. Agri-food is the largest employer in the country. Not too many people talk about that around here. This is a critical sector not only in terms of the number of jobs, but also in terms of what we eat three times a day. Where is the program to help this sector modernize, to invest in innovation and to improve the productivity of our businesses?

I would really like to see an investment in this sector, which is often neglected. Farmland is undervalued. The Liberals have grand plans to plant trees. Could they at least spend the same amount not on planting trees, but on restoring land for cultivation, especially land that has a lot of potential? Improved and accelerated capital cost allowances for agricultural equipment are simple requests that would not cost the government very much. I find the budget extremely disappointing in that regard.

We in the Bloc Québécois hope that the government will show some vision at some point. If people on the government side want to speak with us, we will gladly go out for a beer and explain it to them.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, it may have been an omission on my colleague's part, but there are lots of measures for indigenous people in the budget. One in particular that matters to me is the indigenous loan guarantee program, because there are infrastructure gaps. We know that needs have exceeded investments, but this measure has the potential to be transformative.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question, one we discuss regularly at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. One of the things we have looked at is food prices. A bottle of Pepsi costs quite a bit more in northern Quebec than it does in Montreal. I am inclined to use unparliamentary language here, because allowing that kind of thing to happen makes no sense.

Government members tell me they are going to do great things. I do not want to be mean to my esteemed colleague, but I cannot sugarcoat this: Some indigenous communities still do not have access to clean drinking water even though this is 2024.

I am in favour of investment programs for indigenous communities. I am also in favour of giving them more autonomy. Maybe greenhouses can even be set up in northern Quebec and northern Canada, but can we start with the basics and make sure people have access to safe drinking water? That promise from 2015 still has not been kept.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague and I have different visions for dental care. We in the NDP pushed for a dental care program that is in fact a bill paying program. An individual can go to the dentist and then get reimbursed 80% of the bill directly from the federal government.

There are no federal dentists. There are no federal dental clinics either. This program allows four million Quebeckers who do not have dental coverage to gain access to care they did not have before because dental care costs too much.

I am sure that people in my colleague's riding have already benefited from the program. Seniors have already been able to sign up for it this year. Does my colleague know anyone who was able to get reimbursed for dental care and who is pleased with this new program?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that my colleague brings this up because I do indeed know people who signed up. I also received phone calls from people who told me that their dentist did not want to participate in this program because it was a botched program that the federal government implemented when it has no business in this sector.

In fact, I have the same concern as my colleague. He says that we do not share the same vision. Essentially, however, our vision is the same. When I first came here as a parliamentarian, my biggest disappointment was the realization that I was not disagreeing with members of the NDP more often. Unfortunately, the NDP believes that the provinces should always be bypassed. Quebec already had a dental care plan. It was limited and far from perfect, I agree, but it was public.

Now the program is being administered by private insurance companies. Once again there will be bribes paid through some kind of middleman. We know what will happen. In the end, the money will be spent and people will receive fewer services than if provincial jurisdictions had been respected. The government could have transferred the same amount of money to the Government of Quebec to have it deliver dental care under a public plan.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague talk about the “Agri” programs and the fact that the money was not ending up in farmers' pockets. Last year was a catastrophe, especially in Abitibi West. Because of the winter we had and the lack of snow, there was less water but also less protection and insulation for crops.

I am very concerned about this situation. If the program did not work last year and there is nothing in the budget for next year, what does that mean for the future of agriculture in Abitibi-Témiscamingue?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passion—his regional passion, I want to say. What is going to happen? It is simple. Some producers have already stepped away from producing this year.

My colleague told me about Abitibi. I can tell him about the south and market gardeners. Producers are pulling out. Why are they doing that? They are stepping away to do something else, because they keep losing money year after year and they are not complete suckers. Everyone tells them they how great they are, but they are taken for granted. They eventually end up thinking that someone else will come along at some point to provide the food people need.

The day when we import most of our food from outside the country and go through another crisis like COVID-19 is the day people will realize they should have done something. I do not want to sound like I am fearmongering, but that is the reality. There will be panic, and people will wonder how we could have a food shortage in our country.

We must respect our people and ensure our food resiliency.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to the budget and Bill C-69, as well, which implements some of its measures. When I think about folks in my community, the long and short of it, in my view, is that this budget just does not meet the moment that we are in. If anything, it just seems to be a similar story again where the government over-promises and under-delivers or, in some cases, breaks promises altogether.

I would like to start with a couple of items that I appreciate and that will help folks in my community. First, it is important to point out that there are good measures in the implementation bill. One example is that there is a provision included to deny income tax deductions for non-compliant short-term rentals. It was first announced in the fall economic statement. It is a really important measure to move ahead with as we look to address the housing crisis and remove various incentives that are in place for those who are actually removing rental units from the housing market. Second, for parents who are mourning the loss of a child, there is a provision in the bill that will extend the Canada child benefit for six months after a child's death. This is the least that the federal government can do to support parents in such a difficult, unimaginable time.

On the whole, though, when taking a step back to look at the budget and Bill C-69, I am concerned that it just does not follow through on the big promises that the government made. First, there is the promise about the Canada disability benefit. The promise made in 2021 in the Liberal platform was that “this new benefit will reduce poverty among persons with disabilities in the same manner as the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the Canada Child Benefit.” Those are both programs in the tens of billions of dollars a year. Instead, what is proposed in the budget is nothing that the disability community has called for and not what the government had promised. The maximum amount being proposed, $200 a month, is far too little to actually reduce levels of poverty among folks with disabilities. I will point out that 40% of people living in poverty across the country are people with disabilities. I have since asked at committee for the minister to table a list of people with disabilities who would be lifted out of poverty as a result of what is proposed in the budget. I have yet to get that list.

I am also still waiting for a list of people with disabilities who asked for what was proposed in the budget. We were told that it would take three years to wait for consultations from the disability community. I am waiting for a list of people with disabilities and organizations that serve people with disabilities who asked for this $200 a month and asked for the Canada disability benefit to be delivered through the disability tax credit.

Second, this is an incredibly burdensome tax credit to apply for and receive. That flies in the face of the requirement in section 11(f) of the Canada Disability Benefit Act, which is an amendment that I was successful in securing; it requires the benefit to be barrier-free. It remains my concern that what is being proposed in budget 2024 actually contravenes the Canada Disability Benefit Act, because the delivery of the Canada disability benefit is required to be barrier-free. However, the disability tax credit has an incredibly burdensome application process.

Third, the benefit itself is not even proposed to start until July 2025, leaving people with disabilities at the exact same level of poverty as they are in right now. As of that point, they will get an extra six dollars a day or so. As Krista Carr at Inclusion Canada put it, “Our disappointment cannot be overstated.... This benefit was supposed to lift persons with disabilities out of poverty, not merely make them marginally less poor than they already are.”

Another promise the government made in this budget was for tax fairness. The simplest place to start, if we are going to talk about tax fairness, would be an excess profit tax on the largest oil and gas companies in the country. In 2022, the top five biggest companies in Canada made $38 billion in profits after they paid shareholders $29 billion in increased dividends and share repurchases. The government already introduced, in the pandemic, an excess profit tax on banks and life insurance companies. It called it the Canada recovery dividend.

I proposed in Motion No. 92 for the government to do the same thing and apply it to oil and gas companies. It has been advocated for by groups like Environmental Defence, the David Suzuki Foundation, Climate Action Network Canada and Canadians for Tax Fairness because it is a reasonable measure. With a one-time tax on profits, even just 15% of those profits over a billion dollars, it would generate $4.2 billion that could be used to help Canadians with day-to-day life, to help incentivize more public transit, reduced fares and increased service.

It could help with incentives for home energy retrofits as folks in Ontario and my community continue to wait for the new version of the greener homes grant program, for example. What did we get in this budget? We got whispers that it was in the budget a few weeks before it came out, but the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers had 30 meetings with the federal government in the three months before the budget came out and Pathways Alliance had another 23 meetings in the months before the budget came out. I guess their lobbying blitz was successful, for them at least, for their corporate greed, while the windfall profit tax is nowhere to be seen. However, when it comes to our children's future, when it comes to being serious about the climate crisis and at least making sure that these companies pay some measure of additional tax if they are going to gouge us at the pumps, it is nowhere to be found.

The budget promised to make housing affordable. What does it deliver? There is a plan that counts, in its projections, 800,000 new homes that are going to be built as a result of other levels of government being impressed with the government and there is a reduction in funding for non-profits that want to build the deeply affordable housing we need. I am really concerned about the rapid housing initiative, for example, and this is true for MPs across the country who have non-profits in their communities that want to build affordable housing. The stock of social housing in this country is down to 3.5%. It is the lowest in the G7. If we doubled social housing, we would still just be middle of the pack. When it comes to the rapid housing initiative, it used to be $750 million a year. As of this year, it looks like this budget is proposing only $100 million in total right across the country.

The budget also promised to fix the Impact Assessment Act. What did it deliver? It delivered a complete renouncing of federal jurisdiction over nationally significant greenhouse gas emissions of major projects, for example, like Highway 413 in Ontario that the Ontario government currently plans to move ahead with.

Here is what 14 leading environmental NGOs, including West Coast Environmental Law, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, and Greenpeace had to say about what is in this bill, “The Supreme Court said Canada should have explained when and how GHG emissions become a matter of national concern. The federal government should seize that opportunity, not abandon its responsibilities to Canadians and the environment.” I know my colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, will have more to say about this.

There are also some items in this bill I am not going to have time to get into that were not promised at all, including a plan to expand immigration detention into federal prisons being panned by former Liberal cabinet ministers. On the whole, though, the government needs to do more to follow through on the big promises it makes. It is true that whether it is young people thinking about their climate future or folks with disabilities, we are going to need far more organizing to get the budget and the legislation that we need.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his passion and commitment. I certainly support him on going further on environmental initiatives.

Something that I thought was very positive in the budget was dedicated funding for friendship centres. I know that this is very much welcome news in my part of the world, and I am wondering if there is a friendship centre in the member's riding that could benefit from some of this funding.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is another example of a positive initiative that is not in Bill C-69, but it is in the budget. It is important funding. We do not have a friendship centre in Waterloo Region. It is something that indigenous leaders have been calling for, both in terms of land and funding to build, and it is certainly an important measure that is in the budget.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member, in his analysis of the disability part of the budget, could describe the protections against provincial clawbacks and any protections against the disability tax credit promoters who fill out these forms charging an unreasonable fee and then taking a percentage of all future benefits.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an excellent question. Protection from clawbacks is something that the government has been using as one of the rebuttals, I am hearing, for why the benefit was not higher. There is actually a provision in the Canada Disability Benefit Act that is meant to address this. It is an amendment that I was successful with over a year ago, which requires that the agreements between provinces, territories and the federal government be made public. To those who are saying that they are concerned they cannot go further without a clawback being applied, the agreement will be made public afterward. No province or territory should attempt to do it because Canadians and folks with disabilities will judge them for it.

We also should mention that the Senate had improved the bill, which would have done more to prevent the insurance industry from clawing back any benefits from folks with disabilities. That amendment was rejected by the government. It continues to be a significant concern with what is being proposed in the Canada disability benefit, as is using the disability tax credit. The government should move away from that altogether, to make sure that folks with disabilities have barrier-free access to the benefit.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, as we know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Without calling this budget hell, I can say that it is paved with good intentions, but also with interference.

My colleague talked about financial support for people living with disabilities. In my constituency, people wrote to me saying they had high hopes for this support. As it turns out, they are now writing me to say that the amounts provided are nothing short of an insult.

Everything that has to do with social support belongs to Quebec and the Canadian provinces. Does my colleague believe that the federal government should respect its own areas of jurisdiction, which it currently manages very poorly, and that it should leave it up to the provinces to support their people who are struggling?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my friend from the Bloc Québécois and hon. member for Beauport-Limoilou that this government talks a lot about good intentions.

However, when it comes to people living with disabilities, I think that provincial and territorial programs are inadequate, since these people are still living below the poverty line. We need the federal government to create a program to increase the basic income for everyone living with disabilities in the country.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to protect the fiscal integrity of residents in the riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Here is some of what the residents in the Upper Ottawa Valley had to say about the budget.

Paula from Westmeath wrote, “I'd like you to know that I do not support this federal budget. It's time to cut spending, not increase debt. The NDP leader has shored up this unpopular government far too long past its expiration date with Canadian voters.”

Sean from Petawawa wrote, “I'm asking that you please push to change the budget to reduce the deficit, not increase taxes. They're already astronomical in Canada. Instead, focus on items that will help improve Canada's productivity, which will help add tax revenue to the government without increasing taxation.”

Roger from Renfrew wrote, “After the Prime Minister's outrageous delaying of the election for a week so that his about-to-be-defeated cronies will get their fat cat pensions, now the taxpayers are assaulted again with a ridiculous budget. The latest Liberal budget will impoverish Canadians for generations. Will you please do everything possible to stop them from spending taxpayer money like a drunken sailor?”

Doris from Golden Lake wrote, “I'm interested in seeing a balanced budget and way less debt. The debt needs to be brought down as soon as possible and as much as possible before our country goes bankrupt.”

Lucinda from Pembroke wrote, “Just a short note to let you know I do not support the Liberal budget. I don't know how any intelligent person thinks you can spend yourself out of debt. It really shows he has no concept of how ordinary, unspoiled, unprivileged people really live. Keep up your fight against such stupidity.”

Sally from Cobden wrote, “Canadians, for generations to come, should not be paying for the irresponsible spending of the out-of-touch Liberals. Neither should we be taxed on capital gains to the point where it becomes impossible to pass on the property and farms that we have worked on for all our lives to build up a future and a business to be carried on by our children. I consider it government thievery to pay for their terrible decisions. We certainly need a government capable of balancing the budget.”

I think John from Burnstown summed it up best when he simply wrote, “I want a government to have balanced budgets and little debt.”

The thing about the government is we also have to check the tax supplement it issues alongside the budget. That is where the devil hides the details.

Now, the government's most devilish detail is the plan to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms again. Sorry, violate is wrong, the government plans to kill section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The murder weapon of choice is the Canada Revenue Agency's ballistic device called a notice of non-compliance.

Section 8 of the charter states everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. In practice, this means that if the RCMP shows up at someone's door and demands to know something or demands to see something of theirs, every Canadian should know that they can voluntarily comply with the RCMP demand or they can tell them to come back with a search warrant. The RCMP would then have to go to a judge and explain what it wants and why it wants it.

What the NDP coalition is proposing is to give unlimited power to the Canada Revenue Agency to come to someone's door, demanding to see any information they want that would assist them in making the person look like a tax cheat.

If that person declines to provide the information the Prime Minister demands, the CRA would have the power to issue a notice of non-compliance and impose a fine of $50 a day. If a Canadian believes this is unfair, the government says, not to worry, they can appeal the decision to the same bureaucrats who issued the decision. Now, if the CRA denies the appeal, Canadians can resort to Federal Court at their very own considerable expense.

The result will be that wealthy Canadians receive the charter's protections, while everyone else is left to the political whims of the radicals currently running this country. Of course, millions of Canadians have already learned this regressive Liberal Party will ignore the charter when it suits them, and when doing so polls well. This is the natural result of socialism.

