Bill C-30 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures by
(a) providing relieving measures in connection with COVID-19 in respect of the use by an employee of an employer-provided automobile for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years;
(b) limiting the benefit of the employee stock option deduction for employees of certain employers;
(c) providing an adjustment for payments or repayments of government assistance in determining capital cost allowance for certain zero-emission vehicles;
(d) expanding the scope of the foreign affiliate dumping rules to further their objectives;
(e) providing change in use rules for multi-unit residential properties;
(f) establishing rules for advanced life deferred annuities;
(g) providing for an option to deduct repaid emergency benefit amounts in the year of benefit receipt and clarifying the tax treatment of non-resident beneficiaries;
(h) removing the time limitation for a registered disability savings plan to remain registered after the cessation of a beneficiary’s eligibility for the disability tax credit and modifying grant and bond repayment obligations;
(i) increasing the basic personal amount for certain taxpayers;
(j) providing a temporary special reading of certain rules relating to the child care expense deduction and the disability supports deduction for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years;
(k) providing flow-through share issuers with temporary additional time to incur eligible expenses to be renounced to investors under their flow-through share agreements;
(l) applying the short taxation year rule to the accelerated investment incentive for resource expenditures;
(m) introducing the Canada Recovery Hiring Program refundable tax credit to support the post-pandemic recovery;
(n) amending the employee life and health trust rules to allow for the conversion of health and welfare trusts to employee life and health trusts;
(o) expanding access to the Canada Workers Benefit by revising the applicable eligibility thresholds for the 2021 and subsequent taxation years;
(p) amending the income tax measures providing support for Canadian journalism;
(q) clarifying the definition of shared-custody parent for the purposes of the Canada Child Benefit;
(r) revising the eligibility criteria, as well as the level of subsidization, under the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) and Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy (CERS), extending the CEWS and the CERS until September 25, 2021, providing authority to enable the extension of these subsidies until November 30, 2021, and ensuring that the level of CEWS benefits for furloughed employees continues to align with the benefits provided through the Employment Insurance Act until August 28, 2021;
(s) preventing the use by mutual fund trusts of a method of allocating capital gains or income to their redeeming unitholders where the use of that method inappropriately defers tax or converts ordinary income into capital gains;
(t) extending the income tax deferral available for certain patronage dividends paid in shares by an agricultural cooperative corporation to payments made before 2026;
(u) limiting transfers of pensionable service into individual pension plans;
(v) establishing rules for variable payment life annuities;
(w) preventing listed terrorist entities under the Criminal Code from qualifying as registered charities and providing for the suspension or revocation of a charity’s registration where it makes false statements for the purpose of maintaining registration;
(x) ensuring the appropriate interaction of transfer pricing rules and other rules in the Income Tax Act;
(y) preventing non-resident taxpayers from avoiding Canadian dividend withholding tax on compensation payments made under cross-border securities lending arrangements with respect to Canadian shares;
(z) allowing for the electronic delivery of requirements for information to banks and credit unions;
(aa) improving existing rules meant to prevent taxpayers from using derivative transactions to convert ordinary income into capital gains;
(bb) extending to a wider array of eligible automotive equipment and vehicles the 100% capital cost allowance write-off for business investments in certain zero-emission vehicles;
(cc) ensuring that the accelerated investment incentive for depreciable property applies properly in particular circumstances; and
(dd) providing rules for contributions to a specified multi-employer plan for older members.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Excise Tax Act, the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, the Excise Act, 2001, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, the Income Tax Regulations and the Canada Disability Savings Regulations.
Part 2 implements certain Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) measures by
(a) temporarily relieving supplies of certain face masks and face shields from the GST/HST;
(b) ensuring that non-resident vendors supplying digital products or services (including traditional services) to consumers in Canada be required to register for the GST/HST and to collect and remit the tax on their taxable supplies to consumers in Canada;
(c) requiring distribution platform operators and non-resident vendors to register under the normal GST/HST rules and to collect and remit the GST/HST in respect of certain supplies of goods shipped from a fulfillment warehouse or another place in Canada;
(d) applying the GST/HST on all supplies of short-term accommodation in Canada facilitated through a digital platform;
(e) expanding the eligibility for the GST rebate for new housing;
(f) expanding the definition of freight transportation service for the purposes of the GST/HST;
(g) extending the application of the drop-shipment rules for the purposes of the GST/HST;
(h) treating virtual currency as a financial instrument for the purposes of the GST/HST; and
(i) clarifying the GST/HST holding corporation rules and expanding those rules to holding partnerships and trusts.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the New Harmonized Value-added Tax System Regulations, No. 2.
Part 3 implements certain excise measures by increasing excise duty rates on tobacco products by $4.‍00 per carton of 200 cigarettes along with corresponding increases to the excise duty rates on other tobacco products.
Part 4 enacts an Act and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to, among other things,
(a) specify the steps that an assessor must follow when they review a determination of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation with respect to the payment of compensation to certain persons;
(b) clarify that the determination of whether or not persons are entitled to compensation is to be made in accordance with the regulations;
(c) prevent a person from taking certain actions in relation to certain agreements between the person and a federal member institution by reason only of a monetary default by that institution in the performance of obligations under those agreements if the default occurs in the period between the making of an order directing the conversion of that institution’s shares or liabilities and the occurrence of the conversion;
(d) require certain federal member institutions to ensure that certain provisions of that Act — or provisions that have substantially the same effect as those provisions — apply to certain eligible financial contracts, including those contracts that are subject to the laws of a foreign state;
(e) exempt eligible financial contracts between a federal member institution and certain entities, including Her Majesty in right of Canada, from a provision of that Act that prevents certain actions from being taken in relation to those contracts; and
(f) extend periods applicable to certain restructuring transactions for financial institutions.
It also amends the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act to
(a) specify the steps that an assessor must follow when they review a determination of the Bank of Canada with respect to the payment of compensation to certain persons or entities; and
(b) clarify that systems or arrangements for the exchange of payment messages for the purpose of clearing or settlement of payment obligations may be overseen by the Bank of Canada as clearing and settlement systems.
Finally, it amends not-in-force provisions of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, enacted by the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, so that, under certain circumstances, an error or omission that results in a failure to meet a requirement of the schedule to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act will not prevent a deposit from being considered a separate deposit.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Bank of Canada Act to authorize the Bank of Canada to publish certain information about unclaimed amounts.
It also amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 with respect to the transfer of pension plan assets relating to the pension benefit credit of any person who cannot be located to, among other things,
(a) limit the circumstances in which such assets may be transferred and specify conditions for the transfer; and
(b) specify the effects of a transfer on any claims that may be made in respect of those assets.
Finally, it amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act and the Bank Act to
(a) include amounts that are not in Canadian currency in the unclaimed amounts regime; and
(b) impose additional requirements on financial institutions in connection with their transfers of unclaimed amounts to the Bank of Canada and communications with the owners of those amounts.
Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2 to exclude certain businesses from the application of a provision of the Bank Act that it enacts, which allows certain agreements that have been entered into with banks to be cancelled.
Division 4 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 to June 30, 2025.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) to
(a) provide that the entities referred to in that Act are no longer required to disclose to the principal agency or body that supervises or regulates them the fact that they do not have in their possession or control any property of a foreign national who is the subject of an order or regulation made under that Act; and
(b) change the frequency with which those entities are required to disclose to the principal agency or body that supervises or regulates them the fact that they have such property in their possession or control from once a month to once every three months.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to
(a) extend the application of Part 1 of that Act to include persons and entities engaged in the business of transporting currency or certain other financial instruments;
(b) provide that the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre make assessments to be paid by persons or entities to which Part 1 applies, based on the amount of certain expenses incurred by the Centre, and to authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting those assessments;
(c) amend the definitions of designated information to include certain information associated with virtual currency transactions and widely held or publicly traded trusts that the Centre can disclose to law enforcement or other governmental bodies;
(d) change the maximum penalties for summary conviction offences;
(e) expand the list of persons or entities that are not eligible for registration with the Centre; and
(f) make other technical amendments.
Division 7 of Part 4 enacts the Retail Payment Activities Act, which establishes an oversight framework for retail payment activities. Among other things, that Act requires certain payment service providers to identify and mitigate operational risks, safeguard end-user funds and register with the Bank of Canada. That Act also provides the Minister of Finance with powers to address risks related to national security that could be posed by payment service providers. This Division also makes related amendments to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act and the Payment Card Networks Act.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to establish new requirements and grant new regulation-making powers to the Governor in Council with respect to negotiated contribution plans.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the First Nations Fiscal Management Act to allow First Nations that are borrowing members of the First Nations Finance Authority to assign their rights to certain revenues payable by Her Majesty in right of Canada, for the purpose of securing financing for that Authority’s borrowing members.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to, among other things, increase the maximum amount of a fiscal stabilization payment that may be made to a province and to make technical changes to the calculation of fiscal stabilization payments.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize additional payments to the provinces and territories.
Division 12 of Part 4 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in relation to Canada’s COVID-19 immunization plan.
Division 13 of Part 4 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in relation to infrastructure and amends the heading of Part 9 of the Keeping Canada’s Economy and Jobs Growing Act.
Division 14 of Part 4 authorizes amounts to be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, to a maximum total amount of $3,056,491,000, for annual payments to Newfoundland and Labrador in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Hibernia Dividend Backed Annuity Agreement.
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make an additional fiscal equalization offset payment to Nova Scotia for the 2020–2021 fiscal year and to extend that Minister’s authority to make additional fiscal equalization offset payments to Nova Scotia until March 31, 2023.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Telecommunications Act to provide that decisions made by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission on whether or not to allocate funding to expand access to telecommunications services in underserved areas are not subject to review under section 12 or 62 of that Act but are subject to review by the Commission on its own initiative. It also amends that Act to provide for the exchange of information within the federal government and with provincial governments for the purpose of coordinating financial support for access to telecommunications services in underserved areas.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Canada Small Business Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) specify that lines of credit are loans;
(b) set a limit on the liability of the Minister of Small Business and Tourism in respect of each lender for lines of credit;
(c) remove the restriction excluding not-for-profit businesses, charitable businesses and businesses having as their principal object the furtherance of a religious purpose as eligible borrowers;
(d) increase the maximum amount of all loans that may be made in relation to a borrower under that Act; and
(e) provide that lesser maximum loan amounts may be prescribed by regulation for loans other than lines of credit, lines of credit and prescribed classes of loans.
Division 18 of Part 4 amends the Customs Act to change certain rules respecting the correction of declarations made under section 32.‍2 of that Act, the payment of interest due to Her Majesty and securities required under that Act, and to define the expression “sold for export to Canada” for the purposes of Part III of that Act.
Division 19 of Part 4 amends the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act to require the concurrence of the Minister of Finance when the Minister designated for the purposes of section 16 of that Act appoints panellists and committee members and proposes the names of individuals for rosters under Chapter 10 of the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends Part 5 of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to make certain reforms to the Social Security Tribunal, including
(a) changing the criteria for granting leave to appeal and introducing a de novo model for appeals of decisions of the Income Security Section at the Appeal Division;
(b) giving the Governor in Council the authority to prescribe the circumstances in which hearings may be held in private; and
(c) giving the Chairperson of the Social Security Tribunal the authority to make rules of procedure governing appeals.
Division 21 of Part 4 amends the definition of “previous contractor” in Part I of the Canada Labour Code in order to extend equal remuneration protection to employees who are covered by a collective agreement and who work for an employer that
(a) provides services at an airport to another employer in the air transportation industry; or
(b) provides services to another employer in another industry and at other locations that may be prescribed by regulation.
Division 22 of Part 4 amends Part III of the Canada Labour Code to establish a federal minimum wage of $15 per hour and to provide that if the minimum wage of a province or territory is higher than the federal minimum wage, the employer is to pay a minimum wage that is not less than that higher minimum wage. It also provides that, except in certain circumstances, the federal minimum wage per hour is to be adjusted upwards annually on the basis of the Consumer Price Index for Canada.
Division 23 of Part 4 amends the provisions of the Canada Labour Code respecting leave related to the death or disappearance of a child in cases in which it is probable that the child died or disappeared as a result of a crime, in order to, among other things,
(a) increase the maximum length of leave for a parent of a child who has disappeared from 52 weeks to 104 weeks;
(b) extend eligibility to parents of children who are 18 years of age or older but under 25 years of age; and
(c) limit the exception that applies in the case of a parent of a child who has died as a result of a crime if it is probable that the child was a party to the crime so that the exception applies only with respect to a child who is 14 years of age or older.
Division 24 of Part 4 authorizes the Minister of Employment and Social Development to make a one-time payment to Quebec for the purpose of offsetting some of the costs of aligning the Quebec Parental Insurance Plan with temporary measures set out in Part VIII.‍5 of the Employment Insurance Act.
Division 25 of Part 4 amends the Judges Act to provide that, if the Canadian Judicial Council recommends that a judge be removed from judicial office, the time counted towards the judge’s pension entitlements will be frozen and their pension contributions will be suspended, as of the day on which the recommendation is made. If the recommendation is rejected, the judge’s pension contributions will resume, the time counted towards their pension entitlement will include the suspension period and the judge will be required to make all the contributions that would have been required had the contributions never been suspended.
Division 26 of Part 4 amends the Federal Courts Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act to increase the number of judges for the Federal Court of Appeal by one and the number of judges for the Tax Court of Canada by two. It also amends the Judges Act to authorize the salary for the new Associate Chief Justice for the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador and the salaries for the following new judges: five judges for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, two judges for the Supreme Court of British Columbia and two judges for the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan.
Division 27 of Part 4 amends the National Research Council Act to provide the National Research Council of Canada with the authority to engage in the production of “drugs” or “devices”, as those terms are defined in the Food and Drugs Act, for the purpose of protecting or improving public health. It also amends that Act to provide authority for the incorporation of corporations and the acquisition of shares in corporations.
Division 28 of Part 4 amends the Department of Employment and Social Development Act in relation to the collection and use of Social Insurance Numbers by the Minister of Labour.
Division 29 of Part 4 amends the Canada Student Loans Act to provide that, during the period that begins on April 1, 2021 and ends on March 31, 2023, no interest is payable by a borrower on a guaranteed student loan.
It also amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to provide that, during the period that begins on April 1, 2021 and ends on March 31, 2023, no interest is payable by a borrower on a student loan.
Finally, it amends the Apprentice Loans Act to provide that, during the period that begins on April 1, 2021 and ends on March 31, 2023, no interest is payable by a borrower on an apprentice loan.
Division 30 of Part 4 confirms the validity of certain regulations in relation to the cancellation or postponement of certain First Nations elections.
Division 31 of Part 4 amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the Old Age Security pension payable to individuals aged 75 and over by 10%. It also provides that any amount payable in relation to a program to provide a one-time payment of $500 to pensioners who are 75 years of age or older may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Division 32 of Part 4 amends the Public Service Employment Act to, among other things,
(a) require that the establishment and review of qualification standards and the use of assessment methods in respect of appointments include an evaluation of whether there are biases or barriers that disadvantage persons belonging to any equity-seeking group;
(b) provide that audits and investigations may include the determination of whether there are biases or barriers that disadvantage persons belonging to any equity-seeking group; and
(c) give permanent residents the same preference as Canadian citizens in external advertised appointment processes.
Division 33 of Part 4 authorizes the making of payments to the provinces for early learning and child care for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2021.
Division 34 of Part 4 amends the Canada Recovery Benefits Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the maximum number of two-week periods in respect of which a Canada recovery benefit is payable is 25;
(b) reduce the amount of a Canada recovery benefit for a week to $300 in certain circumstances;
(c) provide that certain persons who were paid benefits under the Employment Insurance Act are eligible to be paid a Canada recovery benefit in certain circumstances;
(d) provide that the maximum number of weeks in respect of which a Canada recovery caregiving benefit is payable is 42; and
(e) provide that the Governor in Council may, by regulation, on the recommendation of the Minister of Employment and Social Development and the Minister of Finance, amend certain provisions of that Act to replace the date of September 25, 2021 by a date not later than November 20, 2021.
It also amends the Canada Labour Code to provide that the maximum number of weeks of leave for COVID-19 related caregiving responsibilities is 42.
Finally, it repeals provisions of the Canada Recovery Benefits Regulations and the Canada Labour Standards Regulations.
Division 35 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things,
(a) facilitate access to unemployment benefits for a period of one year by
(i) reducing the number of hours of insurable employment required to qualify for unemployment benefits to a national threshold of 420 hours,
(ii) reducing the amount of earnings from self-employment that a self-employed person is required to have to be eligible to access special unemployment benefits,
(iii) providing that only a claimant’s most recent separation from employment will be considered in determining whether they qualify for unemployment benefits,
(iv) ensuring that earnings paid to a person because of the complete severance of their relationship with their former employer do not extend the person’s benefit period, and
(v) providing for an increase in the maximum number of weeks for which regular unemployment benefits may be paid to a seasonal worker if certain conditions are met; and
(b) extend the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid because of a prescribed illness, injury or quarantine from 15 to 26.
It also amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things, extend to 27 the maximum number of weeks to which an employee is entitled for a medical leave of absence from employment.
It also amends the Employment Insurance Regulations to, among other things, ensure that, for a period of one year, earnings paid to a person because of the complete severance of their relationship with their former employer do not extend the person’s benefit period or delay payment of benefits to the person.
Finally, it amends the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations to, among other things, reduce, for a period of one year, the amount of earnings that a fisher is required to have to qualify for unemployment benefits.
Division 36 of Part 4 amends the Canada Elections Act to provide that the offences related to the prohibition on making or publishing certain false statements with the intention of affecting the results of an election require that the person or the entity making or publishing the statement knows that the statement in question is false.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There are two motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-30.

