Debates of May 21st, 2024

Response to Order Paper Question No. 2221

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Simcoe North on May 8, respecting the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 2221 and the testimony of the Department of Finance on the subject matter of Bill C-69, the budget implementation bill. Question No. 2221 asks for information about overpayments for the Canada child benefit. The member acknowledged in his intervention that the government did respond to significant parts of his written question. However, the government was unable to respond to a sub-element of the member's question, and I will quote that part. The question states:

...collected from taxpayers who received overpayments following or due to death of a child; and (b) what is the amount of money represented by the overpayments in (a)(i) and (a)(ii)?

There is a simple and straightforward response to this. The Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, has an identifying code for why a child has become ineligible for the Canada child benefit. However, CRA does not have the reason codes for the overpayment. The reason for this is that the CRA does not have the information about a child's death, but the CRA cannot determine the reason for an overpayment or a recovery and how that relates to the child's death. The death of a child could form one piece of potentially multiple pieces that would result in an overpayment.

The question posed by the member on May 7 at the finance committee was about cancelled eligibility for the Canada child benefit and was not requesting information about overpayments. These are two different questions. In conclusion, the specific information sought in Question No. 2221 relates to overpayments. The answer provided to the member reflects the data available in the CRA systems relating to overpayments in the manner requested by the member. Where there were limitations to the provision of data, a rationale for the limitation was provided in response to the member.

As you can see, Madam Speaker, there was no intent to mislead the member or the House in the government's response to Question No. 2221. Moreover, information the member referred to in his intervention from testimony at the finance committee on May 7 differs from the information provided in response to Question No. 2221 since they are different questions. As I have previously stated in the House, the government can only answer the question posed in the Order Paper Question. It cannot assume that a member is making a different question. I can confirm that the government's response to Question No. 2221 was accurate, and we stand by it. A question was posed through the Order Paper process. The government responded to the precise question accurately and within timelines established in the Standing Orders. This matter does not in any way affect the member's rights or privileges in discharging his parliamentary duties.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The additional information is duly noted and will be taken under consideration.

The honourable member for Battle River—Crowfoot is rising on a point of order.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, on that question of privilege, I would note that this is not a one-off instance, and the member tried to suggest that somehow privileges were not being violated. However, if we look back on a series of Order Paper questions that have been asked, the government has been required to provide supplementary answers when there was inaccurate information that was provided to the House, which it had to correct, and it is very clear that this has become a trend. Therefore, when that member, who was speaking on behalf of the government, suggests that somehow members' privileges were not violated, I think it speaks to a very troubling trend we are seeing from this government, which is that it feels it is unnecessary to provide fulsome, accurate and appropriate information, as Canadians would certainly expect. As parliamentarians, we should be able to use the processes that are provided to this place and to all members to be able to have and to expect accurate information.

My suggestion, which I hope would be taken under serious consideration, is that this continual trend where inaccurate or incomplete information is provided, and then we have to use mechanisms like a question of privilege in order to force the government to actually provide that information, is in fact a violation of a member's privilege, which is so important to the appropriate functioning of this place and, ultimately, to the ability for Canadians to get information from their government.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to thank the hon. member for the additional information. I do not have the actual question that was posed before me, so I am not sure if the hon. member was deviating a bit, but no matter what, the information has been noted and will be taken into consideration. I do wish to advise the hon. member that a decision will be rendered soon.

On another point of order, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, just to clarify, as I hope was made clear in my remarks for when this is reviewed further later, this is not the first time that a question of privilege has been related—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That information was provided, as I have already indicated, and now it is becoming more of a point of debate.

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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[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.