In a liberty-respecting democracy, property rights are fundamental human rights. Section 8 falls under our legal rights. Our legal rights are meant to protect our human rights. Not only is our body protected from unreasonable search and seizure, so too is our property.

In order to get at someone's property, the socialists need to chip away at their legal rights. Sometimes the attack on property rights is subtle, like the new power for the CRA. Other times the attack on owning property is spelled out in black and white, as at page 41 of the budget. That is where Canadians can find the Liberal plan to invent an entirely new federal property tax. For a government so addicted to ruling by slogans and clichés, it is a little surprising it has not heard about failing to learn the lessons of history.

The new proposed federal residential property tax is a perfect example of the Liberals' not learning anything from recent Liberal history, and by recent history, I am talking about this March. That is when the Liberal ministers hit up their local bars and taverns to celebrate an increase in the excise tax on alcohol. Drunk on their own arrogance, the Liberals were celebrating the fact that they were not going to pay as steep a political price.

The Liberals had put the excise tax on an automatic escalator in 2017, and instead of elected, accountable political leaders' being in charge of federal taxes, the Prime Minister handed control over to fate and the inflation rate. Inflation soared thanks to government spending, so the tax on alcohol was set to match it. The Liberals made a political calculation that a 5% tax increase on alcohol would cost them more votes than a 2% increase, so they intervened. Canadians might have hoped that this would be a lesson for the Liberals in the importance of maintaining control over tax rates, but that would require humility.

Having learned nothing, the Liberals are now proposing a brand new federal property tax to be imposed on Canadians who own vacant land that is zoned residential. Unlike excise taxes on alcohol, the tax rate would be controlled by the government, but everything else would be controlled by municipalities and local politicians. Just as with the excise tax on alcohol, the decision over how much tax someone pays, or whether they even have to pay the tax, would be out of the Liberals' control.

The difference is that no person would control the rate of inflation, though some could influence it more than others. Whether or not someone's vacant property would be zoned residential is a different story; that would be decided by a small group of local politicians. The Liberals believe this would incentivize the construction of housing, but they do not know that for sure.

What it would do is incentivize lobbying. The well-connected and privileged would lobby their council to rezone their vacant land to avoid tax until they are ready to develop it or sell it. If a developer wants to build houses on vacant land zoned residential, the decision to move forward is not entirely its own. It has to take into account interest rates, labour availability, permitting issues, weather and a host of other normal things which could delay development.

The Liberal plan is to punish them with more taxes, and at the end of the day, the developer would not be the one paying the additional costs. That would be passed on to the homebuyer. Only the NDP-Liberal government could be incompetent enough to believe that inventing new taxes would build more homes.

After nine years of this failed socialist experiment, Canadians are hurting from high taxes. They feel insecure about the world. While European leaders are preparing their citizens for the worst case and building up their armed forces, our socialist coalition is busy accusing Canadians of being tax cheats. The government is chipping away at our legal rights while taxing and confiscating our property.

The Liberal-NDP government has maxed the tax, fuelled the crime and doubled the rent. Only common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax, stop the crime and build more homes, and we will fix the budget.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's entire speech, and the one thing I just cannot wrap my head around is how she can accuse government spending and government investing in Canadians through our budget of being inflationary.

Conservatives have been saying for months now that by the investments we are putting into Canadians and the money that we are putting into the budget, we are just going to fuel inflation. However, the opposite is true; this is the lowest that inflation has been in three years. Over the last four months, inflation has been in the target range that the Bank of Canada sets, which is between 2% and 3%. In reality, there is no rise in inflation as a result of the budget.

Does the member not recognize that what she is purporting and what the Conservatives are purporting was never actually a reality?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess what the member just said explains that he does not understand the basic fundamentals of economics.

The government threw billions of dollars into the economy. As a consequence of there being more money in the economy, prices went up, and when prices go up, inflation occurs. Maybe the member has not been grocery shopping, but a pound of hamburger on sale used to be two bucks. Now, in just a few short years, if we can get it for four and a half dollars a pound we are doing well. It is inflation. He is out of touch.

What happens to bring down inflation is that interest rates are increased, and they have kept those interest rates pressuring. Now we are at the point where we are almost at zero productivity. The inflation rate being lower on a monthly basis is not necessarily a consequence of less government spending, as it is spending more, but it is a consequence of everybody's being broke.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I did have some concerns about the budget. We know that currently there is an attack on trans kids. We know that currently, certainly according to what I have seen in the House of Commons, there is an attack on the right to choose to have access to safe, trauma-informed abortion care.

I am wondering whether my colleague supports me and millions of Canadians around the country in ensuring these human rights, because she spoke about fundamental human rights to safe, trauma-informed abortion care and also gender-affirming care.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. It was last week, but now we are tag-teaming. The NDP is tag-teaming with the Liberals. They are so far down in the polls and are so desperate that they are already playing the abortion card, and the election is still at least a year away.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke a question. Her riding includes the town of Deep River. The member is also my riding neighbour. We share a small part of the southern Témiscamingue region, and we are both close to the Ottawa River.

There is a project to build a nuclear waste disposal facility in Deep River. We know that because there have been nuclear facilities there in the past. I am very concerned about the environmental impact that could have. We know that spills are happening as we speak. However, it is very difficult to get any media coverage of what is happening. It is very difficult to draw attention to this situation, even though it is having a major impact on ecosystems.

Since the Government of Canada announced major investments in small modular nuclear reactors in the most recent budget, is my colleague worried that her riding, particularly the town of Deep River, will become a nuclear dumping ground for the rest of Canada and that nuclear waste will be brought there? Is my colleague concerned about that from an environmental perspective? I would like her to comment on that.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the low-level, near-surface waste deposit is very low-level radioactive waste that is coming out. It is not spent fuel rods. It is nothing that is really hot or even medium level. It is gloves, booties and other things that are in everyday use on people so they are kept safe.

I received over 100 questions from people on my side of the river in the community as well as from the member's side of the river, and I thought they were really good questions. I found a place in eastern Ontario where there is a similar near-surface waste disposal site, in Cobourg, Ontario. I went there with some scientists and asked them the 100 questions. I will tell the member that for every piercing question, they were able to provide an explanation and assure me so that I can assure my citizens that it is indeed a safe way of disposing of low-level waste.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight to participate in the debate on Bill C-69. The debate has been treated by some speakers as a debate on the whole budget. That is fair enough as it is the budget implementation bill. I certainly appreciated very much the remarks by my colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, moments ago, who focused on some aspects of Bill C-69 and the budget that I will not be able to address in my remarks.

In the time I have available, I want to dive deeply into one part of Bill C-69. For those who are observing tonight's debate, perhaps I can just back up and say that this is what is called an omnibus budget bill. It is exactly the kind of bill that, in the 2015 election platform by the Liberals, they said they would not be using. It is an omnibus budget bill in that it deals with many aspects of things that are in the budget, and particularly a reference in the budget to the court case on impact assessment legislation.

What is tucked into a bill that is over 400 pages is, from page 555 to page 581, a section I do not believe should be in there. I will be very clear from the start that it is a rewriting of substantial sections of the Impact Assessment Act. The irony is probably not lost on people who have tracked the debate on environmental assessment in this country that when the Liberals brought in repairs to the environmental assessment legislation that they had promised would be done in the election platform of 2015, that bill was also called Bill C-69.

I voted against that bill. I will be voting against this one too. This speech is my effort to try to persuade government members, and particularly the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Justice, to rethink things and to pull what is called part 4, division 28, of Bill C-69 and instead bring in what was promised in 2015, repairing what had happened to our impact assessment legislation, which is usually called environmental assessment legislation in this country.

I do not have much time to set this out, so forgive me for taking the time it takes to explain it. In 1975, this country held its first federal environmental assessment, ironically, of the Wreck Cove hydro project in my home province of Nova Scotia, on my home island of Cape Breton Island, and I attended those hearings. The federal government at that time was operating under something called the environmental assessment review process, a guidelines order by order in council to the federal cabinet. It set out basically that when the federal government did something, the federal government reviewed its own actions.

There is no question of constitutionality because the federal government was reviewing its own actions. The rule under the guidelines order was that if it was on federal land, involved federal money or permits given under certain kinds of acts, one had to have an environmental assessment. That general formulation went into the drafting in the late 1980s, under the government of the late Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, of an environmental assessment process that again started with the four corners of federal jurisdiction, including whether something is on federal land and involving federal money. It evolved into something called the law list permits, which were given under various acts.

The whole scheme worked very well. It evolved. There were many amendments over the years. It had a five-year review process. By the time 2012 rolled around, one could talk to almost anyone in the industry about it and hear the same thing. It was predictable. With the Mining Association of Canada, for instance, I remember the CEO, Pierre Gratton, asking why the Conservatives were trying to wreck the act now. He said that we had just finally made it right and liked the way it worked.

A federal environmental assessment act was brought in under Brian Mulroney and enacted under former prime minister Jean Chrétien. It had evolved over the years. In the spring of 2012, in an omnibus budget bill called Bill C-38, the government of former prime minister Stephen Harper set out to destroy the legislation. It was repealed in its entirety and was replaced with something called CEAA, 2012.

At the same time, it also went after the pieces of legislation that triggered environmental assessment, the law list sections, the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and so on.

To fast-forward, in the election of 2015, the Liberals promised in the platform to repair and fix what had been done by Harper to environmental assessment, to the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In 2016 and 2017, various ministers went to work. The current Minister of Public Safety, who was the then minister of fisheries, actually did fix the Fisheries Act. He got it back to what it had been before and even improved it. The former minister of transport, our former colleague, the Hon. Marc Garneau, really fixed the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Somehow or other, our former minister of environment, Catherine McKenna, was persuaded, I believe by officials in her department, not to fix it. The single biggest change that was made, besides repealing the Environmental Assessment Act, was to ditch the criteria that tethered environmental assessment to areas of federal jurisdiction if it was on federal land, involved federal money or under a permit given by the federal government.

Instead, Stephen Harper's government created something called the “designated projects” list, which could be anything the ministers thought they wanted to put on the list. It was project-based but not decision-based, and it could be anything, at the minister's discretion. That was CEAA 2012. It meant we went from having 5,000 to 6,000 federal projects a year reviewed, and they were mostly paper reviews that went quickly, to fewer than 100 reviewed every year. We can see perhaps the attraction for people in the civil service to not go back to actually reviewing the federal projects every single year and to keep it to fewer than 100.

Somehow, the federal government, under former minister Catherine McKenna, put forward Bill C-69 and decided to reject the advice of the expert environmental assessment panel, under the former chair of BAPE Johanne Gélinas. It kept the key elements Stephen Harper had put in place, which was that the Environmental Assessment Agency was no longer responsible for many assessments, and regulatory bodies such as the National Energy Board, now the Canada Energy Regulator, the offshore petroleum boards or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would do their environmental assessments separately. It also got rid of the idea that we are tethered strongly to federal jurisdiction. It remained discretionary. That is why I voted against Bill C-69..

Former Alberta premier Jason Kenney said that this was the anti-pipeline act. I said that it was completely discretionary to the minister in a different government and that it was the pro-pipeline act. Where is the rooting to federal jurisdiction? Where is the commitment to review everything the federal government does to make sure we have considered its environmental impacts? Those were all thrown out the window. I may have been the only one in the pro-environmental assessment community, although I do not think I was the only one, who actually cheered on October 13, 2023, when the Supreme Court of Canada said that the designated projects list was actually ultra vires the federal government. It would just ask a minister to say what project they want on a list, but it was not rooted in federal jurisdiction the way it had been from 1975, under a guidelines order, to 1993, when it became law, right up until 2012 and Bill C-38 when Harper repealed it.

Then, for some crazy reason, and I use the word “crazy” advisedly because I do not know the reason and I am not referring to anyone in particular, the Liberals decided to keep the designated project list, which is the part that the reference in the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada said was ultra vires the federal government and now stuffed in an omnibus budget bill that we were told we would never see. We get amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act that keep the designated projects list.

I do not think this new version in Bill C-69 is going to get Supreme Court of Canada approval. I know it will not get environmental assessments for projects across this country that need to be assessed. It will not get environmental assessment for Highway 413. It will not get environmental assessment for things that are squarely within federal jurisdiction. What it will do is be a quick and dirty fix that only goes to the finance committee for study.

With that, I will close my opening remarks with what I can only describe as disgust.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is well aware that air pollution has been on the rise for several years now. Increased air pollution leads to an increase in health problems, particularly lung problems and, by extension, heart problems and other conditions. This leads to higher health care costs, which are also linked to age, but also to the problems that arise from increased pollution.

Despite all this, Canada is not responding to the demands of Quebec and the Canadian provinces when it comes to health transfers. What is more, Canada is adding more funding and tax breaks for the oil and gas industries. Would my colleague say that Canada is a little backward in the way it thinks about its budget and the population's actual needs?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. It is more than just ironic. It is unbelievable that the government continues to give subsidies to fossil fuel industries despite all the promises to cancel subsidies and government support.

For example, $34 billion has been invested in building the Trans Mountain pipeline. This flies in the face of our efforts to protect our climate and, as the member said, it flies in the face of public health interests and the need to protect the public from pollution. We can do more, and we can make better and wiser decisions, but not with this bill.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague because I have been hearing this a lot in my constituency. After nine years of the Prime Minister, one in 10 people in Toronto has relied on food banks, and more than half are $200 away from missing bills. This crisis is getting worse and worse every day.

I spoke to Vishal from Sai Dham Food Bank recently, and his numbers are increasing at a more rapid pace than he can afford to supply for individuals, including seniors. Up to 4,000 baskets are being delivered each and every month to our seniors, who just cannot afford the price of food.

The proposed inflationary budget would not help our communities. What does the member think of that situation and the inflationary spending of the wasteful government?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from King—Vaughan and I may not agree on the details of this. There is no question but that Canadians are facing an affordability crisis. We do need, though, to spend the money it takes to alleviate that affordability crisis. What we have seen over the last number of decades is a growing gap between the very wealthy and the poor. A growing number of people who would not have considered themselves poor, and who had been in the middle class with incomes, can no longer fill a grocery cart.

I think it is a really important thing to have a school meal program. I think that would help alleviate some of the strain on families. I think we have to recognize that the inflationary impacts of postpandemic life and the breaking of supply chains have affected more than just Canada, so I think we need to address this as an affordability crisis and come up with solutions that really work. The Green Party believes one of those is a basic and livable annual income.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to that last exchange between my colleague and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and she said that she thought it was important to have a national school food program. This budget would provide for that, so obviously she supports that element of it.

I did not hear, or I did not quite decipher, whether the Green Party is going to vote in favour of this budget, so my first question is this: Is the Green Party going to vote for it? If the answer is no, how does she justify voting against the budget, given that there are some elements to it that she very much does support, such as the national school food program?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very clear. Members of the Green Party do not always vote the same way. My colleague from Kitchener Centre and I discuss every issue. We are governed by what we think our constituents would want us to do.

However, a budget vote is the ultimate vote of confidence in government. As much as I would like to vote for the elements I like within this budget, and I passionately believe in a school meal program, preferably one with local food that helps our young people know how it is to farm, grow their own food and have it served in a local school, I cannot vote for the budget in good conscience. I cannot vote for a budget that will further wreck our environmental assessment process. I cannot vote for a budget that does not take the climate crisis seriously, and I cannot vote confidence in a government that has put $34 billion into building a pipeline that puts my entire community, and the entire ecoregion around the Salish Sea, at grave risk.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have an opportunity to speak to the budget today. I would like to start with the positives. I know that my NDP colleagues and I achieved a number of good things in the budget. Certainly, the national school food program is an absolutely historic shift. It is something that the NDP has fought for and that we pushed to make sure was part of the budget.