Motion No. 1 will not be selected by the Chair as it could have been presented in committee when the committee examined clause 24 of the bill, as indicated in the note accompanying Standing Order 76.1(5).

The remaining motion has been examined, and the Chair is satisfied that it meets the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

Since the objective of the motion is to bring clause 158 of the bill back to the way it was before being negatived during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, which is within the rules, Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted upon.

I will now put Motion No. 2 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-30 be amended by restoring Clause 158 as follows:

158 Subsection 14(1) of the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act is replaced by the following:

14 (1) The Minister may make direct payments, in an aggregate amount not exceeding $119,500,000, or any greater amount that may be specified in an appropriation Act, to the Transition Office for its use.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a pleasure to rise in debate, but in particular on the occasion as we approach what I hope is the expeditious adoption of Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, which will put in place a number of important measures designed to help continue the fight against COVID-19, ensure that our economy has the strength to bust out of the pandemic recession and create serious economic growth, but also ensure that the growth we expect to see occurs in a way that is both sustainable and inclusive.

Before I begin my assessment of Bill C-30, which I am obviously in support of, having spoken in support of the bill in this House previously, I want to address some of the proceedings that have taken place today.

We have seen, over the course of this pandemic, in some ways some very optimistic co-operation from various opposition parties. I remember back in the early days of the pandemic when it seemed there was a real team Canada spirit to get the supports to workers, businesses and families across Canada that were at severe risk as a result of the changes that COVID-19 foisted upon our communities. It seems, from the proceedings earlier today in the House, that this spirit of co-operation, at least on the part of the Conservative Party of Canada, has evaporated completely.

When we were seeking to move forward with Bill C-30, I was struck by the incredible inconsistency when I saw the Conservatives' House leader host a press conference declaring their appetite to continue to co-operate to get benefits where they are needed. At the same time, one of the Conservative members had moved a motion in the House of Commons to shut down debate for the day on the very bill that is going to extend the benefits they purport to support.

Over the course of the several hours that followed, we saw an adjournment motion seeking to have House members go home before noon rather than get to work to pass these important measures, and we saw speeches given on points of privilege that included texts drawn from the records of Hansard from 1891, which I do not think demanded the attention of the House so much as the emergency benefits that are destined for Canadian families and workers. My sincere hope is that, moving forward, we will be able to rebuild that sense of co-operation in order to get benefits where they are needed.

I will address the three chapters I outlined in my introductory sentences. The first focus of budget 2021 is to continue and finish the fight against COVID-19. That is going to require our focus to be drawn on the issue of vaccines. I am pleased to share that Canada, out of any G20 country, has had more of its citizens receive at least one dose of the vaccine than any other comparator economy in that group. Some people will point to the need to achieve two doses before full vaccination is complete, but from a population health point of view, from a procurement point of view and certainly from a signal that we are going to have a significant portion of our population that is willing to become fully vaccinated, this positions Canada as perhaps the leading economy in the world when it comes to the social responsibility our citizens have exhibited, putting their hands up and saying they want to do their part to help protect their communities, their families and themselves.

Bill C-30 ropes in certain supports that are going to help provincial governments expedite the administration of their vaccines, $1 billion, in fact, for this purpose, but we also know that from a public health point of view, there is more to the fight against COVID-19 than vaccinations. We know that public health care systems have seen serious delays, with appointments being cancelled and surgeries being pushed back months and months. I would hazard a guess that every member of this House has friends or family members who have been impacted by that. That is why this bill includes $4 billion to help address some of the short-term pressures on provincial health care systems that have flowed from this pandemic.

In addition, it is essential we recognize that no epidemiologist in the world was seriously arguing that vaccines alone were going to help us get through the various waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. That is why we have put roughly $20 billion toward the safe restart agreements, to help provinces make sure that workers could get their hands on personal protective equipment and help businesses erect the kind of infrastructure within their premises that would keep people safe.

There have been various investments in my own community through some of these funds that help protect the mental health of vulnerable members of the community. I am thinking in particular of some of the work that the Antigonish Women's Resource Centre has moved forward with as a result of some of the investments. I am thinking of some of the money that we have put toward facilities like the R.K. MacDonald Nursing Home in Antigonish. I am thinking of some of the facilities in Pictou County, whether it is schools or long-term care facilities, or those on the eastern shore of Nova Scotia that are benefiting from things like improved ventilation.

These are good investments that were made in partnership with provincial governments to help combat some of the consequences that we have seen as a result of COVID-19.

Of course, there is more to the COVID-19 pandemic than a public health threat. This has been the greatest economic challenge we have seen at least since the Great Depression. What I have seen was remarkable. Our institutions have really proven their mettle as we were hit with a virus that had economic consequences that were beyond comprehension a year and a half ago. We have seen Parliament react quickly to help get programs like the Canada emergency wage subsidy to help keep workers on payroll. We have seen the Canada emergency rent subsidy to help businesses literally keep their doors open. We have seen programs like the Canada recovery benefit, which has helped workers keep food on the table.

I am pleased to see that these measures, along with relaxed criteria for employment insurance for affected workers, have been extended in Bill C-30 to provide additional relief for businesses as we transition from the public health emergency to the economic recovery. These benefits are staggered so that, as time goes on, although some of these emergency benefits will diminish, new benefits will come onboard to inspire businesses to hire more workers to help kick-start that recovery in an effective way.

When we talk about the recovery, it is important that we do not simply view it as the need to stabilize existing businesses, which has been one of the top priorities over the past year and a half. We have to look forward to the policies we can adopt that are actually going to kick-start economic growth, because growth is how we are going to help offset some of the immense costs that COVID-19 foisted upon our communities.

When I look at some of the policies that are included in Bill C-30, and indeed in budget 2021, I think of the announcement around Canada's first national child care and early learning strategy. There is over $30 billion dedicated toward this important social and economic policy. Of course, there is a social imperative with the need to level the playing field, particularly for young women who might be starting a family, who are disproportionately affected when they bring a new child into the household.

A policy like this is not just the right thing to do to create that economic equality across Canada. It is also one of the best things we can do to grow our economy, by having more workers who are willing and able to take part in the workforce because they can afford accessible child care. Within five years, it will be at $10 a day, and by next year at half the price it is offered at today. I expect we are going to see a serious boost to our GDP. The forecasts tied to this specific policy are beyond what almost every other policy that is in the playbook globally could offer in terms of the impact it will have on jobs and growth for Canada.

However, this is not a one-trick pony. This budget includes new programs for small business financing. I mentioned the hiring incentive, which will cover half of the increased costs of payroll for businesses that are trying to get out of this pandemic and put people to work who are looking for jobs today. There are major investments in infrastructure, including a renewal of the national trade corridors fund, which has helped advance important projects in my own community, like the twinning of Highway 104 between Pictou County and Antigonish, or the expansion of the Air Cargo Logistics Park at the Halifax Stanfield International Airport. These are important investments. We have more investments in our economic infrastructure through the small craft harbours program, which is going to see an additional $300 million poured into rural communities to help grow the fishery.

It is essential that we do not just focus on growth, but we focus on growth that is equitable, sustainable and inclusive. When I look at some of the investments we made to kick-start the green economic recovery, I look to the additional $5 billion put toward the net-zero accelerator that is included in budget 2021. I look to the recently expanded home energy retrofit program, which would provide up to $5,000 grants for homeowners who conduct a home energy audit, which is going to have the dual benefit of creating jobs in the community and fighting climate change, and of course I should add the tertiary benefit of saving homeowners money. There are benefits here for students, with one of the largest packages globally to support young people in our economy. There are benefits here to expand long-term care facilities so our seniors can retire with dignity.

I will conclude by saying that as we seek to emerge from this pandemic, we cannot forget the people and businesses that continue to hurt and we must extend support to them. We need to adopt these policies that are going to help kick-start our economic growth to punch out of this recession, and we need to ensure that we extend benefits to the vulnerable and benefits that will help kick-start a green economic recovery.

I am thankful for my time. I am so happy to take any questions, and I urge all members of the House to vote in favour of this important motion.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague.

He spoke about the most vulnerable. The crisis made a lot of people vulnerable. It created a lot of homelessness, a lot of vulnerable people without housing. In the budget statement, the government announced a program called Reaching Home to fund emergency resources that were set up during the pandemic. In my riding, there is a Reaching Home community called Halte du coin, which is accessible 24‑7. Many similar organizations have been set up across Quebec.

Unfortunately, the Réseau solidarité itinérance du Québec is still waiting for a response from the government. The money is supposed to be renewed after July 1 to maintain funding for these extremely important resources, but the government has not said anything.

The government says it will happen, but it is not giving updates. People are very worried, and vulnerable, at-risk individuals need a place to live in the coming months. They are still waiting for an answer.

Could my colleague answer that question?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, without full knowledge of the background, aside from what was just provided in that question, I would suggest to the hon. member that organizations of various types do in fact qualify for some of the emergency benefits, whether it is the rent subsidy or the wage subsidy.

When it comes to ensuring that people have a safe and dignified place to call home, I would point him to the national housing strategy and the first-time home buyers' incentive. When it comes to support for non-profits, I would point him not only to the emergency community support fund that was rolled out over the course of the pandemic, but also to new investments in excess of $400 million to support non-profits.

If the hon. member would like to follow up with more specific detail around the organizations he is referring to, I would be pleased to make time for him and plug him into officials within the Department of Finance if necessary.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, speaking of vulnerable people, during the pandemic, and because of the impacts of COVID, people with serious illnesses such as cancer or other long-term illnesses need extended EI sickness benefits more than ever.

Of course, the government has limited the expansion of EI sickness benefits to only 26 weeks, instead of the 50 weeks the NDP is calling for. Can the member explain why the government is denying sick people the weeks of benefits they need and why they must wait until 2022 to receive them? Many of my constituents have written to me to saying they need those extended benefits now and that 26 weeks is not enough.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, with great respect for the hon. member, I wholeheartedly reject the notion that we are extending to “only” 26 weeks. The 26 weeks of EI sickness benefits will help thousands of vulnerable Canadians. We based that number, in part, on the recommendation of the Canadian Cancer Society, which requested in its pre-budget submission that we extend EI sickness benefits to at least 26 weeks.

While I have the floor, I want to draw attention to a constituent of mine named Kathy McNaughton. She introduced herself to me back in 2016 and told me about her husband David, who died at age 50 of esophageal cancer. David was as hard-working a man as one can imagine, and in his final days, he was laying laminate flooring to help provide income for his family when he should have been taking care of himself and spending time with his loved ones.

Kathy has made it her mission to change this policy and testified before the finance committee in support of the motion to extend this to 26 weeks. I would like to thank Kathy for her advocacy. This measure is going to be billions of dollars that will help vulnerable—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We have time for a quick question.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the leader in the House of Commons.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have a very quick question. The member expressed some disappointment at the beginning of his speech regarding the tactics used by the Conservative Party. I want to get his thoughts on the fact that we have lost many hours.

For every hour of lost time, we lose the potential for 12 members to address the legislation. For example, we would have been able to debate the bill that the members talked about today. We have lost a number of hours today. What are the member's thoughts?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, this is very important. The hon. member has drawn attention to the fact that certain speakers may not be able to advocate on behalf of their constituents whatever their position on the bill may be in Parliament, but there is another effect that is really important to draw attention to. In the limited time window we have before the House is set to rise for the summer, there is other urgent work that we must address.

I point to Bill C-6, which would ban conversion therapy. The House needs to address this because it is urgent that people are not subjected to conversion therapy. I point to Bill C-12, which would provide climate accountability. These measures will not get addressed if the Conservative Party continues to launch procedural tricks to avoid debate on what matters to Canadians. They should put their country ahead of the interests of their party.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-30 on behalf of my constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country. Like so many things with the Liberal government, this omnibus budget is unfocused, leaving many of the most affected by the economic crisis behind.

The budget outlines bold new ideas to build back better with new debt of $354.2 billion last year and $154.7 billion this year. This is a plan where every person in Canada would owe over $13,000, or over $52,000 for a family of four, in new debt in just two years. Not to mention the years of needless deficits leading up to this, which the Conservatives have been warning about since the government took office in 2015. However, I believe Canadians are smart enough to realize that the budget is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt by the Liberals to buy their votes on the backs of their own borrowed money.

It was in this House, when the budget was first tabled, that a Liberal member alluded that this budget has something for everyone. This is not true if someone had just opened a new business. For a year now, the Conservatives have been bringing forth the issue that new businesses, which do not have any sales track record, are not eligible for many programs, and the Liberals have ignored this.

This is an election budget, not a budget focused on economic recovery. It is clear that what the Liberals claim is stimulus is more about their own partisan priorities, rather than about maintaining jobs, creating jobs, helping businesses the most affected by the pandemic, or growing the economy.

Despite billions in new spending, this budget still leaves people and small businesses behind. The budget lists the establishment of a $500-million tourism relief fund as well as $100 million for Destination Canada to market Canada. This amount is a drop in the bucket of a $157.4-billion budget and is an insult to the tourism industry. Tourism was the first affected, and it will be one of the last to recover, yet tourism only garnered one and a half pages in a 750-page omnibus budget document. In my riding, tourism small businesses are a backbone of our community.

Lou is owner of Cheers Okanagan Tours in Kelowna—Lake Country, a tour and shuttle company offering winery tours, ski shuttles, airport transportation and other tour options. They are ambassadors for our local attractions. It has seven vehicles it has had to continue to store and pay for. Lou told me that once her business is back to pre-pandemic levels, it will take three years for her to recover her small business.

Terri, owner of Vacanza Destinations in Kelowna—Lake Country, a boutique travel tourism company, has had no revenue in over a year. She has gone substantially into personal debt. In order to keep her business ready to turn back on, she has to retain all her licensing, liability insurance and many other expenses, costing thousands each month. Terri told me that once business is back to pre-pandemic levels, it will take up to five years for her to recover.

Terri and Lou are two women who have built up their small businesses with hard work. The Liberals say there is money in the budget for people to upgrade their transferable skills in order to work in different industries. Maybe some people, like Terri and Lou, like their jobs, the careers they have built and the relationships they built. It is not up to the Liberals to pick what jobs they like and which ones will survive the pandemic. Tourism is not a priority for the government, nor is it reflected in the budget.

The budget details how arts, entertainment and recreation are the largest affected sector for people losing work in February 2020 compared to 2021, yet there is just slightly over one page out of the 750-page budget referencing these sectors, which are sectors important to Kelowna—Lake Country. The budget outlines approximately $450 million in funding, but much is spread over three years. Musicians, and those involved performing arts, festivals, arts, culture and sports, are some of the hardest hit. This budget is a disappointment.

As I mentioned earlier, the Liberals say there is money in the budget for people to upgrade their transferable skills in order to work in different industries, but why should people not use their talents? Why should they be forced to not work in their field?

I will say it again, it is not up to the Liberals to pick what jobs they like and which ones survive the pandemic. The spending in this budget is unfocused and does not address the hardest hit industries, such as arts, culture and recreation, as priorities.

Aerospace is another major employer in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country. The budget states, “In 2019, aerospace contributed more than $28 billion to Canada's GDP, directly and indirectly supporting 234,500 jobs”. The budget also correctly notes, “Highly dependent on purchases from airlines hit hard by the pandemic, the sector is facing reduced demand and a longer path to recovery, relative to other sectors of the economy”.

The government seems to think an appropriate level of support for an industry it states has been hit hard by the pandemic is $250 million over three years across the entire country. Realizing how meagre this truly was, the Minister of Finance tried to spin this underwhelming investment by stating, “This is in addition to the $1.75 billion in the Strategic Innovation Fund”. However, that fund is over seven years. This is another example of an unfocused $154.7-billion omnibus budget.

There are a number of measures in this budget that I could support. However, in the 750-page omnibus budget of debt and election-style spending on the backs of future generations, it is not the real plan that Canada desperately needs. Extending the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency rent subsidy are both welcome ideas. This, in addition to a number of measures to continue helping individual Canadians and industries, I can absolutely get behind. However, this budget leaves out important sectors that have been the most hurt.

In this budget, the Prime Minister would add more to our national debt than all other previous prime ministers combined. The biggest source of federal funds this last year was not tax revenue or lenders, but central bank money printing. The $303.5 billion of new printed money in 2020 is not free. Devaluing the dollar risks increasing inflation, meaning everyone pays more for things such as housing, food and transportation.

Statistics Canada announced the cost of living went up 3.4% in April 2021 alone. This has been especially apparent in our housing market. Canadians faced a nationwide housing affordability crisis, and the budget completely ignores first-time homebuyers and the housing needs of young Canadians.

On May 26, the finance minister would not answer a simple question of how many units the rapid housing initiative has built. The housing problem is compounded by the recent government announcement of new mortgage qualification rules. Experts are saying this puts home ownership further away for many.

My colleague, the Conservative shadow minister of housing from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, led an opposition day motion yesterday which had many common-sense solutions to address the growing housing and affordability crisis. Instead of embracing these ideas, which have been suggested by experts, the Liberals voted it down, doubling down on their failed strategies.

The budget also fails to meaningfully address the parts of our economy that allow for growth without the need for hands-on government intervention and billions of dollars in borrowed money. Our economic engines of natural resources and trade can create jobs and help pay off our massive debt. Canadian exports are responsible for one in five jobs and nearly a third of our GDP, yet trade is barely sprinkled around the budget.

For the Conservatives, not only does trade represent a guarantee of economic security for millions of workers, but it is also an important aspect of food security and, especially, our best way to combat debt.

The Liberal government is mismanaging the trade file, and the problems keep getting worse.

It is clear that the government has no real plan to secure our future through an economic recovery where all sectors and all regions are firing on all cylinders. I simply cannot support a budget that is unfocused, fails so many who have been the most affected, and burdens future generations with billions of dollars in crippling debt.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals received $850,000 from the wage subsidy, the Conservatives received $716,000 and the NDP received $265,000. The current amendment will require that they stop dipping into the cookie jar by the end of August.

If this can continue until August, why not make it retroactive, since we are saying that, starting in August, this is no longer allowed? That is what I do not understand. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, our leader has made comments on this already. When we originally approved a lot of the programs last year to help businesses, the major focus was to help small businesses and get the money out the door. We have now seen that a lot of those programs have not worked for a lot of small businesses, and our focus has absolutely been on making recommendations to the government on a number of those programs and amending them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, given today's behaviour from the Conservative Party in trying to prevent debate from taking place on this particular bill, can the member give any indication as to how long she thinks the Conservative Party will continue to delay the passage of it, or when she believes the Conservatives will stop playing their partisan political games so that we can start dealing with legislation and getting it passed for the benefit of all Canadians from coast to coast to coast?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very rich question considering that it took two years for the budget to come forth.

Last year we had a COVID committee, which was not really Parliament. We were not able to debate legislation, nor debate at all, and there was no opportunity for opposition day motions. Then we had the prorogation of Parliament, and many committees were not sitting for a big part of last year. It is clearly the government that has delayed any legislation and work in the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking about small businesses, because we know they have struggled throughout the pandemic and have had difficult times getting the support they need.

One thing we have heard the government make promises for is capping merchant fees. We pay five times the merchant fees that Europe does and have some of the highest interchange fees in the world. We have not heard how the Conservatives feel about capping merchant fees.

The government has made a commitment that it is going to do something to tackle merchant fees. However, we heard this commitment five years ago from the same government. We know how unfair it is that Canadian merchants and small businesses are paying these outrageous fees, and the banks are having record profits.

I would like to hear if the Conservatives will join the NDP in calling on the Liberals to take action on this, not just talking about it, but actually legislating a cap on merchant fees so that we are in line with the European Union.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know that small business is the background of our economy in Canada. As a former small business owner, I am very aware of working in retail and where some of those fees are.

The government really does not understand small business, and we see that in a lot of its policies. We even see that in how it talks about legislation. It is small business owners who are putting themselves on the line every day. They are working seven days a week and taking risks, and the government really does not understand how small businesses operate and the needs of small business. There are a lot of different ways that we need to look at supporting small businesses.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Report Stage

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague's riding in B.C. on the island, the gorgeous Courtenay—Alberni, is suffering like mine from a severe housing shortage.

Could my hon. colleague give some insight into his perspective on whether this budget adequately addresses the national crisis in housing affordability and availability of supply? What measures would he argue are missing from the budget?

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

Mr. Speaker, this budget does not address the housing crisis we are in. Young people have lost hope. We are hearing that people have to work 12 years to have a down payment to buy a house in many cities across the country.

In Europe, 30% of housing is non-market housing. In the seventies and eighties, the housing stock in Canada was over 10%. We know it is much less than that. The private sector has not delivered in building the housing that Canadians need. We need non-market housing and the government needs to build over 500,000 units: We know we are 300,000 units short now but we are losing units every day. As we commit to building more units, we are falling short. The gap is actually widening, so people are living in fear about where they are going to live.