We are ensuring the beginnings of a pharmacare program with access to medication for diabetes and contraception. There is the fact that the Conservatives have voted against it. There are currently more than nine million people of reproductive age in Canada, many of whom lack access to contraception and experience unintentional pregnancies as a result. My colleague from the Conservative Party was talking about fundamental human rights. It is a shame that not only are the Conservatives going to anti-choice rallies and physically invested in violating the fundamental right to protect reproductive health, but they also voted against access to free contraception. This is anti-feminist, anti-women and anti-equality, and it denies women, particularly, the ability to choose how they wish to proceed in their life.

I have to say that, even with the Liberals, this is something we had to fight for and something they have often failed to uphold, including being a disappointment in the budget. In spite of the fact that we have abortion clinics either closing or at risk of closing and, in my riding of Winnipeg Centre in Manitoba, the only abortion clinic closing, we still have to fight for the right to access trauma-informed abortion care. In fact, even though it seems to be convenient to use jurisdictional cards on certain matters, it is a shame that the federal government continues to violate women's and gender-diverse folks' right to access safe, trauma-informed abortion care in doing so. Respecting reproductive rights and respecting the right to choose is a so-called pillar of their government, but it is one thing to respect a right and another thing to give access to that right. This is something that I have really pushed in the House but that the current government has failed on. Nobody should have to take a plane across the country or to phone a hotline to get access to safe, trauma-informed abortion care. That is a failure of the Liberal government. Let us not forget the Conservative Party members, who are all listed on anti-choice websites. That is shameful.

However, it is good that the NDP fought to get a pharmacare program started, including the access to free contraception and diabetes medication. We need to have this in place, because free contraception is also a matter of personal privacy and confidentiality. People need to be able to access contraception. They should not have to seek approval of a partner or parent, especially if they are in coercive or abusive relationships. We know that many young women and gender-diverse people can only access contraception through the permission of their parents or partner, particularly in cases where they do not have the financial resources to access this care.

I am glad, again, that we have a school food program. I am pleased that some people can now benefit from a dental care program.

However, the budget falls flat, particularly in regard to the disability benefit. It is a slap in the face to the disability community.

Again, $200 a month is something that I know is insignificant. I represent one of the poorest ridings in this country. We can have band-aids for programs or communities, such as food banks, which are absolutely critical. However, if we want to get at the roots of poverty in this country, we need to start looking at and finding solutions for the growing income inequality, where we see the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. That is why I am pleased that the NDP pushed forward an excess profit tax on grocery chains and one of the reasons I pushed forward on my bill, Bill C-223, to put in place a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income. This has been supported by all the members of the NDP caucus, the majority of NDP members and women's organizations that are dealing with gender-based violence. We know it will save taxpayer dollars, because we always neglect to talk about the high costs of poverty. It is also something that the Conservatives turn a blind eye to with their sound bites and rhetoric, with no real solutions to alleviate suffering. The Liberals, again, talk a good game, but when they actually have to do something, there is nothing easier to keep than a broken Liberal promise.

My bill is coming up for debate. I hope that all members of Parliament are serious about this. People are talking about an affordability crisis and the fact that there are more and more people unhoused. We have given them a real solution, a real investment in affordable housing with rent geared to income. It would be a real investment in “for indigenous, by indigenous” housing, something that my colleagues, the members for Nunavut and East Vancouver, have led the charge for the NDP to implement. Affordable housing with rent geared to income and a guaranteed livable basic income are things that I, along with the NDP caucus, have supported, as well as a school food program and a national child care program that prioritizes not-for-profit public care.

We know that the Conservatives do not support those programs. They voted against pharmacare. They screamed and yelled about the national child care program, but then voted in favour of it, I think for political reasons. They voted against a national school food meal program for kids. Who would vote against kids having food so they do not go to school hungry? That was something that we had to fight the Liberals for, for years and years, and we succeeded.

In the fall, my private member's bill should come up for a vote. I will see at that time how serious elected officials in the House of Commons from the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Bloc party and the Green Party are about eradicating poverty once and for all.

I hope that my hope is correct and that people really do care about eradicating poverty in this country. I hope I see that all the members in the House of Commons really do care about the affordability crisis that we are being faced with and vote for my bill, Bill C-223, to put in place a guaranteed livable basic income.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked a rhetorical question: Who would vote against putting food into the mouths of children? Who would vote against a national school food program? I will tell her that it is the exact same people who get up every day and talk about the struggles of people and having to go to a food bank; these people talk about the problem but have absolutely no interest in helping to create a solution.

The reality is that the Conservatives are almost rooting for the opposite, for failure in government policy. They see that as a political win. Unfortunately, we are at this place in the House where Conservatives do not have an interest in outcomes being successful. They just have an interest in their political opportunity.

The member and her colleagues have shown great leadership over the last number of years in their ability to bring forward ideas. What are her thoughts on that?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of those ideas is a guaranteed livable basic income. This has been researched and studied, and it is something that is being facilitated in some of the happiest countries in the world right now.

We know that, when we look after people, it is good economics. I hope that my hon. colleague across the way supports good economics, supports ensuring that people can live in human rights and dignity, and supports my bill, Bill C-223.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, who is such a passionate, strong voice in the House of Commons, speaking up for equality for women and gender-diverse peoples, as well as for reproductive health rights. She is an extraordinary advocate for many Canadians.

I want to ask her about the guaranteed livable basic income. We know for a fact that the government, like the previous Conservative government, loves to shower money on corporate CEOs, overseas tax havens and banks. However, the guaranteed livable basic income that she proposes would make a fundamental difference in the lives of people who are struggling to make ends meet, put food on the table and keep a roof over their head.

Could the member talk about what a difference it would make for so many Canadians to have the bill adopted and to have a guaranteed livable basic income for people in Canada?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I love working with my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby. He is such a wonderful House leader and colleague.

In saying that, he is absolutely right. The Liberals are talking about fairness. They need to go after offshore tax havens and rich CEOs, and they need to take that money and spread it out to those who are being left behind.

Every day, I have to sit in the House of Commons and listen to Conservatives and Liberals talk about how people are struggling. However, when a solution is put on the table, they are nowhere to be found. This solution is well-researched, and the Province of P.E.I., for example, wants to pilot it.

This would mean that people living in poverty could actually live in dignity. These are the people who are falling through the cracks of the current social safety net, folks that I have to hear the member from Carleton put down and poor bash daily. He talks about people who are poor as being criminal. He fails to talk about the very wealthy, the corporate elite, as being related to the reason so many are poor and very few are rich.

This would save lives. This would ensure that people could live in dignity and with human rights.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague from Winnipeg Centre on the status of women committee.

I have been listening to her speech, and I can understand how disappointed she is. We are disappointed on this side of the House as well. Very simply, will she vote against the budget, yes or no?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I love working with the member from King—Vaughan.

My answer to that is no, I will not vote against the school meal program, dental care, pharmacare and a national child care program. These are things that have been moved along and that the NDP fought for.

I will not vote against a red dress alert, something that I got in, along with advocates, with the support of the leadership of the NDP. It is a shame that, in the House of Commons, we talk more about stolen cars than we do about murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. I will absolutely continue to fight.

I will not vote against a red dress alert. I will not vote against pharmacare and free contraception. I cannot, particularly as a feminist and as somebody who has fought for much of my life to get something in place for a red dress alert. Along with advocates in the NDP, I have fought for this for a number of years. I cannot in good conscience vote against that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I just want to remind my hon. colleagues to keep their questions and comments as short as possible so everyone gets to participate. I see two more people who would like to ask questions, but we have run out of time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for London West.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join and participate in today's debate in support of Bill C-69.

This legislation would advance many of the government's key priorities in budget 2024, “Fairness for Every Generation”. Budget 2024 is our government's plan to build a Canada that works for every generation, where younger generations can get ahead, where their hard work completely pays off, and where they can buy or rent a home of their own. It is our plan to ensure that everyone has a fair chance at a good, middle-class life.

The government is working to implement this bill quickly, because Canadians deserve bold investments in housing, in a stronger social safety net and in economic growth that creates good-paying jobs.

Bill C‑69 will have a positive impact across the country, and I am already optimistic about the impact in my riding, London West. With budget 2024 and Bill C‑69, we are taking action to ensure fairness for every generation and to drive the kind of economic growth that will ensure every generation can reach its full potential. We are aiming for nothing less. I would now like to talk about some of the measures we are putting forward to achieve that goal.

Our government understands that more needs to be done to build more homes faster and make housing more affordable. I am delighted to see that we are quickly moving forward with the bold measures that are in Bill C-69. For example, we are enhancing the homebuyers' plan to help first-time homebuyers at a time when saving for a down payment is more difficult. More specifically, we are increasing the withdrawal limit from $35,000 to $60,000 and temporarily adding three years to the grace period before homebuyers are required to start making their repayments to an RRSP.

We are also cracking down on short-term rentals by denying income tax deductions on income earned from short-term rentals that do not comply with the provincial or local restrictions. By doing so, we are unlocking more homes for Canadians to live in, because that is what Canadian homes should be for. They are for Canadians to live in. Also, to ensure that these homes are available for Canadians to live in and not used as a speculative asset class for foreign investors, we are banning foreign buyers of Canadian homes for an additional two years. This means that the ban will now be extended until January 1, 2027.

The government is also taking action to make life more affordable for Canadians. For example, Bill C‑69 amends the Telecommunications Act, making it easier to find better Internet, home phone and cell phone services.

We are making amendments that will give Canadians more flexibility to renew or switch plans, with a clear understanding of the choices and services that will best suit their needs. We will also launch a consumer-driven banking framework, also known as open banking or consumer-directed finance, to provide Canadians and small businesses with safe and secure access to a wider range of financial services and products.

Another way we are making life more affordable is by giving law enforcement agencies the tools they need to protect Canadians from auto theft. We will also introduce more serious criminal offences related to auto theft as well as new restrictions on the possession and distribution of devices used to steal vehicles.

I am also particularly proud of the measure that would benefit many firefighters and search and rescue volunteers. We are going to double the volunteer firefighters tax credit, and the search and rescue volunteers tax credit as well. These credits would go from $3,000 up to $6,000 in recognition of the essential roles and the sacrifices that the volunteers make to keep Canadians safe. These are volunteers who are Canadian heroes and they deserve all the recognition.

Budget 2024 is also about growing Canada's economy. In Bill C-69, we are including many measures that would do exactly that. We would grow Canada's economy by further advancing indigenous economic participation through the indigenous loan guarantee program. Thanks to the creation of this program, indigenous communities across Canada would be able to share in Canada's prosperity and benefit from new opportunities ahead.

This new loan program, with up to $5 billion in loan guarantees, will unlock access to capital for indigenous communities to create economic opportunities and support their economic development priorities as well.

We are moving forward with investment tax credits that are designed to boost investment and secure Canada's competitiveness while supporting our country's goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

In budget 2024, the government recently announced the next steps in our plan to attract significant investment to Canada. These investments will help us create good-paying jobs in Canada and accelerate the development and deployment of clean energy and clean technology.

More specifically, in Bill C-69, we are also going to deliver two investment tax credits, the up-to-40% clean hydrogen and the 30% clean technology manufacturing investment tax credits. Passing these two tax credits into law means that we are going to secure a cleaner and more prosperous future for Canadians today and tomorrow by securing more private investment in our country.

To wrap up, with budget 2024, our government is putting forward a plan to deliver fairness for every generation in Canada. We are introducing measures to give everyone a fair chance at a middle-class life here in Canada.

As discussed, we are moving forward in Bill C-69 with measures that are going to make housing more affordable, make our communities safer and continue to grow Canada's economy while creating clean and good jobs. All Canadians will greatly benefit from the measures that are included in Bill C-69. I am already eager to see the multiple benefits that are going to happen for the Londoners of London West.

Bill C-69 is a good bill, and I invite all of my colleagues to join me and vote in favour of this important legislation for Canada's future.

It is a shame that there are members of the House who have already indicated that they will not be voting for this budget. This means that they are voting against the food program that we have put forward for children, as well as the dental care for seniors and for young children. They are voting against Canadians, basically. It is a shame.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech that was just given by my colleague, but something that she failed to articulate in her speech was the fact that the continual deficits, the massive increases in spending, are contributing to inflation. The government seems to be taking credit for inflation continuing to rise at 2.7%. That is not a decrease but simply a slowing of what has been an exceptional increase.

I would like her to comment on that, but also on the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has announced that the government is increasing the debt ceiling for our country by $495 billion. I am wondering if the member would be able to shed some light onto why such an incredible increase in the national debt ceiling is required, in light of the circumstances that we find ourselves in, especially with the inflationary environment.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe my colleague was not in the House of Commons today when the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance announced that inflation has been reduced to 2.7%, which is the lowest in three years.

There was also some good news last Thursday, that our AAA credit rating was again affirmed by Moody's, with a stable outlook, which keeps Canadians' debt payments low.

Maybe he can vote for Canadians by supporting the dental care plan, by supporting the child care benefit, and by supporting helping Canadians, helping seniors and making sure that Canadians are set up for a good future.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague what measures the budget contains that will strengthen federal programs, like EI and OAS, or reduce wait times for services like immigration or Service Canada. What measures has the government implemented to strengthen its own social safety net programs? That is my question.

For my comment, I would point out that it is easy to say that members who vote against the bill are voting against food programs in our schools, but food programs in our schools come under Quebec's jurisdiction. Housing comes under Quebec's jurisdiction. Health comes under Quebec's jurisdiction. The reason we are voting against it is because the federal government is not minding its own business.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I appreciate the questions from my Bloc Québécois colleague. I want to respond to her comment about the federal government interfering in provincial jurisdictions. I was a municipal councillor well before I came here. The reason why we announced housing measures for the entire country is that the cities and provinces were unable to meet the needs of their own populations.

My colleague talked about social investments. No other budget has provided for as many social investments as budget 2024. Over $3.87 million will be invested in housing by 2031. We want Canadians and Quebeckers to have a roof over their heads. That is why we are continuing to invest. I encourage my colleague to support this budget, which will ensure that Quebeckers also have a roof over their heads and a place to call home.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I work with my colleague quite closely on the global co-operation caucus, and I know how much she cares about people in Canada and around the world.

As an Albertan, I know that inflation in Alberta is among the highest in the country and people living with disabilities are really struggling. We have heard words from the government that it wants to support people living with disabilities, but when we saw what was actually brought forward, what a disappointment that was, what a betrayal that was. The idea that Canadians living with a disability are not able to live with dignity in our communities is heartbreaking. All of us should be very concerned when the Government of Canada is not supporting the most vulnerable within our communities.

I wonder if the member has some comments on the failure of this budget to meet the moment, to meet the needs of people living with disabilities.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also enjoy working with my NDP colleague on many subjects that connect us.

On the subject of disability, it is important to note that, number one, we are investing in housing for all Canadians. Earlier last year, I put forward a motion that was passed and that I think my colleague voted for, which was to support the national housing strategy having a council that would include people with disabilities. That is a first step to making sure that we are including people with disabilities in the conversation around housing and around their needs.