Everybody should have the right to adequate housing. This is an opportunity for the government to get back into non-market housing, because the free market is not going to resolve these really important issues. It is a crisis for many Canadians right now, and it is getting much worse. The government has not dealt with it in a way that demonstrates the crisis that we and many people are facing right now in our country.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There will be three minutes remaining for questions and comments for the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni when the House next gets back to debate on the question.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from June 10 consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as a bit of personal history, I was the son of parents who lived through the Great Depression. My dad Tony put food on the table by being a locomotive engineer. He worked at Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario and he served as secretary-treasurer of his union. My mom Helen was a busy stay-at-home mother to five kids.

We were happy, but I do not remember our having a whole lot of money when we were growing up. As a kid in grade school, I can count on one hand the number of times that we actually went out to a real restaurant. My mom's attitude was “Why waste good money on a restaurant when we have food at home?” I remember that if there was a big sale at the grocery store, we would sometimes get steak at home, but it was a rare treat. The reason I remember that is when we would have it my mom always had the same thing to say. She would say, “That steak cost 99¢ a pound, so make sure you eat all of it, even the fat.”

It was a good lesson in life, though. At an early age, kids in my family learned the value of money and we learned that one never wastes anything. My parents gave me a great life lesson and I was happy. Those lessons stuck with me and I think a lot of Canadians these days can relate to those lessons. They understand the value of hard work and money and they want value from governments for their tax dollars.

I know these have been challenging times with the COVID pandemic. Due to this terrible pandemic, governments were forced to shut down the normal economy. As such, people needed an income. Governments had a duty to come to the rescue, but they spent a lot of money, especially the current Liberal government. I admit that a good chunk of it was needed. In fact, Conservatives pushed the Liberals to increase financial benefits to Canadians during this pandemic. Right at the beginning of the pandemic, we fought to get a big increase in the small-business wage subsidy.

However, as we enter the road to recovery we need a plan back to fiscal balance. It is a lesson my parents and many of our parents and grandparents learned the hard way. I know many of my constituents feel the same way. I regularly survey my constituents for their views on important issues of the day. One question I asked them recently was whether they are worried about the federal debt. The vast majority, more than 80%, said they are very worried; yet, the Liberals failed to take prudent measures in this budget. Despite record spending, there is no meaningful action to reduce our massive debt load, and “massive” is the key word here. The debt is more than a trillion dollars and climbing.

The Liberals do not even have a long-term plan to return to balance. This is a shocking failure by the government. It was only a year ago that the Prime Minister was boasting of Canada's fiscal capacity to offer supports during the pandemic. He said his government could spend lots of money because of the prudent decisions it made previously. Why, then, is he not making those prudent decisions for the future?

As COVID made clear, we cannot foresee these events. Just consider the government's failure, early on, to recognize how serious COVID itself was. Early on, we Conservatives gave this advice: Shut down flights from COVID hot spots. The government members said we were being alarmist, even racist. What is going to happen during the next crisis that we face, with our now limited fiscal capacity? We do not have the capacity to keep on spending.

The Prime Minister boasts of prudent decisions, but he fails to make them. Prior to COVID, the current government showed a complete lack of fiscal discipline. Instead of prudently managing taxpayer money, the Liberals ran deficit after deficit. During the good times, the Liberals added more than $72 billion to the national debt. To put that into perspective, that is nearly $2,000 of new debt for every man, woman and child in Canada. Continuous deficits and endless debt leave us vulnerable. It is not sustainable.

In a crisis, one needs a healthy balance sheet. Who said that? An expert did. That is the view of Philip Cross. He is the former economic analyst at Statistics Canada.

When Conservatives were in power, we were fiscally responsible. We came out of the 2008 financial crisis better than any country in the G7. Here is what Cross said about that: “strong balance sheets in Canada stood it in good stead to endure the recession and emerge into recovery. The recession was shorter and milder in Canada than in other G7 nations, partly because the flow of credit was not disrupted as it was in other nations and a large pool of savings was available to finance spending when income fell temporarily.”

What is going to happen in the next crisis, if the Liberal government gambles our safety net? Most Canadians know about the value of money. These Liberals have to learn that, too. Let us just go over some of the Liberals' useless spending. Earlier this year I asked an Order Paper question on the expenses related to having government employees work from home. Working from home was, of course, an important safety feature, and I think we can all accept reasonable expenses. However, can anyone really justify spending $2,815 of taxpayers' money for a desk or $1,160 for a work chair? Having gone through that document, those are hardly isolated incidents. That is only scratching the surface.

The government's contempt for transparency has been evident for years. However, it has doubled down during the COVID crisis. It is actually hiding crucial information on how taxpayers' money is being spent. Even a former parliamentary budget officer criticized the government for lack of transparency. For example, members from across the aisle on the transport committee recently talked out the clock to avoid accountability. Instead of being transparent about their mismanagement of the infrastructure bank, they tried to bury the details, but the details, of course, eventually come out. For example, how the infrastructure bank recently paid out nearly $4 million for executive terminations, how the bank has completed zero projects in four years and how it is projected to lose billions of taxpayers' dollars.

Building needed projects in Canada seems to be too complicated for the Liberals' budget, but they do not seem to have any issue funding the China-controlled Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to build projects outside of Canada. The Liberals have funnelled tens of millions of dollars to this Chinese state-run bank; this is despite the Chinese Communist regime holding two of our citizens against their will on trumped-up charges. How, exactly, is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank good value for money?

As we are racking up more and more debt, I wonder just how much of it is being wasted. This is an important issue, especially for younger generations. We are passing this debt on to the next generation to pay off, and we owe it to them not to bury them in debt. Even worse, this spending is not even geared to growing the economy, but members should not take my word on it; that is the analysis of the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. He said that “Budget 2021 estimates overstate the impact of stimulus spending over the next 3 years,” so despite massive unsustainable spending, we are not even going to see additional growth. One thing that is also readily available is that the government's strategy is not prepared for an increase of interest rates. Even a minor increase could have a devastating effect on our long-term national finances.

My constituents are demanding answers. Like my parents, they know the value of money. They work hard for their money. They expect and demand that their money is not wasted. Canadians know that Liberal spending is out of control.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I understand that it is important for the Conservatives to cut spending. However, some of that spending is still vital. I am thinking, for example, of the support offered to farmers. The $1,500 they receive when foreign workers arrive will be reduced to $750 in the coming days.

I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about this. Should we maintain this support a while longer, since the crisis is not yet over, quarantines are still in effect and farmers must still pay the costs for their workers to come in?

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am from Alberta in western Canada. Farmers built this country, and agriculture is absolutely vital, but let us look at the bigger picture instead of cherry-picking little items out of this budget. The bigger picture is that we need a sustainable future, and we cannot continue to spend as if there is no tomorrow, because if we continue to do that, there will be no tomorrow.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting how the Conservative narrative on the fiscal capacity of Canada has been used as an excuse to oppose measures that are actually going to help vulnerable Canadians who have been impacted.

I would like to pass on to the hon. member that, whether he takes his pick between Moody's, S&P or DBRS, they have all reaffirmed Canada's AAA credit rating. We had the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and the IMF said that had we not launched record spending to support Canadian workers and businesses, we would have had a similar debt-to-GDP ratio with a much bigger negative impact on our economy.

Does the hon. member agree with his party leader who opposed the CERB, did he agree with his party who voted against the extension of the emergency measures, and why does he use the fiscal situation in Canada to oppose measures that are actually helping people in their time of need?

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is rather rich coming from the member across the way. We worked to improve many of these programs. I fully admit that there is a lot of spending that is absolutely vital. When governments shut down economies, of course, we cannot leave people in the lurch and we have to help them out. We were the party that improved these programs, and it is ridiculous to say that somehow we are opposed to them. We are opposed to runaway spending, and we know that the wolf is going to be at the door one day.

When we look back at what was done under the Harper government, we came out as a shining star of the G7 countries out of 2008. The member does not have to take my word for that. He can take the word of the financial experts. We were a star, and that is how, when we are in government, we will be in far better shape than what this government is going to leave Canadians next time we have a major crisis.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke a lot about deficit, but here is the thing. While millions of people are worried about losing their jobs, Canada's 20 richest people have increased their wealth. Instead of making those richest people pay the cost of the economic recovery, the Conservatives, very much like the Liberals, want to protect their profits.

Can the member please explain why he refuses to make the richest in Canada pay their fair share?

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, everybody has to pay their fair share, obviously, but it is also people who create wealth in this country who are risking to create wealth. If we look at the young start-ups and entrepreneurs, they are starting from nothing. We can look at the history of growth in any developed nation and it starts with great ideas, and we have to cultivate these great ideas.

I know that certain members of the NDP adhere to the NDP philosophy to just take as much money as possible and redistribute that wealth, which is not a good philosophy. It has not worked in any country in the world, and there are many recent failures and long-time failures.

No, we Conservatives do not believe in punishing people for good ideas, growing economies and creating wealth.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to give a speech in response to the government's budget. Many of my colleagues, whether on my side of the aisle or the other side, have already given speeches about this budget, but today I am not here to simply support the budget blindly or criticize it for ideological or political gain. I am here today to speak from the heart. I am here to speak on behalf of my constituents. I am here to make clear to the members of this House how most Canadians from Calgary Forest Lawn feel about this budget.

Let me start with the short hand dealt to my fellow Albertans. This budget fell short in helping Canada's oil and gas, energy, agriculture and forestry sectors to be global leaders in performance and innovation. While there is money going to some sectors in our economy, there is no plan, as usual. As Adam Legge wrote for the Calgary Herald about this very issue, “It is not rooted in the sound recommendations of the government’s own Industry Strategy Council.”

While the government may say that this money will create a fancy new future and make jobs, the truth is that it is more lip service to Albertans. To the single mother who is a field project manager, to the Muslim sister who just got her citizenship and a job in our energy industry as a chemical engineer, and to the eighth-generation roughneck worker in the oil fields, it is very clear that the government has forgotten about them. It has forgotten about the average working class that has made this country great.

While the government's new budget makes life harder for my constituents to earn money, it also makes daily living more expensive and creates great harm for our children and future generations. April's inflation rate was 3.4%. That means the cost of goods is now 3.4% higher, on average. Many of my constituents have been laid off or have taken a massive pay decrease due to this pandemic. Many Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque, and this was even before the pandemic. Many Canadians cannot afford to pay more for basic necessities due to the Prime Minister's reckless spending and budget.

In April, our economy saw 207,000 jobs lost, with an unemployment rate above 8%. What is the solution? It is spending more, says the finance minister. According to her, it is an ideal time to borrow because interest rates are low. That is interesting, because as the global economy recovers, the interest rates are actually rising, and that has been the trend for the last few months. The cost of debt repayment has now reached a skyrocketing $22 billion per year. That means $22 billion less for our seniors, veterans, the health care system and many other important systems and groups that need this money.

Of course, as Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman once said, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Who will pay for this lunch, one may ask. It will be our children, their children and their children's children, and so on. I am already talking to many students who cannot find internships, who are in crippling debt, who struggle with many mental health issues due to this pandemic and even before. Now more over-stressed and with lack of employment due to our weak economy, what will they say when they find out a few years down the road that they will have to pay for all of this mess, a mess that the Liberal government has put us in?

The key word is “inflation”. For every dollar we print, the value of every dollar falls. It is basic economics. I wish we could print all the money in the world and help everyone, but there is such a thing as scarcity. The government does not understand that, and now our constituents have to suffer.

I also have the privilege of being the official opposition's shadow minister for immigration, refugees and citizenship. How does this budget affect immigration, one may ask. The immigration minister promised that Canada will welcome 401,000 immigrants this year, and still there are massive backlogs. We need immigration. Our working population is aging and, unfortunately, our immigration system is aging with it. This budget does nothing significant to address these backlogs. Families remain separated from their loved ones; parents are missing their children's first steps, birthdays and, in some cases, their births.

Just the other month, I received a call from a constituent saying they wanted to kill themselves because they cannot wait any longer to see their loved ones and cannot bear the isolation of this pandemic. My heart breaks for them.

The detail included in this budget is just a timeline or a promise to deliver a new program by 2023. Ignoring the government's track record with broken promises, pushing this problem down the road is not helping anyone. Families are separated for years. People are waiting for half a decade to have their applications processed, and yet the best the Liberals can do is promise an untested program being launched in the future.

There are also no details on whether the government will work with experts, national and cybersecurity professionals or even immigration experts to develop a platform that truly works for Canadians. There cannot be a strong recovery without a strong plan for immigration. What Canada needs now is a smarter immigration system that focuses on our resources and on making Canada a more welcoming place full of opportunity and potential.

A Conservative government will work to replace Liberal platitudes with a system that actually works again, one that does not leave families separated and desperate for hope but hopeful for a prosperous life in Canada.

Again, the government will point and blame when it hears these facts about its budget. Of course it will blame the pandemic and say it stalled efforts for economic recovery and the advancement of the immigration system, but the new question is, what is the government doing to reopen Canada safely? The government had a failed plan to procure vaccines, a failed plan to secure our borders to stop variants and a failed plan to support small business and our energy industry in withstanding the negative effects of this pandemic.

Just recently, a Calgary-based company that was making a vaccine for COVID-19 said it is leaving Canada, after the government ignored its calls for support. The goal is to retain Canadian talent, not drive it away. Before this pandemic, the government's policies against our world-class energy industry led to investment fleeing. I personally saw the tradespeople I dealt with having to lay off their workers and having to go back onto the field themselves. They blame the Liberal government's policies and inaction to help support them.

I ask people, even in the toughest of times and with a bad budget, to stay strong. To the small business owners, the families living paycheque to paycheque and those trying to start a new life in our great country, I say not to give up, not to lose hope, for what makes our country great is the people, not its government or fancy budget plans that do very little to help the little guy.

We are stronger together, and I stand here on behalf of my constituents to speak up against this budget and expose whom it is hurting: the everyday Canadian. Inflation due to this out-of-control spending does not really hurt the rich and privileged that bad. Whom it does hurt is the single mother from Calgary who is struggling to pay for her kids' schooling and groceries, the bus driver from Toronto trying to afford his mortgage, and the family-run restaurant owner from P.E.I. who has to close up shop for good because the government could not secure the vaccines fast enough, unlike our counterparts.

I came to this country as an immigrant and I grew up as an at-risk youth. I still remember the raindrops hitting my face as my family and I waited in line for low-income bus passes. I still remember seeing my parents and myself working multiple jobs to make ends meet and to survive. I do not want to see that struggle for my children or anyone's children, or in fact any Canadian. We came to this country to enjoy prosperity, not government debt and a crippling economy.

A Conservative government will have a real plan, made by the experts and guided by the everyday Canadian. We will have a fresh new vision of hope, so that no matter where people came from, who they are or when they arrived here, they will have a chance to live the Canadian dream, just as I and many members of this House did.

As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “We must accept finite disappointment, but we must never lose infinite hope.” Together we will fix this mistake, together we will recover this economy and together we will all grow.

May God keep our land glorious and free.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, when I hear a Conservative stand up and speak about spending and the deficit, I recall how the finance critic, the member for Carleton, would stand up day after day and say we are spending too much and helping too much. I wonder if the member could answer in a truthful way which program that we brought in during this pandemic the Conservatives would cut or give less money to.

It is fine to talk about what happened in 2008, but the world has never seen the likes of the pandemic that hit the globe the way it did a year and a half ago. Which program would he not support? Which program would he eliminate, and what class of people would be hurt the most by doing this?

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite funny that the Liberals would accuse us of bringing up 2008, when it seems like former prime minister Stephen Harper lives rent-free in all of their minds all the time.

What the Conservatives were asking for in the beginning of this pandemic was actually more supports. When the Liberals came forward with their wage subsidy plan, it was not enough for business owners. The Liberals had already crippled most of our economy anyway by then, and then gave just little tidbits for small business owners, like restaurant owners. When it came to the wage subsidy, it was far too little. We all had to stand up and remind the government that it was the small business owners who were going to hurt the most, before that change was made.

When the business loan came out, again, it was not enough for business owners. We had to fight for that to be increased and the $50,000 payroll to be taken away. As we know, most small business owners take out dividends and not payroll. It was we, Conservatives, who were always sticking up for the small business owners.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. The question has been asked before, but we did not get a clear answer.

Of course, some spending is hardly useful, but there is other spending that is fundamental and very important and that must be maintained, like the support for farmers who have to pay the quarantine costs of their temporary foreign workers.

Currently, Ontario's vegetable producers and the people of Quebec are asking the minister to maintain this support past June 16, without reducing the amount. Now is not to time to abandon producers, while the war on COVID‑19 is not over and quarantines are still essential. Where do the Conservatives stand on this matter?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course we want to support our hard-working farmers. I was in a meeting with a group from Quebec just yesterday, and we talked about how the backlogs are completely stopping business from happening in Quebec. They are in desperate need of temporary foreign workers. I fully agree with that.

My hon. colleague is on the immigration committee with me, and we are always talking about this at the committee. I talked about this in my speech. It is the backlogs that are causing a lot of harm, especially to our farmers. It is happening in Alberta. It is happening in Quebec and Ontario. Every single province is suffering due to the Liberal government's failure to address backlogs.

This budget did nothing to help that or at least develop a clear plan going forward that will help farmers. We all want better for our farmers, and that includes clearing up these backlogs.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned a lot of people who are hurting, and I appreciate that, but he did not mention seniors. In this budget, the government has made a two-tier system of “junior seniors” and “senior seniors”, knowing that the need is out there, because it gave one-time cheques last year. Now the government is only giving one-time cheques and increases to a certain group of seniors, but not the people from 65 to 74.

Does he agree with this? Does he support this? What would his government do?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will admit that I am not fully aware of all the details, but what I will say is that Conservatives will always support our seniors. I think that our seniors are the most precious people we have. In my personal life, the seniors are where I got all my blessings from. We have a plan that will come out and address a lot of the insecurities that our seniors have, to make sure that we are supporting them, because they deserve it the most. The Liberal government, over and over, has failed our seniors in many different ways, and this budget did not address their problems either.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government finally tabled a budget for Parliament to debate and Canadians to review. This was a new record. It was kind of a dubious record, but it was a record nonetheless. This budget would send the national debt to a staggering $1.4 trillion in five years. Almost as concerning is that the budget contains no measures to return to a balanced budget. This pattern of reckless spending has been a hallmark of the current Liberals since coming to office. They spend without a plan. They spend with lofty hopes and dreams that the budget will balance itself.

The people of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte who call my office and email us are anxious and looking for a plan. Adding $1.4 trillion to the national debt saddles our grandkids, their grandkids and their children with the burden of paying this back. That is unfair to them.

I understand these are unprecedented times, and we need to help Canadians survive as we navigate the global COVID pandemic. However, these measures should be temporary, and a plan should be in place to ensure we return to a balanced budget. The Liberals have no plan to balance the books, and there appears to be no end in sight for their reckless spending.

I want to shift gears for a bit. While we all understand the pressures that Canadians have been under for the last year and a half as we have dealt with the pandemic, the Prime Minister had the opportunity to invest historically in mental health, and to help build the infrastructure our mental health care system will need to support people as we come out of this pandemic. As with most things the current government attempts, it missed the mark.

Suicides among men are rising at staggering rates. A Leger poll commissioned by the Mental Health Commission of Canada noted a sharp increase in respondents reporting depression. The poll noted the number jumped from 2% to 14%. McMaster Children's Hospital found that youth suicide attempts have tripled because of COVID restrictions. The same study found there was a 90% increase in youth being referred to the hospital's eating disorder program. There is no doubt that people are struggling, and there is no doubt the Prime Minister failed to deliver investments in mental health.

This budget does absolutely nothing for growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians or the economy. David Dodge, the former Bank of Canada governor, was quoted in a National Post news article as saying:

My policy criticism of the budget is that it really does not focus on growth.... To me it wouldn’t accord with something that was a reasonably prudent fiscal plan, let me put it that way.

Robert Asselin, a budget and policy adviser to former finance minister Bill Morneau, said this budget was “a political solution in search of an economic problem.” When the Liberals' friends are let down by their budget, how can they reasonably expect Canadians to get excited about it?

Seniors have been disproportionately impacted by COVID. They have been isolated from their children and grandchildren, and in some tragic cases have passed away with no one around them in their final moments. I do not bring this up lightly. Once again, the Liberals had an opportunity to make foundational investments and failed to deliver. The programs and supports that were announced in this budget offer up very little detail and will leave many seniors behind. The government needs to respect Canada's seniors, ensure it acts on its promises and move forward with funding to help provinces and territories address the acute challenges in long-term care.

Part of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte is rural, and constituents constantly write to me and my staff about their poor broadband connectivity. The Prime Minister promised to invest in rural broadband and ensured the money rollout would come faster. This has not happened. We have seen announcements and reannouncements of the same funding, but the projects are not being built. These delays and inaction have had a real impact on rural areas in my riding, with so many people working from home. It is time for empty promises to end and for real action to kick in.

The Prime Minister promised an additional $1 billion over six years, starting this year, for the universal broadband fund. With proposed budget 2021, $2.75 billion would be available for projects across Canada, yet communities in my riding are suffering because the current Prime Minister and his cabinet prefer to make announcements rather than take concrete action to support rural Canadians.

The Prime Minister has created such uncertainty in the economy over the last year and a half that people are not sure when we will get back to something that resembles normal. The uncertainty of the pandemic and the lack of action from the Prime Minister to build a robust economy have created a shortage in many supply chains. This is having a dramatic impact on businesses in Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

One developing supply chain shortage is a shortage of semiconductors. I recently spoke with car dealership owners in my riding who told me they were having a difficult time getting inventory because of this shortage. Another stalwart business in my riding is Napoleon Home Comfort. It manufactures barbecues and fireplaces. It employs hundreds of people, and opened in 1980. It is days away from potentially having to close its doors and lay off hard-working Canadians because the shortage of semiconductors would prevent them from manufacturing their products. This semiconductor shortage has the potential to affect tens of thousands of supply chain manufacturing and distribution jobs across Canada.

Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte residents rely on transportation providers such as local motor coach operators Hammond Transportation and Greyhound. We all know that Greyhound has decided to pull all its Canadian operations, leaving people stranded across the country. In my riding, people used Greyhound to commute to work: People who work in Toronto found it more cost effective to commute daily via the bus to earn a living.

Hammond Transportation is a family-owned school bus, charter bus and motor coach company. I met with the owners recently to hear their issues first-hand. Like many motor coach companies across Ontario and Canada, Hammond has taken on new debt to continue to operate as revenues slide. The lack of a coordinated border reopening plan has impacted its quarterly planning and has reduced its recovery trajectory. One of the biggest concerns Kent Hammond, the owner of Hammond Transportation, brought to me was the impact of winding down Canada's emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency rent subsidy. With border openings uncertain and tours impossible, there is no way the company can plan for a firm start-back date.

With most of this budget, critical industries and sectors were overlooked. The impacts of changes were drastically underestimated for some sectors. Frankly, it is poor planning and management. To say that I was disappointed with the over 700 pages of the budget would be an understatement. The Prime Minister had an opportunity to deliver a budget that would carry, impact and help industries and businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones, to come out of this pandemic on solid ground. Unfortunately, he failed.

The Prime Minister failed to deliver investments in mental health supports for Canadians and our health care system as those who are struggling through the pandemic seek additional supports. The government failed to deliver impactful investments for seniors. Instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting to work, the Prime Minister and his finance minister repurposed funding announcements and issued more empty promises.

The Prime Minister failed to deliver proper investments for rural broadband as more people worked and studied from home. Having a strong and reliable Internet signal is critical. This disproportionately impacts rural Canadians, but the Prime Minister seems to be more worried about urban concerns.

It is truly unfortunate that the Prime Minister squandered this opportunity to deliver real and meaningful investments that would support Canadians. Furthermore, if he cannot even make his friends Mark Carney and Robert Asselin happy with this budget, how are Canadians expected to be excited about it?

Opening a business at any time is scary and stressful, but doing it in a pandemic is even more courageous. Stephanie Stoute, in Barrie, opened Curio Exploration Hub. It is a new, innovative child activity centre. She found herself struggling when she opened because she did not qualify for the existing COVID programs. Ms. Stoute is a hard-working entrepreneurial mother of two who is pushing forward. However, the government and the Prime Minister were not there for her when she needed them.

I asked a question in the House on December 8, 2020, about Ms. Stoute's concerns. While Ms. Stoute's business is still open, the Prime Minister has not made it easy for small businesses to access supports so they can survive and thrive on the other side of the pandemic.

The world is a dark place right now. We are a nation that is suffering, and we need, more than ever, to work across party lines to ensure we have the best interests of Canadians top of mind. Canadians are looking for real and authentic leadership. We have an opportunity to do this, but we need to work together to ensure we make investments in seniors, in rural broadband, in small and medium-sized businesses and in domestic vaccine protection so we can get Canadians back to work and get our economy growing.

We also need to make sure we have sufficient investments in mental health to support those who are struggling from the effects of the pandemic and lockdowns. We may be in a dark place right now, but there is light at the end of the tunnel. For us to get there, we need to all work together.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte for his speech, in which he talked about the reckless spending that could lead to uncertainty.

I would ask my colleague to think about this. Would it actually not be the lack of predictability for our businesses, particularly in terms of the income stabilization programs, that would lead to this uncertainty? Certain sectors are worried. Some sectors, like sugar shacks, have been forgotten altogether and others, like tourism, will be affected for a longer period of time.