We are also launching the new Canada disability benefit. It is a beginning. We have heard from communities. We consulted them and we continue to talk. With all the measures in this budget, they can also find a lot of support. This is a beginning to do more, and we will continue to work together to make sure that we are responding to the most pressing needs of the many Canadians who live with disabilities and have family members who live with disabilities.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to start off by saying it had been predicted that this year's NDP-Liberal budget was likely to be the worst budget since 1982 when the Prime Minister's father was running the government. That prediction was made by the former Liberal-appointed Bank of Canada Governor, David Dodge.

Mr. Dodge was speaking about the budget before he even saw it, but what he already observed was $40 billion in announced new spending. Someone does not have to be a former Bank of Canada governor to realize that doubling down on a failed approach is a bad idea. The proof is out there in the lived experience of real people across our country. Canadians deserve better.

In my speech today, I will highlight a number of reasons the Liberals have failed to respond to the needs of everyday Canadians, including the good people of Westman.

First, the NDP-Liberal budget fails on tax relief for struggling Canadians. At a time when life is costing far more for Westman residents, the Prime Minister's budget does nothing to bring the relief families desperately need. As the cost of gas, groceries and home heating continue to increase, the Liberals have deliberately chosen not only to leave the carbon tax in place, but also to increase it even more, despite the financial hurt Canadians are feeling.

Thanks to the NDP-Liberal coalition, the Prime Minister was able to hike the carbon tax by 23% on April 1, further driving up the cost of everything. The fact is that 70% of Canadians oppose this tax hike, and 70% of the provincial premiers have asked the Prime Minister to stop this painful tax increase. The simplest, fairest thing to do is to axe the carbon tax for everyone, everywhere, for good. That is what Conservatives are working toward.

Instead of siding with Canadians facing an affordability crisis, it was very frustrating to see the NDP and Liberals join forces to save the Prime Minister from a carbon tax election last month. In fact, the parties have voted together 22 times to keep this tax grab in place since 2019. Those who are watching can rest assured that common-sense Conservatives will continue fighting to axe the tax and bring home lower prices for everyone.

Second, the NDP-Liberal budget fails on measures to restore affordability. Under the Liberal government's watch, the cost of rent, mortgage payments and down payments has doubled. The Liberals' record deficits have driven interest rates sky-high. Food banks received a record two million visits in a single month last year, with a million more people expected in 2024.

In my riding, the Samaritan House food bank gave out nearly 36,000 hampers last year, a dramatic increase of 12,000, which was a 50% increase above its normal annual average. This is in line with trends across the whole country as families struggle to make ends meet and put food on the table.

As the Prime Minister and his ideological environment minister keep taxing the farmers who grow the food and the truckers who transport the food, at the end of the day, they are adding to the cost of food for everyday Canadians who buy it. That is why one thing the Liberals could have done to bring tax relief is axe the carbon tax.

Third, the Liberals could have moved to stop inflationary spending. The finance minister green-lighted a deficit of $39.8 billion, which would bring Canada's national debt to a staggering $1.25 trillion. It has been proven time and time again that it is these exact deficits that are driving inflation in Canada and making life more unaffordable for Canadians across our whole country.

The ever-increasing rates of spending in Canada are causing the Bank of Canada to maintain or even raise the interest rate, which is now at 5% versus the 1% of two years ago. These were the worst two years for millions of families who trusted the Liberal Prime Minister when he claimed that interest rates would stay low forever.

That is why Conservatives demanded that budget 2024 include a commitment to cap spending, with a dollar-for-dollar rule, to bring down interest rates and inflation. The government must find a dollar in savings for every dollar of spending, so Canadians no longer see the value of their dollar drop thanks to rising inflation.

The Prime Minister's reckless spending is leaving less money available for health care. This year, Canada will spend a shocking $54.1 billion on interest servicing our national debt, more money than the entire Canada health transfer. Should the NDP-backed Liberal government continue on its spending spree, it would simply mean more money for wealthy bankers and bondholders who own our debt, while less money flows to the doctors and nurses who keep our communities healthy. If we continue to go down this road, the pot of cash that is available for health care in Canada will only continue to get smaller, endangering our rural and remote hospitals, clinics and care homes.

Another failing is the government's approach to housing. In its 2015 platform, the Liberals said they would “conduct an inventory of all available federal lands and buildings that could be repurposed, and make some of these lands available at low cost for affordable housing in communities where there is a pressing need.” That did not happen. Now its 2024 budget is restating that commitment nine years later.

Under the Liberal government, Canada is building fewer homes than we did in the mid-1970s when we had half the population, making housing more expensive for everyone. Reannouncing old pledges will not help to build the 5.8 million homes that are needed to restore housing affordability for Canadians. Even in Brandon, the rent of a modest unit has risen from $989 to $1,242, an increase of more than $250 a month, not to mention the rising cost of everything else. A common-sense Conservative approach would build homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring that cities permit 15% more homebuilding each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money.

This budget “falls short for Canadian farmers.” That is a statement we heard from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Despite a specific Conservative demand to axe the carbon tax on farmers and food by passing Bill C-234 in its original form, no such commitment has been made by the Liberals. Instead of saving farmers $1 billion between now and 2030, which is exactly what passing Bill C-234 in its original form would do, the Liberals continued to ignore farmers. The result is that all Canadians will continue to pay more at the grocery store because higher expenses for farmers lead to higher prices for consumers. Conservatives will keep fighting to bring home lower food prices for all Canadians.

Another failing of the Liberal budget is our growing national debt. The Prime Minister has doubled down on $40 billion of new spending, $2,400 in new government debt and new inflationary spending alone for every Canadian. Not only have the deficit and debt grown at substantial rates, but the interest payments due on the debt continue to grow at skyrocketing rates. In fact, all of the GST Canadians pay this year will be needed to pay for the Liberal government's interest payments on the debt. For the first time in a generation, we are spending more on debt interest than on health care.

I would ask every Canadian watching to remember this. Every time they pay at the cash or close a business transaction, the extra 5% they pay in goods and services tax is all going toward interest on the Prime Minister's debt. After nine years of the Prime Minister, Canada is now spending more money paying off interest on his debt than on Canada health transfer to provinces. Meanwhile, housing prices have doubled and food banks are overwhelmed.

The decline in the Canadian economy since 2019 created by the Liberal Prime Minister means Canadians are now poorer by $4,200 per person. While American GDP per capita growth has grown by 7% since 2019, Canada's has fallen by 2.8%. This is the single-largest underperformance of the Canadian economy in comparison to the United States since 1965. It is long past the time to bring home affordability and restore common sense. Unfortunately, I could not support budget 2024 as it failed on both accounts.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I find disappointing about the budget is the lack of support for seniors in our communities. I have spent many days speaking to seniors. Recently, during one of our constituency weeks, I met with seniors in 15 different residences to talk about the concerns that they have. My issue is that I do not know how seniors in Alberta could trust the Conservatives, knowing the record that they have, knowing that Stephen Harper was the person who put in place cuts to support for OAS, such as making sure a senior is 67 instead of 65 before they apply for OAS, as well as knowing that the leader of the Conservative Party has very clearly, historically, been against the Canada pension plan.

I wonder if this member could comment on the support that a Conservative government would give to seniors because, historically, Conservatives have been extraordinarily bad for seniors in this country.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that question was a little misleading. I know that Mr. Harper increased the GIS for seniors by 25% during his term in power.

I just want to say that the person who just spoke continues to support the coalition with the Liberal government that has caused all the inflationary spending in the first place. That leaves us, as I said, in one of the worst precarious financial positions the country has ever been in, which is not good for seniors.

I spoke to many seniors on the last break week that we had, back in my constituency. They are very concerned about the increased price of gas, home heating fuel, the carbon tax and inflationary issues as well. They are also concerned about the billions and billions of dollars that have caused us to have a $1.25-trillion debt now. They know that the amount that they're paying for food at the grocery stores is certainly inflationary.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke a lot about carbon tax.

Can he explain to the House the difference between this carbon tax that we have in place now versus the one that he ran on in 2021?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know, today, that the government has caused the inflationary situation that they are in. They know that the government is forcing 53% of Canadians to be within $200 of insolvency at the end of every paycheque. There is a big difference between balancing the books, like Mr. Harper did in 2015. Mr. Harper did not take money out of employment insurance, like the Liberals did before his time.

If the member wants to get into tit-for-tat stuff, the Liberals are not dealing with the reality of today, and this is when Canadians have to pay the bills that the Liberals have cost them.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague.

He talked about huge expenditures, massive spending, and rightly so. He also talked about inflation and how it is getting harder and harder for some people to get by, while others are lining their pockets. I may have missed it at one point or another, but I did not hear him talk about the gifts this budget gives to oil companies. I guess it is because he ran out of time. He had a lot to say.

I wanted to give him the opportunity to speak out against that, as he just did regarding other parts of this budget.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today my colleague for South Shore—St. Margarets indicated that the oil industry in Canada today is paying about $22 billion in taxes in the Canadian economy. I know that the oil industry shares opportunities for our natural resources. I was on the natural resources committee for a while. I appreciate my colleague from the Bloc for his question.

We are limiting the amount of export opportunities that we have, which brings revenue into the government in this country to pay for the social programs that we have already had in health care and education. The government is neglecting those.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to stand in the House and to contribute to the debate today on Bill C-69, the budget implementation act for budget 2024, which is focused on ensuring fairness for every generation. It is another building block to help future generations and is based on supporting the promise that all Canadians should have a fair chance to build a good, middle-class life and to do as well as their parents, if not better.

Today, too many young Canadians feel as though the deck is stacked against them, and the reward of secure, prosperous, comfortable middle-class life remains out of reach. Budget 2024 presents our plan to fix that. We will build a Canada that works better for everyone, no matter where or when they were born, and we are going to do that by building more affordable homes. We will make life cost less, and we will grow the economy in a way that is shared by all because our country works best when our economy is growing and when more opportunities exist for every generation.

Today, I would like to talk about the housing pillar of budget 2024 and the elements of Bill C-69 that support the effort to make homes more affordable to more Canadians.

For generations, one of the fundamental, foundational promises of Canada's middle-class dream was that if one worked hard and saved money, one could afford a home. However, for today's young adults, this promise is under threat. Rising rents are making it hard to find an affordable place to call home, and rising home prices are keeping homes out of reach for many first-time buyers, especially in my home province of British Columbia, and in Richmond, B.C.

On April 12, the government released our ambitious housing plan, “solving the housing crisis: Canada's housing plan”, which is supported by new investments from the budget. Budget 2024 and Canada's housing plan lay out the government's bold strategy to unlock 3.87 million new homes by 2031, which includes a minimum of two million net new homes beyond what was already expected to be built. The plan will enable more apartments and affordable housing to be built across the country, while protecting the stock of affordable housing and protecting renters from unfair practices.

When it comes to Bill C-69, the federal government is taking action to help Canadians buy and stay in their homes while also curbing investor activity that drives up the cost and decreases the availability of housing. Homes are for Canadians to live in, not speculative assets for investors, so we would crack down on non-compliant short-term rentals. The operation of non-compliant short-term rentals is helping to keep too many homes off the market. The 2023 fall economic statement proposed tax changes to incentivize the return of non-compliant short-term rentals to the long-term market and to support the work of provinces and territories that have restricted short-term rentals.

Bill C-69 proposes those amendments to the Income Tax Act, which would deny income tax deductions for short-term rentals operated in provinces and municipalities that have prohibited such activities or where short-term rentals operators are not compliant with the applicable provincial or municipal orders. This measure would induce owners of short-term rentals to return their properties to the long-term market and would unlock more housing supply for Canadians to live in.

The extension of the foreign buyer ban on Canadian housing now is to address increasing affordability concerns in cities across the country due to foreign money coming into Canada to buy up residential real estate. The government introduced a two-year ban on the purchase of residential property by foreign investors, which went into effect on January 1, 2023, to help further curb speculative foreign investments that reduce the supply of homes for Canadians to live in.

The government announced that it intends to extend the ban on foreign buying of Canadian homes by an additional two years. As confirmed in budget 2024, Bill C-69 proposes to amend legislation to extend the restrictions on foreign investment in Canadian housing, established under the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act, to January 1, 2027. Foreign commercial enterprises and people who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents would continue to be prohibited from purchasing residential property in Canada.

Regarding the issue of underused housing tax refinements, as part of the 2023 fall economic statement, the government proposed several changes to the underused housing tax, or the UHT. Canadians and other stakeholders were invited to share their views on these proposals, and the amendments included in Bill C-69 take into account the feedback received. These changes would do the following: eliminate the UHT filing requirement for entities that are substantially or entirely Canadian; reduce the minimum non-filing penalties from $5,000 to $1,000 for individuals, and from $10,000 to $2,000 for corporations; introduce a new employee-accommodation exemption that would be available in areas of Canada that are rural or otherwise not densely populated; and, finally, make several technical changes to ensure that UHT applies in accordance with the policy intent. These proposed amendments aim to facilitate compliance while ensuring that the tax continues to apply as intended, and that is to discourage having non-resident, non-Canadian-owned residential property sitting vacant and off the market.

When it comes to enhancing the home buyers' plan to help Canadians buy their first home while at the same time we increase supply, the federal government is also enhancing the tax-free savings plans that help young prospective buyers save for a down payment. Support to help first-time buyers save must keep pace with market prices. That is why the government launched the tax-free first home savings account in 2023. To great success, more than 750,000 Canadians have already opened an account to save for their first down payment.

That is also why, through budget 2024, we propose to enhance the home buyers' plan. To effect that enhancement, Bill C-69 proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to increase the home buyers' plan withdrawal limit from $35,000 to $60,000, enabling first-time homebuyers to use the tax benefits of an RRSP to save up to $25,000 more for their down payment or, if they are in a partnership, $50,000 and almost $120,000 toward their first down payment. The newly increased limit would be effective since the budget was tabled on April 16. Bill C-69 also proposes to temporarily extend the grace period, during which homeowners are not required to repay their home buyers' plan withdrawals to their RRSP by an additional three years.

Of the two million net new homes I mentioned earlier, we estimate that the recent policy actions taken in Canada's housing plan in budget 2024 and in fall 2023 would support a minimum of 1.2 million net new homes. Budget 2024 investments for increasing the supply of affordable homes are necessary and timely, and they are part of the investments we are making for the prosperity of every generation. We will build more homes. We will make life cost less. We will invest in our small businesses. We will grow our economy in a way that works for everyone, and I encourage all hon. members to support this bill.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, does my hon. colleague acknowledge that the Communist dictatorship in Beijing interfered to get him and the Prime Minister elected in 2021, as has been shown by various studies and reports, including Justice Hogue's inquiry?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Justice Hogue's report was very clear that there was no certainty with respect to the election interference. I encourage the member opposite to read the report thoroughly before they make misleading accusations and try to do a character assassination on any member in the House.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals tell us that they are very green and very environmentally minded. We have looked at the budget and analyzed it carefully because we are thorough. If something is good for Quebec, then we will vote for it. If it is bad for Quebec, then we will vote against it, of course. There is no partisanship in that. It is based purely on facts.

The Liberals tell us that there are no more subsidies for the oil industry. However, in the budget, we see $30.3 billion in subsidies for oil companies in the form of tax credits.