Would he have wanted the government to extend the Canada emergency wage subsidy or the Canada emergency rent subsidy for as long as necessary, or does he prefer austerity? He talked about health. Is he prepared to make cuts? Does he realize that what we really need is a 35% increase in health transfers, rather than a national framework for mental health?

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the importance of helping certain economic sectors for as long as possible and on the need to protect other sectors.

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

Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of great points in that question and I would like to try to address a few of those.

The biggest problem going forward is having a plan and knowing firm dates. As I mentioned in my speech, Hammond Transportation has been literally and figuratively shut down for 18 months. It has been struggling. The meeting I had with the company last week was about reopening. Officials mentioned that unless they had secure reopening dates and knew when they could bring business back online, they would not be able to plan. They have had many employees leave and they cannot bring them back until they know dates.

The tourism industry has been one of the hardest hit sectors. We need to make sure we are not just cutting off programs. We need to make sure we are giving them plans and dates to go with that.

I was also asked about mental health and where we go for that. I am proud to say that the Conservative Party has a five-point plan, and one of our top five points is to secure mental health. The last year has made clear the mental health crisis we face. It is time to make it clear that mental health is health, and it is time to treat it properly.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding I represent many coastal communities. We have a long history of tourism-based industry and it has really been struggling. A large number of people who come to visit us are international. I really admire the strength in our communities and how they are marketing to a more local group to try to get people to come out.

One of the things that concerns me in this document is the fact that the funding and resources for those small businesses, those tourism businesses, is not long enough. It is not stable enough and does not provide the supports that they need to still be here so we can rebuild the economy. Could the member speak to that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I live in central Ontario. We have a huge hub of tourism here. Just north of us is the gateway to northern Ontario and the Muskoka area, which has a tremendous amount of tourism.

As I mentioned in my previous answer, we need to make sure there is a planned date and a plan to go forward. How are we going to get there? We cannot just keep telling people that someday they will be able to open and someday they will be able to bring tourists back. We need to make sure they have a planned date.

The reason we are in this so late and so far behind is originally because of the late coming of vaccines. Now, especially in central Ontario, vaccines are starting to roll out. We can see that things are better and we will get there. We need firm planned dates. That is how we get around this.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in a previous answer the member was speaking about our mental health plan. I would like to give him an opportunity to touch on some of the details in that plan, such as the 988 hotline, and how important it is to help Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, three-digit access to mental health is imperative to the Conservatives. It was brought forward by a good member of our party. We pushed for that. We are not getting that pushed through quickly enough, but it is greatly needed. I am hearing great things in the community about that system and we need to get that going.

I thank the hon. member for the question on mental health because, quite frankly, our three bases for going forward are to boost funding to the provinces for mental health care, to provide incentives to employers to give mental health coverage to employees, and to create a nationwide three-digit suicide prevention hotline. That is our plan going forward on mental health.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to publicly congratulate you. You have fulfilled the duties of your position with brilliance and dignity for 10 years, and you have done a wonderful job of promoting the language of Molière, which is dear to my heart. I therefore want to congratulate you, thank you for everything you have done and wish you all the best in the future.

I am very pleased that we are at report stage. We spent a lot of time on this bill in committee, and it is finally back in the House. Only two amendments were proposed at report stage, and they were proposed by the government.

The first amendment is ridiculous. It would make the wage subsidy off-limits for political parties but only as of this summer, well after all the parties would have happily put their hands in the cookie jar. I want to point out that all the parties have done that, except the Bloc Québécois.

As members know, all the political parties have raised record amounts during the pandemic, but that is not enough. The government twisted the spirit of the program, which was designed to help the workers and businesses affected by the pandemic. This program was paid for by our tax dollars and ran up the collective debt.

Political parties were never mentioned in the bill, but the agency nevertheless decided to include them. This made it possible for the Liberal Party to receive $1 million, even though it raised $15 million in 2020 alone. That is outrageous. What is worse is that after refusing to exclude political parties from receiving the subsidy, which allowed the Liberal Party to keep its $1 million, the government is proposing to offer this subsidy in July even though no other party is using it. That is textbook Liberal hypocrisy.

If the first amendment is ridiculous, the second is downright dangerous. The government's second amendment is very serious and threatens the very lifeblood of Quebec's economy. It seeks to undo what was voted in committee, which will harm Quebec and the other provinces and make Bay Street even happier.

The government wants the House to restore funding for the Canadian Securities Transition Office in Toronto. The government is so fixated on dealing Quebec's economy a devastating blow that it is asking the House to backtrack on what was passed in committee. We know that Bay Street matters more to the government than all of Quebec. We know that centralizing securities regulation is an infringement on the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Ottawa wants to wipe out Quebec's financial sector. This Liberal amendment would renew and considerably increase the budget of the Canadian Securities Transition Office to expedite its work. It would authorize the government to make payments of up to $119.5 million or even more if Parliament voted to do so in an appropriation act.

The transition office was set up in July 2009 to create a single Canada-wide securities regulator in Toronto. Basically, securities are financial assets, such as stocks, bonds and other instruments. In Quebec, securities are overseen by the Autorité des marchés financiers, the AMF.

The Supreme Court of Canada has dealt Ottawa a number of setbacks, deeming that securities do not fall under federal jurisdiction. However, in 2018 Ottawa finally got the green light to intervene in this area, provided that it did not act unilaterally and agreed to co-operate with the provinces. That is the agreement on paper, but we all know that, ultimately, this will centralize everything and strip Quebec of its financial hub.

Again, Ottawa is trampling on provincial jurisdiction and wants to centralize everything. Paternalistic Ottawa no longer wants a federation, it wants everything. Everything needs Ottawa's blessing. It is the alpha and the omega. It is too bad for Quebec, its nation and the rights of the provinces.

This is a harmful plan. The federal government's plan to establish a Canada-wide securities regulator in Toronto would inevitably translate into a creep of regulatory activities outside Quebec. This plan is just bad and must never see the light of day.

This is more than just a dispute over jurisdictions or mere squabbling between the federal level and the provinces. This is a battle between Bay Street and Quebec. Without a complete financial ecosystem, it is unrealistic to think that we will be able to hang on to our head offices. In our eyes, economic nationalism would become just an empty slogan.

That is why everyone in Quebec is against it. Every political party, the business community, the financial sector and labour-sponsored funds oppose this plan. For example, the Quebec National Assembly has adopted four unanimous motions denouncing the plan. Seldom have we seen Quebec's business community come together as one to oppose a government initiative.

In addition to the Government of Quebec and the four unanimous motions from the National Assembly, this plan faces vehement opposition in economic circles, including from the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, Finance Montréal, the International Financial Centre corporation, the Desjardins Group, and the Fonds de solidarité FTQ, as well as most Quebec businesses, like Air Transat, Transcontinental, Canam, Québecor, Metro, La Capitale, Cogeco, Molson, and the list goes on.

A strong Quebec AMF means a strong talent pool to regulate the finance sector, which is a prerequisite for the sector's development. When the Toronto Stock Exchange bought the Bourse de Montréal, the Commission des valeurs mobilières, a precursor to the AMF, made it a condition of the sale that Montreal retain a stock exchange. We know that it specializes in derivatives, including the carbon market.

In Quebec, the financial sector represents 150,000 jobs and contributes more than $20 billion, or the equivalent of 6.3% of the GDP. That is what the government is going after with its extremely dangerous and harmful amendment.

Close to 100,000 of these jobs are in Montreal, which ranks 13th among the world's financial centres according to the Global Financial Centres Index.

This is an attack on our ability to keep our head offices and preserve our businesses. The Task Force on the Protection of Québec Businesses estimates that the 578 head offices in Quebec represent 50,000 jobs with a salary that is twice as high as the Quebec average, in addition to 20,000 other jobs at specialized service providers such as accounting, legal, financial or computer services.

Quebec companies tend to favour Quebec suppliers, while foreign companies in Quebec rely more on globalized supply chains, with all the impact that can have on our network of SMEs, in the regions in particular. We saw with the pandemic that globalized supply chains are fragile and make us entirely dependent on foreign supply.

The bottom line is that this amendment is an attack on Quebec's entire economy. It is a direct affront. This is important, and we must vote against this amendment.

Lastly, companies tend to concentrate their strategic planning, particularly their scientific research and development, where their head office is. A subsidiary economy is a less innovative one, and we do not want to lose our innovative economy in Quebec.

A strong financial hub is vital to the functioning of our head offices and the preservation of our businesses. Keeping the sector's regulator in Quebec ensures that decision-makers are nearby, which in turn enables access to capital markets for businesses, which is essential to support business investment and growth across Quebec.

That is what the government's harmful amendment is all about. This amendment would not help interprovincial trade, contrary to what the government might say. The passport system, the fight against money laundering and fraud, and the collaboration and co-operation among the various securities regulators are working quite well. Centralization will not do anything to improve that, contrary to the fallacious arguments put forward by the government.

The Standing Committee on Finance chose to nip that idea in the bud by deleting that clause of Bill C‑30. That basically cut the funding for the plan to centralize the financial sector in Toronto. I urge all my colleagues in the House to stand behind the committee's decision and to vote in favour of the economy of Quebec, vote against this gift to Bay Street and reject this amendment like we did in committee.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 2.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

When this bill was last before the House, the hon. member for Joliette had five minutes remaining for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for his speech.

He spoke in particular about the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which was used a lot in my riding to help businesses like those in the Granby industrial park get through the crisis.

I would like to come back to a somewhat troubling statement made by a Liberal colleague. He said that a political party can be compared to a business that is struggling during the crisis. He was attempting to justify the fact that political parties got to put their hands in the cookie jar as if they were no different from businesses that were going through a difficult crisis and that needed the subsidy to survive.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this very troubling statement by the Liberal Party.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend, the member for Shefford.

What the political parties in the House did, with the exception of Bloc Québécois, was despicable and inexcusable.

In a time of crisis, the government decided to implement a program to support workers and businesses that might not be able to make it through the crisis. That money will have to be paid back through taxes and the collective debt.

The Liberal Party and the other political parties are distorting the spirit of the bill by claiming that political parties are like non-profit organizations. The Prime Minister ordered the agency administering this program to cast the net wide. He got what he wanted. The Liberal Party made $1 million from it, when it already had a record fundraising year. That is unacceptable, and the amendment that the government is proposing to Bill C-30 is despicable. As of this summer, the political parties will no longer be eligible for the Canada emergency wage subsidy, but they have already emptied the cookie jar. That is shameful and inexcusable. I would be ashamed to—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for his speech. His passion for securities is remarkable. That was very interesting.

I would like to raise a more long-term issue.

Although there are some good things in this budget, there is a lot missing. I will get into that later during my speech.

I think this budget is short-sighted. We are emerging from a pandemic, but I do not see any long-term planning in this budget for the next health or economic crisis. There will be more viruses. There will be more pandemics.

Did the government learn anything from COVID-19 about our social safety net or our health care system? Will it make the same mistakes next time? A more aggressive, deadlier virus could strike and make our lives even more difficult.

Does my colleague from Joliette think the government is making that transition?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my regards to my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, and I thank him for his intervention. I look forward to listening to his speech because his remarks are always very constructive.

I completely agree with him, and I will give an example. The Standing Committee on Finance heard testimony from the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses. The organization's spokesperson, Pierre Céré, told us to be careful because, as of September, employment insurance will once again have two blind spots that have been around since the 1990s and that need to be fixed, because no one has done it yet.

We tried to change that in committee, with the member's colleague from Burnaby South, but our request was not deemed receivable. The government does not want to fix the problem. We are therefore stuck with an EI program that has to be changed. The crisis revealed that it does not work, but we are back to the Axworthy reforms of the 1990s, with all the problems that entails. It is a somewhat short-sighted budget.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-30 is a continuation of what the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus committed to back when this all began a year ago; that we would have the backs of Canadians and be there in a very real and tangible way. We developed a suite of programs and supports so Canadians would be in a better position to get through the pandemic, and this is a continuation of that.

Could the member provide his thoughts on the passage of the legislation and how it would continue to provide ongoing support for Canadians?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and comments.

I would like to note one thing that concerns me in Bill C-30: the reduction of the Canada emergency wage subsidy, including for the hardest-hit sectors like the cultural industry and the tourism sector.

The minister has the power to increase the percentage of this subsidy and even extend it to November. With no predictability being offered to these hard-hit sectors, we have little guarantee that they will get the support they need. I would like a commitment from the Minister of Finance on that.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1.

Before I do so, I want to take the opportunity afforded to members in this place to speak to another issue of national importance.

Canada has stood in mourning with the survivors of residential schools and their families after the recent tragic discovery of 215 children in an unmarked grave at the former Kamloops residential school. Last week, I was asked by the former chief of the Tk'emlúps first nation, Manny Jules, to read a poem of healing for the nation, and I ask members for their understanding and patience as I do so now. I hope from the way he read it to me, that I can do this justice.

This poem is entitled Monster, A Residential School Experience, by Dennis Saddleman:

I hate you residential school
I hate you
You’re a monster
A huge hungry monster
Built with steel bones
Built with cement flesh
You’re a monster
Built to devour
Innocent native children
You’re a cold-hearted monster
Cold as the cement floors
You have no love
No gentle atmosphere
Your ugly face grooved with red bricks
Your monster eyes glare
From grimy windows
Monster eyes so evil
Monster eyes watching
Terrified children
Cower with shame
I hate you residential school i hate you
You’re a slimy monster
Oozing in the shadows of my past
Go away leave me alone
You’re following me following me wherever i go
You’re in my dreams in my memories
Go away monster go away
I hate you you’re following me
I hate you residential school i hate you
You’re a monster with huge watery mouth
Mouth of double doors
Your wide mouth took me
Your yellow stained teeth chewed
The indian out of me
Your teeth crunched my language
Grinded my rituals and my traditions
Your taste buds became bitter
When you tasted my red skin
You swallowed me with disgust
Your face wrinkled when you
Tasted my strong pride
I hate you residential school i hate you
You’re a monster
Your throat muscles forced me
Down to your stomach
Your throat muscles squeezed my happiness
Squeezed my dreams
Squeezed my native voice
Your throat became clogged with my sacred spirit
You coughed and you choked
For you cannot with stand my
Spiritual songs and dances
I hate you residential school i hate you
You’re a monster
Your stomach upset every time i wet my bed
Your stomach rumbled with anger
Every time i fell asleep in church
Your stomach growled at me every time I broke the school rules
Your stomach was full You burped
You felt satisfied You rubbed your belly and you didn’t care
You didn’t care how you ate up my native Culture
You didn’t care if you were messy
if you were piggy
You didn’t care as long as you ate up my Indianness
I hate you Residential School I hate you
You’re a monster
Your veins clotted with cruelty and torture
Your blood poisoned with loneliness and despair
Your heart was cold it pumped fear into me
I hate you Residential School I hate you
You’re a monster
Your intestines turned me into foul entrails
Your anal squeezed me
squeezed my confidence
squeezed my self respect
Your anal squeezed
then you dumped me
Dumped me without parental skills
without life skills
Dumped me without any form of character
without individual talents
without a hope for success
I hate you Residential School I hate you
You’re a monster
You dumped me in the toilet then
You flushed out my good nature
my personalities
I hate you Residential School I hate you
You’re a monster………I hate hate hate you
Thirty three years later
I rode my chevy pony to Kamloops
From the highway I saw the monster
My Gawd! The monster is still alive
I hesitated I wanted to drive on
but something told me to stop
I parked in front of the Residential School
in front of the monster
The monster saw me and it stared at me
The monster saw me and I stared back
We both never said anything for a long time
Finally with a lump in my throat
I said, “Monster I forgive you.”
The monster broke into tears
The monster cried and cried
His huge shoulders shook
He motioned for me to come forward
He asked me to sit on his lappy stairs
The monster spoke
You know I didn’t like my Government Father
I didn’t like my Catholic Church Mother
I’m glad the Native People adopted me
They took me as one of their own
They fixed me up Repaired my mouth of double doors
Washed my window eyes with cedar and fir boughs
They cleansed me with sage and sweetgrass
Now my good spirit lives
The Native People let me stay on their land
They could of burnt me you know instead they let me live
so People can come here to school restore or learn about their culture
The monster said, “I’m glad the Native People gave me another chance
I’m glad Dennis you gave me another chance
The monster smiled
I stood up I told the monster I must go
Ahead of me is my life. My people are waiting for me
I was at the door of my chevy pony
The monster spoke, “Hey you forgot something
I turned around I saw a ghost child running down the cement steps
It ran towards me and it entered my body
I looked over to the monster I was surprised
I wasn’t looking at a monster anymore
I was looking at an old school In my heart I thought
This is where I earned my diploma of survival
I was looking at an old Residential School who
became my elder of my memories
I was looking at a tall building with four stories
stories of hope
stories of dreams
stories of renewal
and stories of tomorrow

That, again, is a poem called Monster, A Residential School Experience, by Dennis Saddleman. Again, I was asked by a the former chief of the Tk'emlúps first nation, Manny Jules, to read that as a way to help the nation heal. When he read it to me, it was quite emotional and I hope I did that justice.

The government continues to move forward on this file, something that is very important, and it is time for action. As an opposition, we have asked for a clear action plan by July 1 on calls to action 71 through 76 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report. All first nations communities across Canada need that healing. It is time we listen to them and follow their lead and have action.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for sharing that poem with the House.

Lives do matter, and the number 215 appears now in many windows in the north end of Winnipeg. In fact, when I drive down Dufferin, I see a red dress in a window. When I drive over the Salter Bridge, I see red and orange ribbons. It reminds me almost on a daily basis of the importance of reconciliation. We all have a very important role to play in being supportive and encouraging people, in particular indigenous community members, to speak out and to lead us on the reconciliation. I would like to think that we each have a role to play, all members of Parliament.

I wonder if my friend could provide his thoughts on just how important reconciliation is for his community and indeed for all of Canada. I am thinking of the calls to action and the report on murdered—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Winnipeg North. I think each and every one of us has a role to play in this place and in our communities; how we listen, how we react to these stories. They are quite painful in many cases, but it is how we move forward.

Reconciliation comes in many forms. As a Parliament, as a government, as members who live in each of our communities, we do have that role to play and we do need to start listening to those voices on the ground that are telling us their path forward and how they wish to proceed. That is of utmost importance.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, meegwetch to the member for his testimony.

In the context of the budget debate, one very alarming thing that we do not talk about enough in the House is the importance of affordable housing, social housing and housing full stop. We talked about it briefly this week. The need for housing for first nations is absolutely critical.

Should this budget not have made more room for housing, including first nations housing? This is a matter of dignity, quality of life and respect.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend could not be more right. The need for proper housing in indigenous communities should be top of mind for everyone in this place. During the pandemic we have all seen the crowded situations and the fact that the virus does spread quicker inside tight spaces with lots of people. This is where governments need to re-evaluate how they are doing business because in many cases, the first nations communities have ideas and ways to fix this problem.

I am not just blaming one government. It has been successive governments over many decades, actually 100 plus years, so that is where, rather than “Ottawa knows best” and Ottawa deciding how things are done, we start doing things differently. Let us listen to the people on the ground in the communities who know how to fix this problem. We just are not listening.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his comments and to acknowledge how it has impacted his own heart.

However, here is the thing. Yesterday, I put forward a unanimous consent motion seeking truth, to call what happened in residential schools for what it is, a genocide. That truth was denied, leaving survivors and families and our experience up for debate.

I believe my colleague has a level of understanding. Will he honour this truth about our Canadian history, that what happened in residential schools was violent and in fact a genocide, so that we can close the debate that survivors have to go through continually?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the passion of my friend from the NDP. We served on many committees together over the years and she is truly a strong voice for her community. I appreciate every time I have the opportunity to work with her because I have learned a lot from her. I hope to continue doing that.

In terms of her question, I do support the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action. It is a cultural genocide, there is no doubt about that. We continue to learn and try to fix mistakes of the past, but also learn so things like this never, ever happen again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his moving and heartfelt speech. It will be hard for me to follow that, and I will not be able to convey such a deep respect for human dignity in light of the horrific events that occurred all over the country and throughout its history. I thank my colleague for his speech and I will do my best to speak to Bill C-30, the budget implementation bill.

There are some good things in this budget, but there are also things missing from it. I will obviously get back to this, since that is part of my job as an opposition member. What worries me most about this budget is that the government still seems to be putting a band-aid on a cancer and scrambling to fill in the potholes. This budget lacks vision. It is as though the government cannot see the forest for the trees.

We have not yet emerged from the crisis we have been dealing with for the past year and a half. However, the vaccination numbers, especially in Quebec and Ontario, are reassuring. We are on track for 75% of people to get their second dose by the end of the summer. Canada is behind many other countries, but I think we are getting through this together. This crisis was a huge tragedy. Tens of thousands of our fellow citizens got sick and will get sick in the coming years. Many others died.

Over the past 18 months, we have also realized how poorly prepared we were, and I am worried that future events could catch us just as unprepared. We want to believe that we learn from our mistakes and that things will be different next time, yet we have been through SARS and other epidemics before. Each time, we were not prepared and were caught unawares.

Both our social safety net and our health care systems had flaws and weaknesses. However, instead of fixing them, at times we made them worse, including by making cuts to health transfers to the provinces, something that was started by the Conservatives and carried on by the Liberals. Outside of some one-time measures, it does not seem like the government is really enhancing our capabilities and our public services to provide high-quality services and care with the right equipment to get through a pandemic like this one.

Make no mistake, this pandemic will not be the last. Pandemics happened several times in the 20th century, they have already happened a few times in the 21st century, and they will continue to happen. Will we be prepared next time?

Will our health care system and professionals be treated well? Will we provide our orderlies and nurses with better working conditions and decent shifts? Will we collaborate to ensure that we do not let down seniors in long-term care? The death toll at the beginning of the pandemic, especially at the Herron long-term care home in Dorval, on Montreal's West Island, was appalling.

Will we change the way we work? In terms of workplace relations, will we continue to work from home, or will we go back to the office? What will we do to prepare for next time? Will we have enough medical equipment for everyone?

Will Canada have the industrial capacity to do vaccine research, but also to design, create and manufacture vaccines as well? Over the past few years, our country has lost its entire domestic vaccine production capacity, and we saw how unprepared we were for the pandemic as a result and how dependent we were on our neighbours to manufacture vaccines, medical equipment, respirators and ventilators.

Will we have enough oxygen cylinders next time? If the next virus is more aggressive, more contagious and more deadly, will we be able to overcome it and ensure that our social safety net can protect everyone and leave no one behind?

I believe that this budget addresses some but not all of the short-term needs, but unfortunately, we are not planning for the post-pandemic reality and the new society that we could collectively create if we had the resources. We could create a society that is fairer, more prosperous, more equitable, greener, and also better prepared to face these kinds of challenges, because this will not be the last time that we have to.

This will also not be the last time that climate crises could worsen because of global warming. That is another subject, but it is still related because of the public health problems it can cause, whether it be respiratory problems or the spread of certain viruses, or simply disasters that will be extremely costly to both the agricultural sector specifically and societies in general.

This budget and this budget implementation bill have flaws. The pandemic demonstrated that we had societies that were very inequitable, and these inequalities have widened considerably over the past 18 months. I have seen statistics showing that the wealth of the richest families and individuals in Canada grew by about $78 billion during the pandemic. We are talking about less than 1% of the population. While most people were suffering, losing their jobs, watching their small businesses struggle to survive or even close down, the ultrarich were lining their pockets.

The Liberal government has not included any concrete measures in this budget to attack this excessive, outrageous and indecent increase in wealth, except for a special tax on the purchase of certain boats, luxury vehicles or private planes. A super-rich person who pocketed tens of millions of dollars in profit just has to avoid buying a private plane, and this measure will change absolutely nothing in their life.

As Oxfam Canada revealed a few months ago, as a result of this rise in inequality, people from big companies, like Amazon's Jeff Bezos, made truly gargantuan profits during this pandemic. Jeff Bezos has approximately 600,000 employees around the world, which is quite a lot. If Mr. Bezos took out his cheque book and wrote 600,000 cheques for $110,000, one for each of his employees, he would still be just as rich as he was before the pandemic. Needless to say, he was already far from poor before the pandemic.

What are the Liberals presenting in this budget to reduce inequality and make the super-rich, multi-millionaires and billionaires pay their share? Not much, as I said. The budget talks about boats and planes, but that is about it.

The government could have imposed a tax on wealth. It could have imposed an additional tax of 1% on people with a fortune of over $20 million. That does not seem excessive to me. It would free up a considerable amount of revenue so we could have social programs that would take care of people and a truly public health care system that could meet the needs of the population. Why is there no tax on wealth?

I mentioned Amazon and Jeff Bezos. Why is there no special tax on excessive profits during a pandemic? In the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and pretty much all over Montreal, small businesses have suffered and have had a hard time making ends meet. Many of them have gone out of business even as giant Internet corporations like Amazon and its ilk have raked in the cash. Not only are web giants not yet being taxed by the Liberal government on what they earn in Canada and Quebec, but they have also been reaping obscene profits during the pandemic. The Liberal government does not have the courage to do anything about this.

Why has the government not altered its approach to tax havens? Every serious assessment of the situation, including those by the Department of Finance and the Conference Board of Canada, tells us that we are losing tens of billions of dollars every year because the super-rich can squirrel their money away in the Cayman Islands or Barbados so they do not have to pay a penny in taxes in Canada or, if they do, it is a pittance. This has been going on for years, with neither Conservatives nor Liberals doing anything about it. Most of these tax havens were created by Canadian banks, which were able to make rules that suited them so they could enable their clients and KPMG clients to avoid paying tax here by using financial schemes that no federal government has made any real effort to take down.