I hear my Liberal colleagues talk about future generations. Not only is the government using taxpayer dollars to fund the most polluting industry in the world, but it is taking that money away from those same young people, that same young generation and that next generation, who will have to deal with climate change. What explanation could there be for such a measure to appear in this budget?

The government is giving $30.3 billion to an industry that is likely the wealthiest and most profitable industry in the world, and it is getting that money from taxpayers. How can it justify such a measure?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, on this side of the House, we have worked very hard and aggressively to combat climate change, and we will continue to do so for future generations. Not only that, but also I was talking more precisely about housing and how we are going to be combatting the issues around affordability on housing.

I can only speak for my riding specifically. We have already broken ground on the rapid housing initiative on Steveston Highway and Railway Avenue in Richmond, British Columbia, where we will be building 25 units for those who need it the most: women and women with children. It is something we are really happy to introduce. We have broken ground on that, and I am looking forward to it being done in record time.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate hearing my colleague and neighbour from the lower mainland of B.C..

I do have a question for him that is serious. We have seen how badly Conservatives managed money when they were in power, with the giveaways to banks, the massive giveaways to CEOs for the oil and gas sector and the infamous Harper tax haven treaties that have sucked the lifeblood out of this country. It is $30 billion each and every year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who should know, having evaluated the impacts of this dismal list of Harper treaties that have really sucked this country dry and that have led to, of course, all the cuts to services as well.

My colleague, though, should be able to comment on why the Liberals have done much the same thing. They have not ended the tax haven treaties. They continue to give money, splurge, to oil and gas CEOs, and they provided even more money to the banks in liquidity supports than the Harper government did.

Why do liberals take the worst practices of the Harper regime, rather than the best practices of financial management? Of course, as we are aware, those come from the party that is best at managing money and paying down debt, and that is the NDP.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to answer questions from the member opposite from British Columbia. When it comes to our banking system and taxation, the member opposite very well knows that we have made adequate and competitive choices when it comes to tax fairness. I encourage working closely with him on these issues.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would rise in the House one day to say that the Prime Minister and I finally agree on a constitutional issue. A careful reading of this budget makes it clear that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party are no longer federalists. Like the Bloc Québécois, they now oppose the idea of dividing responsibilities between the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces and those of the House of Commons.

Let us take a closer look at the definition of federalism. According to the late Benoît Pelletier, the hallmark of a federation is that federal institutions have sovereignty in their areas of jurisdiction, while the provinces have sovereignty in their own areas of jurisdiction. We in the Bloc Québécois do not subscribe to Canadian federalism, but since our party was created, we have always fought to protect Quebec's areas of jurisdiction until Quebec becomes independent. How could anyone conclude that the Liberals still believe in Canadian federalism after seeing the dozens of encroachments on Quebec's jurisdictions featured in this budget?

That means that most members in this House do not believe in Canadian federalism. That is great news. However, rest assured that is where the similarities end. The Liberal Party is running a country that is unable to provide passports within a reasonable period of time, unable to make sure its public servants get paid and even unable to properly equip an invaded ally without neutralizing its own army's capabilities. This same party is now claiming that it wants to show the provinces and Quebec how to manage their health care systems, for instance.

The Liberals have interfered so much that they have run out of areas to infringe upon. If the Prime Minister loses a a few more points in the polls, will he suggest changing the code of conduct for child care centres or will he interfere in how Hydro-Québec operates? Oh, wait. He has already done that. Believe it or not, when the Bloc Québécois comes up with its pre-budget requests, we do our homework and we request things that actually fall under federal jurisdiction.

Here is what we asked for. We asked for the federal government to give Quebec the unconditional right to opt out with full compensation from any new federal program in areas under the constitutional responsibility of the provinces. Obviously, that is not in the budget. We also asked for the federal government to increase old age security starting at age 65, which is what my esteemed colleague from Shefford's Bill C-319 seeks to do. Obviously, that is not in the budget either.

We also asked the government to put an immediate end to all fossil fuel subsidies, including tax measures, and to support clean, renewable energy instead. Everyone knows that tax credits are a pretty deceptive way of subsidizing an industry that is already very rich and that is making billions in profits on the backs of taxpayers. It is actually very difficult to figure out exactly how much those tax credits are worth. Obviously, this budget does not end fossil fuel subsidies.

We had another request as well. We asked the government to pay Quebec what it owes for asylum seekers. That is certainly not in the budget. Quebec is still asking for the $900 million it spent welcoming asylum seekers after the feds opened the borders. Quebec welcomed them and worked hard to integrate them, but we are still waiting to be reimbursed.

Lastly, Quebec asked the government to transfer the housing budget. The federal government is unfortunately taking over in the housing crisis. Instead of transferring the money to Quebec and the provinces, the federal government is now imposing conditions, not only on Quebec and the provinces, but also on municipalities. For example, it wants to impose conditions related to density around college and university campuses. That is direct interference in municipalities' jurisdiction over city planning. That is next-level jurisdictional encroachment.

Let me recap what is in this budget, because none of the Bloc Québécois's requests are there. On April 16, the Government of Canada tabled its budget. First, it mentions a negative budgetary balance of $40 billion for 2023-24, $39.8 billion for 2024-25 and $38.9 billion for 2025-26, which is not that far off. The trend continues before reaching a projected deficit of $20 billion in 2028-29. The government is therefore choosing to rack up debt for itself, for Canadians and for Quebeckers in the years to come, of course, with no plan to balance the budget, which is alarming. The government is therefore deciding to tax the public more, as with the increased capital gains tax. However, it is taking on as much debt as ever. I laid out the figures. Our debt remains the same. The government is going to get a little more money, but it is going to keep taking on more debt.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I would like to point out that the hon. member for Terrebonne has the floor, and I hope that those who are taking part in conversations will keep their voices very low.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems we are witnessing an NDP-Liberal coalition meeting here in the House.

Basically, the government just keeps spending. Is it spending more? Not really, it is mostly just wasting more. Over the past few months, we have seen examples of the government spending too much and spending poorly. One obvious example is the money allocated for first nations housing. The government announces significant investments year after year, but it is unable to ensure that this money has any real impact. In fact, a recent Auditor General's report demonstrated that zero improvements have been made in on-reserve housing since the government took office. Billions of dollars have been sunk into it and there have not been enough results.

Another fine example is, of course, the ArriveCAN app, which I have spoken to several times in the House. It was supposed to cost $80,000, but it ended up costing the government, and therefore taxpayers, at least $60 million. What we learned from ArriveCAN is that there is a much larger and more widespread problem within the current government. Under the Liberals, the public service has grown enormously, more and more contracts have been awarded to consultants, and a growing proportion of those same contracts are being awarded on a non-competitive basis. Let us not forget that many of these contracts could have been carried out in-house, by our public servants.

It is quite clear that Canadians and Quebeckers are not getting the best value for their money. There has been talk about encroachment into Quebec's jurisdictions. There has been talk about the deficit. There has been talk about the mismanagement of services that fall under federal jurisdiction, but nothing has been said about why. Why is the government proposing such a disastrous budget? I will give a hint. The majority of the money promised is planned for 2026-27 and the years thereafter, well past the date of the next federal election. Just as an example, 97% of the $1.1 billion allocated to accelerating the construction of apartments is budgeted for after the election, as is 91% of the $1.5 billion allocated for the new housing infrastructure fund. The same goes for the 88% of the money promised for pharmacare, 88% of the funding to support research and 87.5% of the funding to strengthen Canada's advantage in artificial intelligence.

This budget is at best an election promise and at worst a strategy to stay in power by convincing the NDP to support the government. In its desperation, the government wants to interfere everywhere, yet people in government are unable to do the work themselves. I already gave a few examples. They are taking away responsibilities from the provinces and managing them ineffectively and at a much higher cost.

As an economist, I would describe any budget that tries to create a slew of new services, while disregarding the government's primary responsibilities, as irresponsible. If the Liberal Party is so desperate that it is looking for ideas for the next election, I would like to offer it a campaign slogan: “Spend and borrow for a mismanaged tomorrow”.

This government thinks that, by disregarding Quebeckers' right to manage their own responsibilities and those of their nation, it can buy itself a brief reprieve, but only by taking on debt. According to an old French proverb that Quebeckers have not forgotten, no debt is ever repaid faster than a debt of contempt. As it happens, Quebeckers have long memories.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Her remarks are always relevant, but I have two questions for her.

First, I want to talk about dental care. Hundreds of thousands of seniors in Quebec are now enrolled in the dental care plan, which means that it has already been very successful. Thousands of Quebeckers have already had access to this care. This new program is clearly working.

Next, I want to talk about pharmacare. Quebec's system unfortunately leaves 15% of Quebeckers out in the cold. That is why all the major unions have said that the Bloc Québécois must support the pharmacare bill that the NDP set in motion, because it is very important.

Two voices from Quebec have been very clear in their support for the dental care plan and the new pharmacare program. We do not understand why the Bloc Québécois continues to oppose them.

Can the member explain why the Bloc Québécois is not listening to all these voices from Quebec?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would like to answer those two questions, which are ultimately one and the same.

Quite simply, these are encroachments on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. As I said at the outset, since its inception, the Bloc Québécois has opposed encroachments on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. The federal government is in no position to tell Quebec how to manage its health care, when Quebec has already done it and done it well. The system is not perfect, but it continues to improve. It has served Quebeckers well for years. If Quebec wants to increase dental coverage, Quebec will do it. It does not need the federal government to tell it what to do.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment about balancing the budget. I know that there are all sorts of examples in history, including Quebec's history, where perhaps too many eggs were broken to make an omelette. We know that fiscal austerity or zero deficit efforts have been made, often much more violently in other countries of the world, especially developing countries, to the detriment of those who are struggling the most and at the expense of public services. Those were the days of triumphant neo-liberalism.

However, I think that asking for a plan is about making sure that we do not get to that point. If the plan is no good, we will say so. Sooner or later, we need to balance the budget in one way or another, so it is better to do it the right way. Is asking for a plan not just a way to ensure that we do not end up using drastic or highly ideological remedies that would penalize those who are struggling the most?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. That is why several jurisdictions already have laws on the books requiring a plan to return to a balanced budget, precisely to prevent situations where debt accumulates to the point of hurting the people who need it most. As my colleague rightly pointed out, a return to a balanced budget is essential. It is essential to guarantee a future for Quebeckers as long as we remain part of Canada.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after nine years and eight consecutive deficit budgets, the Prime Minister has doubled the debt, adding more to our national debt than all other prime ministers combined. Housing costs have doubled under his watch and, now, two million Canadians are forced to visit their local food banks in a single month. That is twice the population of Nova Scotia. With the budget, we can see another $50 billion of inflationary spending. The budget and the Prime Minister are simply not worth the cost. I will be voting no confidence.

Common-sense Conservatives have a plan to axe the tax, build the home, fix the budget and, yes, stop the crime. Since he became the Prime Minister, the wealthiest .01% of Canadians have been living lavishly, receiving major subsidies from their corporations that are bigger than ever in the history of our country and huge loan guarantees that prevent them from losing money on bad investments.

Who foots the bill for the out-of-control Prime Minister? The hard-working taxpayers. Contractors like those from GC Strategies are among the .01% thanks to the generous gifts from the NDP-Liberal government. Who else is in that .01%? The Prime Minister himself. As a matter of fact, he is considered one of the world's wealthiest politicians. Yet, over the past nine years, Canada's personal income growth has fallen behind that of other G7 nations. Today, average Canadian families and seniors are forced to choose between paying their mortgage and putting food on their table.

Let me make one thing clear. Conservatives are not against spending. We are against wasteful spending, which the NDP-Liberal government excels at. Conservatives will support programs that deliver proven positive outcomes. Take the government's dental care program, for instance. Who will it really help? Is it helping seniors? No. Did the government consult with the Canadian Dental Association before announcing it? No. The result is a program rushed out the door in a desperate attempt to buy votes with no real thought or consultation behind it.

I have heard from many dentists and one thing is clear. These dentists care about their patients and have worked tirelessly to build their business, but the Canadian dental care program in its current state will not allow them the same high level of patient care they provide. The proof is in the extremely low sign-up rate by dentists. Canadians have been promised free dental care, but are now upset due to the massive limitations and restrictions imposed by this ill-conceived NDP-Liberal program. Eligible treatments are insufficient for the prevention and maintenance of good oral health. Dentists should be able to make recommendations based on the individual needs of their patients and not the constraints dictated by this government and covered up by their insurance company.

The public is being misled about the scope of coverage and the fees. Most patients will be surprised by out-of-pocket expenses such as copay balances and limitations of service. The burden will fall on dental teams to explain these deficiencies. After analyzing the CDCP benefit grid, most treatments will be reimbursed to the dental team at around 80%. The Liberals claim this is to avoid overburdening the taxpayers. Is that not rich? They awarded Sun Life $747 million to administer this program. Clearly, the Liberal government does not understand the cost of providing quality health care. To be a provider, dentists were told to sign an open-ended, unilateral contract. Who would sign a contract where the details are unclear and unfair?

The Minister of Health has said dentists should just try it if they like it. That does not even make sense. It is an insurance plan, not a pair of gloves. Dentists cannot just try out a plan to see whether it fits. This is neither sensible nor ethical. What happens if they decide not to continue? How can they morally or ethically stop treating a patient based on insurance coverage?

Let us also talk about patient privacy. Accepting the claims processing and payment agreement gives Sun Life rights and access to the entire patient chart. Client consent is obtained as part of member enrolment in the CDCP, meaning that personal health information and dental charts will be readily available to Sun Life and the government.

The plan has little to no thought on how it would work. To sell it as free dental care is nothing more than false advertising and wasteful spending, not unlike the billion-dollar arrive scam app.

I googled the meaning of the word “budget”, and this is what came up: “A budget is a plan you write down to decide how you will spend your money”. That part of the definition the government seems to understand, but it is the next sentence where it fails: “A budget helps you make sure you will have enough money every month. Without a budget, you might run out of money before your next paycheck.”

The NDP-Liberal coalition has spent so much money that more Canadian tax dollars are used to service the debt than are spent on health care. This year, Canada will spend $54.1 billion to service the Prime Minister's debt. That is more money than the government is sending to the provinces for health care. The Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem, confirmed that the Prime Minister's $61 billion in new spending is not helpful in bringing inflation down and lowering interest rates.

After nine years, the Prime Minister's budget is just more of the same of what got us into this mess. He did not stop the inflationary deficits that are driving up interest rates. He did not stop endangering our social programs and jobs by adding more and more debt. His government has doubled rent, mortgage payments and down payments. His record deficits have driven interest rates sky-high. Food banks received a record two million visits in a single month last year, with an additional million expected in 2024. He will not stop until common-sense Conservatives start governing with common sense for this country.

The Prime Minister is not worth the cost for any generation. While life has gotten worse for Canadians, the Prime Minister is spending more than ever before. This year's budget includes over $61 billion in new inflationary spending. This would cost the average Canadian family an extra $3,687. Former Liberal Governor of the Bank of Canada David Dodge said that the current budget is the “worst since 1982.” Both the Bank of Canada and former Liberal finance minister John Manley told the Prime Minister that his spending is pressing on the inflationary gas pedal, driving up interest rates.

Struggling families cannot afford higher taxes and more inflationary spending that drives up the cost of everything, keeping interest rates high. That is why common-sense Conservatives sent a letter to the Prime Minister with three demands to fix the budget. First, axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form. Second, build the homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities to permit 15% more homebuilding each year as a condition of receiving federal infrastructure money. Third, cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation. The government must find a dollar in savings for every new dollar of spending. The Prime Minister refuses to listen.

Common-sense Conservatives will not support this budget, and the people of my constituency are just waiting for us to form government and beat the current Liberal government.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I am going to pick up on a question that my friend from Kingston and the Islands has actually asked in the chamber a few times this evening, without receiving a response. It concerns the idea that the budget is creating more inflation in Canada. We know that now for four months in a row, inflation has gone down. It is at a four-month low, at 2.7%.

Can the member explain to me how apparently the budget is creating more inflation, when we actually see inflation going down in Canada?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going to share a story that was told to me by an 88-year-old senior who came to visit me in my constituency office. He said to me that he cannot afford to eat, and he asked what good going to the dentist is if he has nothing to eat. He told me that 10 years ago he could afford to eat; it was no problem at all. It is only after nine years of the incompetent NDP-Liberal government that seniors like this one cannot afford to eat.

The senior also told me that he was ashamed of himself. I asked why. He said that up until 2021, he always voted Liberal. He told me that he will now be voting—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Normally answers have to be the same length as the questions so other members can ask questions.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the one thing that struck me was that the member mentioned that seniors are not benefiting from the dental care program. We know already that two million seniors across this country have registered for the program. We know that tens of thousands of seniors are registering every week. We know that in the first two weeks of the program, 60,000 seniors got dental care.

That means that hundreds of seniors in the member's riding have benefited from the dental care program. I am wondering what she says to those seniors in her riding, when she says that nobody has benefited and when the proof is so very clear that tens of thousands, if not millions, of Canadian seniors are benefiting from the NDP dental care program.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a correction. First of all, it is 1.7 million people who have registered. Second, it is 5,000 dentists who have signed up. Third, there are 25,500 dentists, 30,000 dental hygienists and 26,000 to 29,000 dental assistants in Canada.

Let me quote something else. If one takes it line by line and looks at the dental care plan, children under the age of 12 are allowed seven minutes once a year for cleaning of their teeth. Seniors with existing periodontal disease do not qualify.

How is this helping seniors?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat troubled—actually I am extremely troubled—by this determination to completely disregard all the social programs that exist in Quebec and the provinces, suggesting that Canada is going to swoop in and save the poor provinces by implementing a dental care plan, when Quebec has one that is governed by the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec and not by private insurance.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague the following question. Instead of interfering, would her party be willing to substantially increase health transfers, if it forms the next government? This federal government is starving Quebec and the provinces when it comes to health care. Then it invents and proposes all sorts of programs from coast to coast to coast that do not meet the needs—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give the hon. member for King—Vaughan an opportunity to respond.

The hon. member for King—Vaughan has 20 seconds.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that provinces do take care of health care, but I am going to say something. We are going to reduce taxes, which is going to be able to lower the budget so that we can increase the transfer money to all provinces, unlike the wacko policies of the current Liberal government.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour tonight, as always, to rise in the House to speak to the challenges facing our country. Top among those is housing. There is no reason to sugar-coat it. We have to be clear-eyed on the problem at hand, which is that we have a housing crisis in front of us.

To address the housing crisis, we have to build more homes. We must build more homes to make sure that current and future generations are taken care of. To do that, we have to make the math work in the first instance. That is why the government would waive GST on apartments in general, but also on co-ops and residences for students. Public universities and public colleges would now benefit through a GST waiver.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my Conservative friends, whom I hear jeering on the other side, ought to look at the housing plan and compare it to their own leader's housing plan, which does not include any tax incentive of this kind at all.

Last week, in my community of London, I met with the private sector, and with builders specifically, to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Fredericton is rising on a point of order.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I just cannot help but notice that the member for Saskatoon—University keeps interrupting our speaker, and I would like to hear what our speaker has to share with us this evening.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I agree. We would like to have the same courtesy accorded to both sides of the House: to be able to make their speeches without interruption.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do accept that in the course of debate, heckling happens. It is part of the tradition, but I would like to finish my speech. However, I would invite my colleague who was doing it to raise a question during questions and comments. I look forward to debating him on this issue and others.

I mentioned the GST waiver that will lead to more building. Just last week, I talked to builders in my London community who are quite excited about this measure because, in the context of high interest rates and a more expensive situation when it comes to securing labour and building supplies, it is incumbent on governments at all levels to do whatever they can to put incentives on the table, just like this government has, and the GST waiver stands out as part of that.

Low-interest loans for apartments in general, but also student and senior residences, are another example of incentives put on the table by this government to ensure the math does work for builders. Through the CMHC, we would ensure that those who want to take out those low-interest loans through the apartment construction loan program, or the ACLP, can do that. The interest rate will fluctuate. It is attached to the bond, but certainly a more attractive interest rate is available than, say, interest rates that would be secured through the big banks. We expect hundreds of thousands of homes, in fact, 131,000 homes, to be specific, to be built as a result of the ACLP program.

There is also a measure that has not been talked about nearly enough, but, based on conversations with builders over the past few weeks, it has been confirmed that changes to the accelerated capital cost allowance program would give builders the ability to write off up to 10% of annual mortgage costs from their taxes, and that is going to lead to much more building.

We saw something akin to that in the 1970s. Earlier tonight, I heard a colleague across the way ask why we are not seeing more homes built. He talked about the 1970s as a period of enormous building in terms of housing starts in Canada. One of the key reasons is that the accelerated capital cost allowance program at that time was akin to what the government has now done. We have moved ahead in this regard, taking our cue not only from the building sector but also from listening to what economists have said. In my community, we have Mike Moffatt at the Ivey Business School, who, among others, has advised the government to go in this direction, and the government has done exactly that.

Finally, on making the math work, we have looked at public lands, and ensuring that leasing is possible through public lands is something that we have taken very seriously. There has always been a debate in terms of land use in Canada for lands that are owned by the federal, provincial and municipal governments. At one time, the thinking was that perhaps they could be sold for housing purposes, but I think it is much more appropriate, and I agree with the government on this, that a leasing option be provided. If the government retains the opportunity to lease instead of sell, we can ensure a more affordable approach to housing.

Underused land or land that is not used at all could be put up for leasing purposes. There could be an affordable housing project on site. There could also be child care opportunities for families. There could also be health care services provided on site. I know the government, in concert with municipal and provincial governments, wants to begin that dialogue to understand how we can better use public lands going forward in this country. An inventory of public lands will be necessary in the first place, but, as I have said, I very much look forward to seeing where this could go. It is very promising, and we are seeing the needle move on this issue. I know many advocates across the country have called for this and are quite pleased with what the government has proposed in budget 2024 in this regard.

Second, in terms of building more homes, we have to work with communities to ensure that more homes get built, because it is municipalities, in particular, that are in charge of zoning. We need many more types of homes. We need duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, mid-rise apartments and row houses. This is the missing middle housing that advocates have called for. We see communities throughout the land moving in this direction. They have signed on to the housing accelerator fund in return for federal dollars. In return for making a pledge to ensure that zoning is changed to allow for that missing middle housing, they have access to funds that can be used for public transit, for infrastructure, for all sorts of needs, including affordable housing.

My community of London, back in September, was the first community in the country to receive dollars through this program, with $74 million that will see thousands more homes built in the next few years, and 750,000 homes nationally is what we expect to be built as a result of communities signing on to this program.

Much related to this is tying infrastructure dollars to home building. This is something that makes perfect sense. There are federal dollars available, as they always have been, for infrastructure purposes, dollars that would flow to municipalities, but especially to provinces, for water infrastructure, waste-water infrastructure and solid waste infrastructure, for all sorts of infrastructure. Tying that to an expectation that we see more homes built mirrors what we have done with the accelerator fund program and is something that will lead to more construction.

Finally, we have to change the way we build. That is crucial to getting more homes built. On that point, I point to the example of modular housing and the potential of modular housing in this country. We have factories throughout the land where homes are being built that are not exposed to the elements. For example, I was in Alberta recently, in Lethbridge. I visited Triple M Housing, the largest modular producer in the country. What I saw was three homes built a day of varying size appropriate for income types that exist, the varying income types we see in this country. Large homes or modest homes, whatever the desire is, the company is able to produce those.

In my own area, just north of London, in Hensall, I visited General Coach. I went to Northlander Industries in Exeter. I look forward to engaging with Royal Homes. These companies have seen in this budget loan opportunities put on the table to the tune of $500 million to see an expanded approach. A greater ability to serve the needs of the country in this regard is what modular companies will have. If they are not engaged in modular housing, if they are doing any type of prefabricated building, that is something that certainly builders can look at. They can look at this budget and see opportunities to expand their operations.

I would surmise that we see the potential of modular homes not only to fill the gap that exists with respect to market housing, but also to ensure that we have more non-market housing built for people, fellow citizens, who unfortunately have found themselves in a very unfortunate way living on the street. We have a huge responsibility in this regard. We have to get people housed, with the wraparound supports necessary for people to make a much more positive transition to ensure they have a brighter future: mental health support services on site, supports to ensure their physical health care, job training, all of that. That is what we would call a just vision to ensure that homelessness is finally dealt with in this country.

Modular home building fits into that, because we can have homes built, as I said before, very quickly. One company is doing three homes a day and others are producing close to that rate. It is something that makes a great deal of difference, and budget 2024 realizes that, among other things.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his focus on housing. He talked about removing the GST from apartments and building, but if Liberals are so focused on reducing the costs for builders, developers and Canadians, why are they charging the GST on top of the carbon tax? Why in this budget did they not remove the GST from the carbon tax entirely? That would lower costs for every aspect of the supply chain and encourage builders, developers and trades to lower their prices because the consumer is not being taxed on a tax and double-dipped with the GST being charged on top of a carbon tax.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, because of my parliamentary secretary role, I have engaged with those in the building sector, and I have put this question to them on the carbon tax. They say that it is not very significant at all. Much more important is removing, as I said, the GST from the construction of rental apartments. Much more important is ensuring that builders have access to low-interest loans. Much more important is seeing on-the-ground changes through municipalities in terms of zoning. That is going to lead to much more building.

The colleague opposite is a colleague I respect. He has been in the House for many years. He did not run off, for example, as the other colleague did. He stayed here to debate.

We have an opportunity here to get more homes built, and if we want to do that, we have to see zoning changes. All of those things add up to more building in this country.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned non-market housing, which I would note is for more than those who are suffering from homelessness.

One of the reasons so many people are struggling to find affordable housing is that previous Liberal governments, starting in the 1990s, really abdicated the federal role when it came to building non-market housing. Today, only 3.5% of Canada's housing stock is non-market, compared to about 12% for our peer countries in the OECD.

Research out of the University of British Columbia says that at least 25% of the 5.8 million homes that CMHC says needs to be built by 2030 should be non-market. However, I have seen no indication of a target for the construction of non-market housing. Does the government have a non-market housing target? If so, what is that target?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the current stock of affordable housing in Canada is around 4%. That is not enough. We have to increase that.

My colleague wants to be partisan tonight. I do not think there is a need to be partisan. Yes, previous Liberal governments did let the country down when it came to not putting enough on the table and not investing enough to ensure an adequate, affordable housing stock. That is true of previous Liberal governments. It is true especially of previous Conservative governments. I do not want to dwell on that.

I hope that my colleague opposite will support this budget, a budget that does put serious investment on the table, as previous budgets introduced by this particular government have, to ensure that more affordable homes get built. There will be more affordable homes that have wraparound support services on-site, which I talked about before, provided by excellent not-for-profit and charity organizations that have the expertise to ensure people can make a transition to something better.

I have heard my colleague speak in the House many times. I know he believes in these things. He should support the budget.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, here we have the government that created this housing shortage by having an imbalance from taking in new Canadians without making sure the capacity to take care of them was there. It is now blowing billions of dollars when we are already $1.4 trillion in debt, adding another $60 billion, and there is no end in sight.

Instead of getting into the housing jurisdiction, which is not a federal jurisdiction, how is the government going to solve the problem? Will it be by concentrating on the imbalance and fixing the problem in the first place, which is that we have too many people and not enough housing?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we do not have enough housing. We have to build more, as I said in my speech. There is so much in that question, I am not sure where to begin. I know my time is limited, so I will focus on the one point that stood out. The member said that, in her view, the federal government has no business engaging in housing. From that, I assume it is the position of the Conservative Party of Canada.

It is no surprise, and now we understand why the Leader of the Opposition has yet to allow his private member's bill on housing, his so-called housing plan, to come forward. It was supposed to come forward months ago, and he has delayed it. That is why.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, if the leader of the Conservative Party has made one thing clear, it is that, after nine years, the NDP-Liberal government is not worth the cost. It is not worth the cost for the out-of-control spending. Federal government spending is up 43% since 2019. It is not worth the cost for increasing the deficit. Canada's total debt has ballooned to $1.4 trillion, up from $600 million in 2015 when Stephen Harper was prime minister. It is not worth the cost for interest payments. Canada's interest payments are higher than what we spend on health transfers. Plus, the incompetent finance minister forgot to lock in Canada's debts at lower interest rates, costing us billions more. It is not worth the cost for our hard-earned savings, as it is imposing the largest capital gains increase in decades. Because this budget, the government and the Prime Minister are not worth the cost, I will be proudly voting against this budget.

Before this budget came down in mid-April, common-sense Conservatives sent a letter to the Prime Minister with three demands to fix the budget: one, axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form; two, build the homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities to permit 15% more homes each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money; and, three, cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation, so the government must save a dollar for every new dollar of spending. The Prime Minister refused to listen and the result is a budget that the NDP-Liberal government delivered just a few short weeks ago that is just more of the same that broke our country in the first place.

Common-sense Conservatives will not support this runaway train wreck of a budget, nor will we support the NDP-Liberal government, which has broken our country, because the truth is that the budgeting of the government is like pressing the accelerator on a runaway train. Its budgets have boosted spending by 43% since 2019, which is like pouring gas on the inflationary fire, which drives up interest rates. This increased spending further endangers our social programs and jobs by adding more debt and more interest payments. Frankly, this spending spree will not stop until common-sense Conservatives are able to start governing, stop that runaway train and turn it around.

The Liberals and their costly NDP partners are not worth the cost for any generation. The government has doubled rent, mortgage payments and down payments. Food is getting so expensive that food banks received a record two million visits in a single month last year, with a million additional visits expected this year.

While life has gotten worse for Canadians, the NDP-Liberals are spending more than ever before. This year's budget will include nearly $40 billion in new inflationary spending. Former Liberal governor of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge, said that this budget is the worst budget since 1982. This year, Canada will spend $54.1 billion to service the NDP-Liberal debt. This is more money than the government is sending to the provinces for health care. Both the Bank of Canada and former Liberal finance minister John Manley told the Prime Minister that he was pressing on the inflationary gas pedal with all this additional spending, but the Liberals did not listen. As a result, the Bank of Canada has implemented the most aggressive interest rate hikes in its history. As millions of Canadians are renewing their mortgages and know this right now, the NDP-Liberal government simply is not worth the cost.

Let us talk about the carbon tax. We will hear many myths coming from the NDP-Liberal government concerning the carbon tax. I want to dispel some of them for the people back in Saskatoon West who are watching.

The first myth is that the carbon tax does not add to inflation. Canadians know that is not true. They know it is making everything more expensive and miserable for everyone. The International Monetary Fund defines the carbon tax. It states:

Carbon taxes, levied on...oil products...in proportion to their carbon content, can be collected from fuel suppliers. They in turn will pass on the tax in the form of higher prices for electricity, gasoline, heating oil, and so on, as well as for the products and services that depend on them.

This is black and white. Carbon taxes are meant to make everything more expensive. Energy, products, food and everything else that we buy are all more expensive. Boy oh boy, has the NDP-Liberal carbon tax been very successful in making everything much more expensive. Anyone who goes to the grocery store knows the price of food has increased astronomically since the carbon tax came into effect. One cannot buy carrots, potatoes, eggs, milk, cheese, chicken, beef, pork or even Kraft Dinner without burning through one's paycheque. The Prime Minister has blamed this laughably on the war in Ukraine. How much of our cheese, milk, carrots and Kraft Dinner come from Russia or Ukraine? Let me say that it is zero, yet, as any common-sense Saskatchewan person can tell us, Canada produces and manufactures our own food.

What does affect the domestic price of food is when the Canadian farmer must suddenly start paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in carbon taxes to fuel his farm equipment, keep the greenhouses hot, and move the manufacturing line and processing facilities. These costs get passed on to the retailer. The retailer, of course, has their own carbon taxes to pay on the electricity to keep the lights on and keep the fridges and freezers cold while absorbing whatever extra carbon tax costs were incurred by the transport trucks delivering the food to that retailer. All those taxes get added up and passed on to the consumer. That is how the carbon tax is making everything more expensive. That is inflation, plain and simple.

There is a second myth to dispel about the carbon tax. The Prime Minister goes around touting his so-called carbon rebate cheques as his new Marxist wealth redistribution project. He tells Canadians to not worry about paying carbon taxes because he will just give it back to them with a quarterly cheque. Is that true? Like everything the Prime Minister says and does, it may seem true in his world, but in the real world, he is absolutely wrong.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, an independent officer of Parliament who is not beholden to any political party, looked at the Prime Minister's claims and produced a very detailed report. Using the Prime Minister's own figures and math, he went across Canada and examined how much everyone pays in carbon tax and how much they get back in these so-called rebates.

In my home province of Saskatchewan, this year the Liberals will collect an average of $2,618 from every family, but the Liberals will only rebate on average $2,093. That means that each Saskatchewan family will lose $525. Only in the Prime Minister's head does losing over $500 mean that someone is coming out ahead. Within five years, as the carbon tax quadruples, that net loss would be well over $1,700 per year for each family. It is clear that only in the alternative reality the Prime Minister lives in does a loss of $1,700 every year turn out to be a win.

As such, myth one is that the carbon tax does not make everything more expensive, but we know that it does exactly that. Myth two is that families get the carbon tax back, when the truth is they do not, leaving each family $500 in the hole. The third myth is that the NDP is somehow not to blame for the Prime Minister's brazen disregard for the Canadian public every time he raises the carbon tax.

The fact is that the coalition government agreement the NDP and Liberals struck is akin to one of the greatest heists ever committed against the Canadian taxpayer. Did the Prime Minister put the gun to the taxpayers and pull the trigger? He absolutely did, but it was the NDP that loaded the gun, kept the getaway vehicle idling when the dirty work was being done and then put its foot on the accelerator to make sure the Liberals got a clean getaway.

Myth number four is that the home heating oil exemption was not meant to help Liberal MPs in the Maritimes. The truth is that they created this exemption so people heating their homes in Atlantic Canada did not have to pay carbon tax. I can clearly see that in the announcement filled with all the Liberal Maritime MPs.

When Saskatchewan thought this type of exemption should also apply to people heating their homes in our frigid province, what did the Prime Minister do instead? If I turn to page 408 in annex 3 of the budget, it would give the Liberals the legal authority to prosecute the Saskatchewan government for not collecting the carbon tax on natural gas. As such, exempting home heating in Atlantic Canada is A-okay for the Liberals. Exempting home heating in Saskatchewan would be a criminal act, so obviously this shows the lengths to which the Prime Minister is willing to go to favour one region of Canada over another.

Ultimately, as a member of Parliament, I must make a decision on how I will be voting on the budget. How do I represent the interests of the people of Saskatoon West? Do I vote in favour of higher taxes, out-of-control spending, massive inflationary debt payments and no end in sight? Many folks in my riding email me, almost on a daily basis, imploring me to stop doing these very things.

They are very concerned that our activist Prime Minister is breaking Canada. They see the crime, chaos and destruction are on our streets. They feel the pinch of higher grocery prices and higher taxes. As such, do I vote against another wasteful budget, a budget that is meant to harm Canadians, a budget that raises their taxes and increases inflation?

I am a Conservative, and I believe in common sense. I am voting no to the budget. I am voting non-confidence in the NDP-Liberal government, and I am voting in favour of us having a carbon tax election as soon as possible.

Let us bring it home.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I found it very interesting that the member asked what Kraft Dinner has to do with Ukraine. He should go and have look, because CNN did an interview with the Kraft CEO specifically, who said, “We’ve already increased the prices that we were expecting this year, but I'm predicting that next year, inflation will continue, and as a consequence [we] will have other rounds of price increases”. The article goes on to say, “Beyond the double-barrel challenges of shortages of raw materials and inflation, issues like...the war in Ukraine...are adding to the uncertainty”, so the member does not need to take my word for it.

The member asked what Kraft Dinner has to do with Ukraine. He can listen to the CEO from Kraft, who made those comments that I read out, who explicitly said shortages coming out of Ukraine are contributing to inflation.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, this is just another example of the Liberals failing to take responsibility for the inflation that has happened in this country. We have had serious record inflation, the highest rates we have had in 40 years.

This has hurt the pocketbooks of all Canadians. It has reduced their buying power. It has made everything more expensive, including Kraft Dinner and everything else. The carbon tax has a lot to do with that.

Inflationary spending has caused the rate of inflation to go up and has caused those expenses to get higher. Canadians are feeling the pinch.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. We work very well together at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I really enjoy working with him. He is very thorough.

The Conservatives say they are going to form the next government. We, as well as the Conservatives, are going to vote against this budget; there is no doubt about that. Now, what would the Conservatives do if they were sitting where the Liberals are? That is never quite as clear.

Since my colleague sits on the immigration committee with me, I will ask him a question. There is one item that is missing from the budget, and I would like to know whether the Conservatives would proceed differently from the Liberals when it comes to the billion dollars that the Quebec government is requesting for taking in asylum seekers. The Liberals refuse to pay that money to the Quebec government.

Quebec's National Assembly is calling on the federal government to reimburse the $1‑billion cost of taking in asylum seekers. If my colleague's party were in power, would Quebec be reimbursed that $1 billion?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean and I do enjoy our time at the immigration committee.

What would Conservatives do if we were in government? Well, first of all, we would not have all the messes we have now that are leading to situations like what my colleague described. The most important thing I want to reiterate about what we would do is that, first of all, we would get rid of the carbon tax. That is the first thing we would do.

The second thing we would do would be to balance the budget because that is causing inflationary pressure. The third thing we would do would be to build more homes by requiring cities to permit 15% more houses each year in order to get federal infrastructure funds.

The fourth thing we would do would be to stop the crime by making sure that repeat offenders end up in jail and that we have proper treatment facilities for those who need it in the country.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Saskatoon West talked about the so-called Conservative housing plan, but I have not seen anything in that housing plan that speaks to the kind of communities that I represent, which are rural communities with small populations.

The challenges in rural communities are categorically different from those in urban centres. The Conservative plan mentions forcing density around transit hubs. Small rural communities do not have transit hubs. They talk about requiring communities to build 15% more new homes every year. In many small communities, the housing demand does not allow for that kind of growth, yet small communities deserve housing just like any other community in this country.

I am wondering why the Conservative plan so wholly ignores the housing needs of rural communities.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I just want to say that I was a home builder in a small community, so I understand that very well.

I have really good news for the member. There is an easy way to find this out. All of our detailed plans will come up during an election. That member and his party have the ability to force an election on this very budget. If they choose to not support the Liberal government and this Liberal budget, and instead vote against it, we could have an election. All of the detailed plans that he is looking for will be there for him to see.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to start off by saying that the NDP will be supporting the budget because of the many provisions that the NDP has forced into the budget. These things are not negligible. They would help to deal with the here and now. Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, put food on the table and keep a roof over their head. This is 50% because of the Liberal government's continuing the terrible practices of the former Harper regime; in addition, about 50% of the blame has to be shared by Conservative MPs, who have never admitted to the incredible way that they ran roughshod over the rights of Canadians, gutting services and giving massive handouts to the billionaires in this country. Therefore, 50% of the blame is shared on both sides of the House, by Conservatives and Liberals.

The NDP has gotten to work. The member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus all make a real difference in the House of Commons. We have really extraordinary members of Parliament, such as the member for Edmonton Strathcona and the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley; they are two of the very best members of Parliament. However, the entire NDP caucus is very proud of the work we do, and Canadians are seeing the results of that.

Dental care has been an extraordinary success that Conservatives should be thanking the NDP for. In the first two weeks of the new dental care program, 60,000 seniors were able to get dental care, dental surgery and dental supports. For many of them, it was for the first time in their lives. There are 60,000 people. Members can do the numbers. That is hundreds of constituents in each and every Conservative riding, Liberal riding and NDP riding. However, Conservatives have not once stood up to say, “Gosh, we should have been more effective as official opposition, and we thank the NDP for providing these services to our constituents.” Two million seniors have signed up so far. Tens of thousands are signing up each additional week. We know that, by the end of this month, those seniors aged 65 to 70 will be able to sign up for the program and are signing up now. We know that, next month, people with disabilities and families with children under 18 years of age will be able to sign up. This is all a result of the work of the member for Burnaby South, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the entire NDP caucus, which makes a difference each and every day.

However, we do not stop there, of course. There is pharmacare now for six million people with diabetes, some of whom are paying $1,000 or $1,500 a month for their diabetes medication and devices. An example is my constituent, Amber. She is paying $1,000 a month for diabetes medication. By the time the pharmacare program is rolled out in the course of the next few months, she will finally be able to breathe; she will not have to find $1,000 each and every month in order to pay for a diabetes medication that keeps her in stable health. Now, the reality is that, in every Conservative riding, 17,000 to 18,000 constituents would be helped by this. The constituents of each Conservative MP should be telling their MP to vote yes for the pharmacare provisions, and not only for that which affects diabetes but also for contraception. On average, 25,000 constituents of each Conservative MP would be benefiting from contraception; however, again, the member for Carleton has tried to block these types of supports, which would make a huge difference in the lives of the constituents of Conservative MPs. They are not doing the work. The NDP is doing the work for them, but the least they can do is stop blocking it so their constituents could actually benefit from what the NDP has done for all Canadians.

We also see in this budget a furthering of the work of the member for Burnaby South, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the entire NDP caucus. What does that mean? Well, it means such things as ensuring that there is a growth guarantee around the Canada health transfer. I will come back to that in a moment, because this was a particularly egregious decision made by the Harper government to slash health care, destroying health care in this country. The fact that we now have, in this budget, a growth guarantee to ensure that health spending grows as expenses do is actually an important step forward.

With the national school food program, we are talking about nearly half a million kids who would benefit from getting food at school. Conservatives are saying, no, they want to block that provision. They do not want kids to eat healthily.

That makes no sense at all. Again, we are not even asking Conservative MPs to do any work. We are just asking them to please stop blocking the school lunch program, so kids in their ridings can actually benefit from school lunches.

In rural areas of this country, we have a shortage of pharmacists, dentists and dental hygienists, teachers and social workers. We have seen those shortages. Expanding the Canada student loan forgiveness program so that we can have more people in rural areas and northern areas of this country with those skills and professions is vitally important. Again, Conservatives are blocking that program.

I wanted to then turn my attention to the issue of tax provisions. This is going to be an important part of the second half of my speech. The reality of actually ensuring that Canada's big corporations start paying their fair share includes implementing a 15% global minimum tax to ensure that large multinational corporations pay their fair share wherever they do business. Tax provisions are important. Capital gains provisions are important, as we saw under the Harper government, during the terrible Harper regime, with its infamous tax haven treaties.

The PBO did an analysis just after the Harper government was thrown out. The most profitable corporations and our very wealthiest citizens bled $30 billion a year out of this country. As a result of those infamous Harper tax haven treaties, over $30 billion a year was shipped overseas where those corporations and citizens never had to pay a cent of tax. What was the result of that? Under the Harper regime, there was a slashing of services. Veterans Affairs was slashed. The veterans who laid their lives on the line for their country were treated with such disdain and disrespect by the Harper regime. Basically, their services were gutted.

We saw a whole range of unbelievable cuts to other services, such as for seniors. Seniors were being disrespected. The Harper regime forced seniors to work years longer before they could collect a pension. There were cuts in services from environmental services to food inspection. The Harper regime was a terrible calamity for this country. It was the worst government in Canadian history; of that there is no doubt. There were scandals and financial mismanagement, along with a terrible approach by the Harper regime.

What I reproach the Liberal government for, despite the fact that there has been some progress in the budget, which we will be supporting as a result, is its maintenance of many of the terrible practices of the Harper regime. Many of those practices are still intact. We are still losing $30 billion each and every year, as a result of the infamous Harper tax haven treaties. Colleagues can do the math. That is a third of a trillion dollars that we have lost over the course of a little more than a decade as a result of Conservative mismanagement, scandals and corruption.

However, colleagues should not stop there. Again, Liberal practices and Conservative practices are so similar that we say there has been a corporate coalition between the two parties over the course of the last 15 years, with a trillion dollars having been given in liquidity supports to Canada's big banks. Why was this? It was to maintain bank profits, executive bonuses and dividend payments for Canada's big banks. Between the Conservatives and the Liberals, over the last 15 years, a trillion dollars in 2024 dollars has been given to Canada's big banks. When we talk about oil and gas CEOs, a regular stipend with massive subsidies that was given under the Conservatives has continued under the Liberals.

The NDP has forced major improvements, with significant steps forward, but the reality is that the legacy of the Harper regime is terrible. It continues today because the Liberals have simply not stepped up to do what is right, to ensure that we have a fair tax system, that the terrible legacy of the infamous Harper tax haven treaties has finally ended, that banks stop receiving hundreds of billions of dollars in supports, and that oil and gas CEOs stop being subsidized off the public purse. Those are steps that an NDP government would take.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know that the member was in the House earlier in the debate when a Conservative colleague stood up and tried to glowingly suggest that Stephen Harper had actually balanced a budget in 2015. I was not here at that time, but I certainly know how Stephen Harper did that. He did that by selling off shares of GM. He did that on the backs of veterans. He did that by increasing old age security to 67. He did a number of things. Therefore, when Conservatives talk about balancing a budget, what they are really talking about is cuts and cutting as much as they can, because they do not believe in these social programs. Could the member give some insight, since he was here at that time?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Harper government was the worst government in Canadian history. Yes, the Conservatives cut and they slashed services, but they never balanced the budget. They slashed services to seniors, to veterans, to the most vulnerable. They would announce, “Oh, next year is going to be different. We're going to balance the budget.” However, they never did. They used sleight of hand; they tried to reconfigure the budget, but they had a deficit each and every year, sometimes an enormous one.

Now, for folks who want to check that, they can look at the fiscal period returns issued by the Ministry of Finance, which is surely not a hotbed of social democrats. The fiscal period returns have compared all governments, federal and provincial, over the course of the last 40 years. What those fiscal period returns tell us is that Conservatives and Liberals are woefully inadequate in managing money and paying down debt. However, the best administrations have been, uniformly over the last 40 years, NDP governments in the provinces, which have balanced budgets and paid down debt more than any other political party. Folks should not believe me; they should consult the fiscal period returns and see the proof.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague said something interesting. He said that, ever since the Harper government lost power nine years ago, the Liberals have not stood up to do what is right and fair.

In other words, he just admitted that the Liberals have not been getting the job done for the past nine years and that they are not doing things fairly. If there is one thing the NDP and the Bloc Québécois are fighting, one thing we agree on, it is injustice. We want to fight injustice.

We know for a fact that most of the money allocated to programs the NDP lobbied for will not flow until after the next election. With things going the way they are going, the Conservatives might well take power and never implement those programs, so I have to ask myself why the NDP is not positioning itself as the progressive party in the rest of Canada. It could position itself as the party that is not corrupt. It could campaign on that to make sure these programs will actually be set up.

Apparently the NDP does not have the courage to do that and is supporting the Trudeau government. Polls say they are going down with him.

My question, therefore, is this: Why not trigger an election right now?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind the hon. member that sitting members are not to be referred to by name.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I really like my colleague, but he is mistaken.

First, dental care is already being offered to Quebeckers. The services covered by the pharmacare program will make a big difference. They already have the support of Quebec's major unions.

What the NDP is doing is already having a positive impact on people's daily lives. I could go on, but this impact will continue to grow.

The next election will be a referendum election. I know that my colleague loves referendums, but this one will be a referendum election for the millions of Quebeckers and the millions of Canadians who receive dental care, about whether they want to keep those services. Pharmacare will assist six million Canadians with insulin and nine million Canadians with contraception. Do people want to keep these services?

I am convinced that people will say yes, that they will want to keep these services and avoid the cuts and all the ravages of the Conservative Party. I am convinced that they want the stability that comes with the NDP, that makes it possible to provide all these services, and with better financial management as well.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to speak to the budget.

A big part of what politicians do is decide which problems in society need to be solved by governments and which problems are best left to individuals and to families and to the private sector.

The Liberal government, with its NDP coalition partners, spends a great deal of time, effort, energy and taxpayers' money trying to solve all sorts of problems, while unfortunately accomplishing very little and more often than not being counterproductive.

I remember when the finance minister presented her budget last month. She received one partial standing ovation from the official opposition when she said:

There are those who claim that the only good thing government can do when it comes to economic growth is to get out of the way.

The finance minister went on to cite the example of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project as an example of her government's success when it comes to government intervention in the economy. It was not too long ago that resource companies and international investors were excited about all of the potential pipeline projects in this country, such as northern gateway, Keystone XL and energy east, just to name a few.

Building pipelines such as these is something that private sector companies are able to do in most countries, but sadly not in Canada. All of the blueprints for all of these pipeline projects have been sitting on the shelf collecting dust for years because the Liberal government has made it practically impossible for the private sector to get projects like this built through its anti-development legislation, such as Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, and Bill C-48, the “west coast oil tanker ban”.

It is sad that the finance minister would cite, as a success story, the one lonely, solitary pipeline expansion project that the government decided to take over while all the others were being chased away. It is also worth noting that this was not a new pipeline being built. It was simply the twinning of an existing pipeline, with a new pipe being laid right alongside the old one. This raises the question: How long did it take to build the new pipeline and how long did it take to build the old one?

The proposal for the original Trans Mountain pipeline was submitted for approval in 1951. Construction was finished in 1952. Compare that to the decade that it has taken for the expansion to be completed. That makes this project hardly anything for the Liberal government to brag about. One also cannot help but be concerned about the cost overruns that have happened under the Liberal government's watch. The Trans Mountain expansion was originally estimated to cost $7 billion. The final price came in at $34 billion.

When a fivefold increase in total cost is touted as a success story, that should give all Canadians pause the next time the Liberal government sets out on one of its interventions into the economy. The finance minister went on to talk about her government's new school lunch program. It seems that the Liberals have just recently discovered what Conservatives and food banks have been saying for years, namely that food bank use has skyrocketed under the Liberal government.

According to a report by Food Banks Canada, nearly two million Canadians had to use food banks in March of last year. That is a 32% increase from the year before. Furthermore, one third of food bank users are children. I did not hear the finance minister mention under whose watch food bank use skyrocketed. I did not hear anything in her speech about the Liberals increasing their carbon tax again this year on the farmers who grow the food, the truckers who truck the food and the grocers who refrigerate the food, and about all of those costs being passed on to consumers at the grocery store.

I also did not hear anything from the finance minister about passing Bill C-234 in its original form to exempt grain drying and barn heating from the carbon tax so that those costs are not passed on to consumers in the form of higher grocery prices.

I did not hear anything about the Liberals' $40-billion deficit driving up interest rates or the $60 billion in debt servicing charges making it more difficult for Canadians to make ends meet and causing Canadians to have to choose between putting a roof over their heads or putting food onto the dinner tables.

Instead of focusing on the root cause of the cost of living crisis, the Liberals have decided to bring in yet another government program. This time, it is a nationwide school lunch program. While school lunch programs are certainly a reasonable and beneficial public policy, anyone who bothers to take a brief skim of section 91 and section 92 of our Constitution will tell us this is clearly the jurisdiction of provincial governments and best left to provincial ministries of education and social services.

What I find so frustrating about the Liberal government is not only that it is bad at capitalism, but also that it is just as bad at socialism. Take, for example, the new Canada disability benefit. This program resulted from the passage of Bill C-22, a bill the Liberals introduced almost two years ago. The stated objective of this bill was actually very reasonable; it was to provide a social safety net for Canadians living with disabilities so that no one has to live in poverty due to a disability.

Personally, I have always felt programs such as this are best left to provincial governments. In my home province of Saskatchewan, we have a program called the Saskatchewan assured income for disability, SAID, program. I also believe very strongly in an inclusive society for persons with disabilities, so if the federal government wanted to join in, I certainly was not going to stand in the way. It seems that everyone else in this chamber felt the same way since Bill C-22 passed unanimously last year.

When the details of the Canada disability benefit were announced in the budget, they were certainly a disappointment for disability advocates everywhere, with the maximum benefit being only $200 per month and not one thin dime being paid out until July of next year. Two hundred dollars per month is not enough for anyone in this country to live off, even before inflation and the cost of living skyrocketed under the government.

After nine years of the Liberal government, and with the introduction of this budget, the size of the federal government and the cost of the federal government have now doubled under the Liberals' watch. After nine years, the government has come to the point where literally all of the revenue from the GST goes toward merely paying the interest on the federal debt. The Liberals are adding another $40 billion to the federal debt this year, which now stands at well over $1 trillion and rising.

I come back to the finance minister's statement, when she said that the only good thing the government can do when it comes to economic growth is to get out of the way. A more accurate statement would be that the only good thing that the current government can do is to get out of the way.

It is time for a new Conservative government to replace the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners and to fix the budget as well as the many other problems they have created. Therefore, Conservatives will vote against this budget and we will vote non-confidence in the government.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, if I understand this correctly, Conservatives are saying it is this government's fault people have to use food banks, but when this government puts forward a solution to that, this member says it is not in the jurisdiction of the federal government, one should read our Constitution and the federal government should have nothing to do with this.

The member spoke as though he was very complimentary and understood and encouraged school food programs. He must know Canada is the only G7 country without a national school food program, but yet he not only will vote against this budget that puts money into it, but also voted against the national school food program policy that came before the House about three months ago. We are expected to believe this is all because the Constitution says we should not do anything about it.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, good heavens. Where do I begin?

Yes, the Liberal government has caused a lot of problems in this country. Most notably is the increased use of food banks, especially among children, over the last nine years of the government.

I would also really encourage the member to read this country's Constitution. I do not know what it is like in his home province of Ontario, but in Saskatchewan every school can be designated as a community school if it is in a neighbourhood with a low enough income and a low enough poverty level, and those schools are given school food programs on the basis of the individual need. I do not understand why we need a national school food program when provincial governments are already doing exactly that.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Regina—Wascana mentioned the northern gateway pipeline.

What he did not mention was that the northern gateway pipeline and the plan by Enbridge to bring crude oil supertankers to the north coast of B.C. was wholly rejected by municipalities, first nations, anglers, commercial fishermen and the majority of the people of the District of Kitimat, who held a specific referendum on that issue. The culmination of that effort led to Bill C-48, the north coast Oil Tanker Moratorium Act.

I say this with no animus to my colleague personally, but his leader is going around the country saying that a Conservative government would tear up that oil tanker moratorium as one of its first acts in office.

Can my friend down the way confirm if that is true? Can he say it loud enough for the people all the way on the west coast of Canada, on Haida Gwaii, in Prince Rupert and Klemtu, and all of the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We get the gist of it.

The hon. member for Regina—Wascana.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have said literally hundreds of times on the campaign trail that yes, Conservatives are opposed to Bill C-48, the west coast oil tanker ban. That is because Canada's oil and gas do not do anyone any good when they just sit there in the ground doing nothing.

Other countries around the world buy their oil and gas from Saudi Arabia and Russia. That is so counterproductive to building a productive Canadian society and a better place for our allies all around the world. Yes, we will certainly get oil and gas flowing to our allies and around the world.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Regina—Wascana for his wonderful speech. He and I share a passion when it comes to supporting Canada's world-class energy industry.

Can he share some of what he hears from people in Regina on the impact the anti-energy government has had on the people and the jobs in Regina—Wascana?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for all of her advocacy for Canada's oil and gas sector.

In my riding of Regina—Wascana, it is not just the oil and gas workers who benefit from the natural resource sector. It is not just the steelworkers at EVRAZ north of Regina who make the pipelines who benefit from the oil and gas sector. In any given year, between 10% and 15% of the provincial government's revenue comes from natural resource royalties. That is how the provincial government can afford to build schools and hospitals, and make our society a better place.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Constitution Act requires that there be quorum in this place for it to operate. I respectfully call for—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member knows very well that there are no quorum calls at this point in debate.

Resuming debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly happy to engage in our final moments here in this chamber tonight, addressing the very important Bill C-69, which is our budget implementation bill.

As I prepared what I was going to share this evening, I thought a lot about our wonderful staff members here in the House of Commons who have been supporting us tonight. I thought about our lobby teams who do so much for us, and I also thought about my own team, both in the riding of Fredericton and right here on the Hill. I would just like to take this moment to congratulate them and to thank them for all that they do on behalf of constituents across the country.

This got me thinking. I have a wonderful intern in my office right now. She is actually visiting us from Michigan, studying our Westminster parliamentary system and comparing it to the American system that she is used to. She interviewed me today. She asked me a bunch of questions about my personal journey into this place, and about various policies and the process that I undertake.

She also asked me a very interesting question. It gave me a minute of pause. She asked me what the biggest issue would be for Canadians 10 years from now. It made me pause for a second because I thought it very much depends on perception, absolutely. It depends on what kind of Canada we want, what kind of efforts we are going to be putting into what this future looks like. It certainly also depends on the policies and investments of today that could create that future of tomorrow.

The Canada I want to see is one that is inclusive and diverse, one that focuses on equity and justice for all, one that has Canada leading in the green economy, one that respects environmental sustainability, one that has affordable and accessible housing as a human right, and one that ensures safety and security for all.

I think it is safe to say that we can all dream about this kind of Canada, but it is about what we do in this place right now as members of Parliament that sets up this future for the next generation. I think about my two children at home and what kind of world I want to bring them up in.

I refuse to paint a picture of Canada that is devoid of the hope and the energy that is truly reflective of Canadian ambition, of our tradition of hard work and resiliency. Conservatives may chastise me by suggesting I take off my rose-coloured glasses and hop on the nation-bashing bandwagon, but I will not do that. No one is saying that Canadians have never had it so good.

We know there are challenges right across this country. We know that the climate change impacts, geopolitical events, supply chain pressures, a cost-of-living crisis and general everyday struggles have only compounded post pandemic. We know that the word “unprecedented” has, unfortunately, been used an unprecedented amount of times in the last couple of years.

This does not mean that we turtle. It does not mean that we bury our heads in the sand or worse, that we retreat to the angry corners of the Internet to point fingers and to scapegoat our fears against the most vulnerable in society. Unfortunately, this is the direction that Conservatives have chosen. The Leader of the Opposition smiles while our country burns so that he can claim to be the great saviour, like Dances with Wolves, swooping in to rescue poor Canadians from the boogeyman.

Canadians do not need a saviour. They do not need to be talked down to or to be patronized. They do not need to be misled. They need solutions. They need evidence-based policy. They need investments. They need support. Most of all, I think that they need each other.

The Canada that I envision in 10 years would also see co-operation, unity, an atmosphere of civil dialogue where we can set aside our perceived differences to find a common ground that truly binds us. I hear none of this from the Leader of the Opposition. I hear a lot of “me”, I hear a lot of “I” and a lot of what he thinks is best or supposedly what is “common sense”, even when it makes no sense at all.

Bill C-69 is about setting the stage for a bright future for Canadians. It is about fairness. It is about strategic initiatives that respond to the difficult realities faced by Canadians. It is about transforming, for example, our housing system, empowering renters and homeowners, building stock, incentivizing development, and using the creativity and innovation that we know is what defines Canadians across this country.

Fredericton has benefited from these really important policies around housing, for example, the rapid housing initiative, the housing accelerator fund, and green and inclusive infrastructure programs. We are also home to the now famous 12 Neighbours tiny home project by entrepreneur and philanthropist extraordinaire Marcel LeBrun, who has built 99 new homes for those in need, with the help of the federal government. These are good news stories that make a real difference in people's lives, but Conservatives do not want to talk about that.

This budget bill is also about economic growth and productivity. The IMF and the OECD project that Canada will have the strongest economic growth in the G7 on average by 2025. This is good news again.

Bill C-69 looks to invest in the technologies, incentives and supports critical to increasing innovation, attracting more private investment and backing up our workforce. We are doing this by improving access to training and reskilling programs, increased funding for youth employment and skills strategy programs. This is what investing in the future looks like. It brings me hope. We do not have to be pessimistic in this place. I think it is incumbent upon all of us to be optimistic, to lay that path forward for Canadians to come along with us, together, not to divide us, not to draw those lines in the sand I am seeing far too often in this place, but in working together. That, to me, is what Bill C-69 is all about, and I am very proud to support it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is right. A lot of what we are hearing is language that is aimed at dividing Canadians and using those anxieties against Canadians. The reality is that what Canadians have been going through in the last year and a half or two years, since coming out of the pandemic, has been tough on a lot of people. Her message of hope and trying to work together certainly is something that is going to get us somewhere as opposed to trying to find people's anxieties and exploit those. I wonder if she can further share how she sees this impacting Canadians, generally speaking, and the way that people are treating each other.