As Professor Alain Deneault has explained, if you are injured and you have to wait in an emergency room for 10 or 20 hours to see a doctor, it is because of tax havens. When you are waiting for a bus on a street corner in the rain and the bus does not come because it is broken down, there is no one to fix it and public transit is deficient, that is because of tax havens. If our communities do not have sufficient social housing and co-operative housing, it is because the rich are not paying their fair share. It is because of tax havens.

I wish we had a government that had the courage to tackle these issues. An NDP government will do just that one day.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada now has $4 of debt for every dollar that our economy brings in. That is a record ratio and is double the average over the past 60 years.

The government is printing money and has created $354 billion through the Bank of Canada. This is driving up inflation, especially with respect to house prices. This inflation could drive interest rates up, which would affect the record levels of debt held by our families, businesses and governments.

Does the member agree with me that we could end up with a crisis if interest rates rise before we reduce our debt?

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

Mr. Speaker, we do need to be careful. We do not want to wind up with inflation that prompts extremely excessive interest rates for our economy.

However, we also need to put things in perspective. Every country in the world has increased its debt during the pandemic. We are not alone in that. The same thing happened in Europe, Japan and the United States. In this context, our debt-to-GDP ratio is still competitive compared to most other OECD countries.

I would say that it is still more important to target the wealthy and the web giants who are not paying their fair share. We must not only look at expenditures, but also look at government revenues, which the Conservatives and Liberals unfortunately do not generally do.

Some investments provide excellent returns. If we give some households access to social housing, it frees up money for these people to participate in economic activity, join in activities in their neighbourhood, village or city and contribute to economic growth. It lifts them out of poverty, and that is good for everyone. Furthermore, providing more low-cost housing, such as social housing, reduces pressure on the market and prevents house prices from rising as quickly as they are at present.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The Minister of National Revenue boasts about having injected $1 billion into the fight against tax evasion. Had this been done properly, perhaps she would have had more money for her fishing wharfs, which are not getting enough funding. There is one approach that would cost absolutely nothing, and that is making regulatory amendments to eliminate some tax havens.

In this context, can we agree that the government's measures to combat tax evasion and avoidance are more smoke and mirrors than anything else?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saint-Jean for her question, and I completely agree with her.

There are aspects of Canadian tax law that the government could change, namely a regulation or two, without even having to introduce a bill. This would eliminate all kinds of excessive tax avoidance and even tax evasion. However, the government is not doing that because its hands are tied by the people on Bay Street, for whom these arrangements are quite advantageous, because their super-rich, multi-millionaire friends profit from them.

The government said that it is going to give the Canada Revenue Agency more inspectors and more resources. The problem is that many of these schemes are legal. There is no point in setting more police officers to guard the bank if bank robbery is legal. The government needs to change the regulations and the laws because, otherwise, nothing will change. These people will continue to laugh in our faces, they will continue to use their little schemes and we, collectively, are the ones who will pay the price. It is the middle class that ends up paying for our infrastructure and public services, while the super-rich do not contribute.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very important and powerful speech. I just want to acknowledge the member for Hamilton Mountain and his fierce work around addressing the issues that seniors face in our country. Right now, what we are seeing is a two-tier system for seniors. We have the “junior seniors” who get paid one amount, and then we have the “senior seniors” who get paid a bit more. I think that is absolutely unfair.

What are the member's thoughts on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question. Indeed, we cannot understand why the Liberals are creating two classes of seniors in this country.

People aged 65 and over used to be able to count on certain rights and services. They had access to certain programs, like OAS.

Now the Liberal government says that people aged 75 and older will receive a 10% increase, and tough luck for people aged 65 to 75. Meanwhile, the circumstances of seniors who live in poverty have not really improved during the pandemic. They have even been quite catastrophic.

I agree with my colleague from Hamilton Mountain when he says that this is discrimination against our seniors, and the NDP will fight against that. I also want to commend him on the work he has accomplished over the course of his career to protect our workers' pensions and retirement plans.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today and speak to the budget. I actually did not think I would get the opportunity to do this. I did not think I would see a budget from the government, so I am pleased to speak to it today.

I want to put this into the context of COVID-19. Last March, the government shut down the economy because of the pandemic, and we Conservatives co-operated with a lot of these emergency support measures, which was important to do at the time. I want to highlight the Liberals' approach to this.

The very first thing the Liberals did was use their bills as a power grab. They wanted to have the superpower to be able to do whatever they wanted and spend however much they wanted until December of this year, which is still six months from now. That is what they had asked for. Of course, we did not allow them to do this.

The second thing they did was take the power they did have, which was to spend some money, and direct that money to their friends. We think of former Liberal MP Frank Baylis, who got a contract for respirators even though his company had no experience or specialty in that area, and of course the WE scandal, which we have heard a lot about this week, where the government found a way to funnel money to its friends the Kielburgers.

When we exposed all those things, the Liberals did a third thing, which was to prorogue Parliament. They did not want investigations. They did not want documents to come out, and they did not want people to know what was going on. That prorogation of Parliament has created where we are now, where we have this last-ditch, last-hour effort to get this budget passed.

While all of that was going on, Canada was in a significant recession. Our GDP was negative 11.5% last summer. We had record double-digit unemployment, and many small businesses were shut down, including many in Saskatoon, particularly in the tourism sector. Then finally, in the fall, we got an economic statement. Finally, there was some acknowledgement that the government needed to provide some numbers, and yet even that understated the depth of the economic calamity that was hitting Canada.

While all that was going on, the solution to the problem, which was the acquisition of vaccines, was a failure by the government. The first thing the Liberals did was bet the farm on the Chinese dictatorship supplying all the vaccines Canada would need. Of course, that failed and the partnership with CanSino was a failure.

Once that failed, the Liberals talked a big game about ordering vaccines. They like to highlight all the vaccines they ordered. I was in charge of a manufacturing plant, and my boss was not overly concerned with what I ordered. He wanted output. He wanted me to produce products. When I told him I could not, he did not want to hear excuses; he just wanted the products produced. It is one thing to talk about excuses, about ordering this and that, but the real deal is landing those products in the country, in this case in Canada, and getting the vaccines into the arms of people.

Canada has consistently been at the bottom of OECD countries when it comes to getting people fully vaccinated. Why is that? It is because of this difference between ordering and actually landing products in the country. After all these months, we are still at less than 10% of Canadians fully vaccinated with two doses. The Liberals are very good at talking and not so good at actually doing.

On this budget, it is a major letdown. Unemployed Canadians feel let down, workers feel let down and families feel let down. It is not a growth budget. There is no plan to encourage Canada's long-term prosperity, and even the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said it will not stimulate jobs or create economic growth. This is a budget about Liberal partisan priorities. It is an election budget. There is not even a plan to return to a balanced budget in the forward-looking years.

For Saskatoon West, there was money for Meewasin Trail and for VIDO-InterVac, our vaccine-producing organization associated with the University of Saskatchewan. Both are projects I have been advocating for since my election. I have asked numerous question period questions, raised it at committee, written to ministers and brought media attention to it, and I think the Liberals finally just got tired and provided some funding there.

Was there money in Saskatoon for housing projects? No. Was there money for palliative care? No. Was there money for fighting the opioid crisis? No. Was there money for mental health resources? No. Did the people of Saskatoon West get slapped with the largest deficit and debt in the history of this country? Yes, they did. Let us talk about that deficit and debt.

This past year's debt is $354 billion, and next year's is going to be $154 billion. The deficit control plan of the government is getting the deficit down to $30 billion a year in five years' time. Now, 18 months ago, $30 billion would have been viewed as a massive deficit, and today it is seen as nothing. It is not nothing.

This document is projecting a $1.4-trillion debt. That is $37,000 of debt for every man, woman and child, every Canadian; $150,000 for a family of four. That is a small mortgage. It is like the government stole the identity of every Canadian, took their credit cards and racked up $37,000 in charges that they would have to pay. Not only that, in the background, the government is still taxing Canadians.

Some people would say, “So what? Who cares? Just print more money.” Basic market principles in economics care. Every time in history when a government prints money to pay off its debts, record inflation follows. Inflation means higher prices and the money Canadians earn is worth less and less.

I want to remind Canadians of events that occurred 30 years ago. The government, at that time, had racked up unprecedented debts, and by 1995, the government was unable to borrow money. Former Liberal finance minister Paul Martin was forced to raise taxes and reduce spending. A period of hardship and pain for all Canadians followed those decisions. The government was forced to get its debt in order by the markets.

I want to personalize this a bit, because decisions that we make here in this House affect individuals. My wife and I bought our first house in 1989, right in the middle of this period. Our interest rate on our first mortgage was 13%. To put that in perspective, if someone has a $1,000 mortgage payment today because of a 2% interest rate, and that interest rate were to go to 13%, like my first one, that $1,000 payment becomes a $2,700 a month payment, almost triple. Even if interest rates only went to 5%, that $1,000 becomes a $1,500 payment. It is a 50% higher payment.

With this budget, the Liberal government has made a trillion dollar bet that interest rates are going to stay low forever. Of course history says otherwise. From 1965 to now, the average five-year mortgage rate was about 9%. There was a 20-year period from 1975 to 1995 where the average mortgage rate was about 12%. It is only in the last decade that it has been consistently below 5%, and that is not sustainable.

The government is repeating the same mistakes of 30 years ago. At best, we are mortgaging our children's future. At worst, we are going to face another debt crisis, like Paul Martin did. The Liberals are spending money now, knowing that inflation is going to cost our younger generations.

What did we get for all this spending? We got $52 million for Liberal pet project A, and $300 million for Liberal pet project B, and hundreds of billions more split up against other Liberal pet projects. Will some of these benefit Canadians? Time will tell. Will the cost of Liberals buying votes for the next election burden generations of Canadians to come? Absolutely.

I want to turn to my home riding of Saskatoon West. Our Saskatchewan economy is built on agriculture, mining, forestry and energy. Saskatoon West is the centre of many of these industries. Our downtown houses many head offices. We have industrial parks, and we have a large railway switching hub and an airport that services all of Saskatchewan, especially the north.

I want to talk specifically about the energy sector. I sit on the environment committee, so I have a unique perspective. The budget was a missed opportunity to grow Canada's largest economic sector. In fact, the Liberals are failing our energy sector. Energy East, of course, cancelled. Teck Resources, Kitimat LNG cancelled. Keystone XL cancelled just this week. The Trans Mountain pipeline is in limbo. Also in limbo is Enbridge Line 5, which delivers much of western Canadian oil to Ontario and Quebec via the U.S.A.

What about small businesses in Saskatoon West? I have been a consistent advocate. The Liberal COVID-19 programs failed small businesses. The initial rent program was horribly designed, and left most tenants without help. The wage subsidy was initially written to exclude most workers, and we had to push the government for the rules to be changed. Then, of course, the CRA began auditing small businesses. We had to put forward a motion to end those unnecessary audits. I have spoken about these issues. Conservatives will continue to be there for small business.

I graduated from university as an accountant, and I worked for many years in business management. I worked in different companies, from large multinational businesses to owning and operating my own small business. The reason I ran for office here stemmed from my desire to bring some business acumen to the federal government. I believe we need a good cross-section of skills. We need drama teachers and journalists, but we also need financially minded people who understand economics and monetary policy. I think this budget proves my point very well.

This is an election budget. The foundational question was not what is in the best interests of Canadians. It was, what is the surefire way to get re-elected. Canadians can see right through this. That is why the people of Saskatoon West elected a Conservative MP in 2019, and that is why we need to elect more Conservative MPs next time. Only a Conservative government could secure our economy and secure our future.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my concern with the Conservatives' approach to this is that, on the one hand, they say that we could have done more in terms of providing financial support and then, on the other hand, they are critical because we have borrowed as much money as we have. We have consistently provided support packages for seniors, students, workers and businesses to enable us to build back better once we get through the pandemic.

I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on the importance of being consistent in what one says in the chamber.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is a phrase that I live by: Work smarter, not harder. Many of the things that we have seen from the government are the opposite of that. Money was given to dead people. If we look at the cross-section of who got the most money, it was the wealthier families that got it. It was not the lower-income families. There were many things, in the way these programs were set up, that were inefficient and poorly designed.

I truly believe that had Conservatives been in power, we could have achieved better results for less money, because that is the way we Conservatives do things and that is the way we think.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Saskatoon West was talking about financial support. What I am hearing in Hamilton Mountain and across the country is that many seniors have complained about the latest budget having a two-tiered pension system for those over the age of 65. They feel it is wrong and they have high costs like everybody else.

I want to know if the member is hearing the same thing in his riding and if he supports the Liberal way or would he support making sure all people aged 65 and up are treated the same?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing the same thing. I have talked to many seniors who are upset with many different aspects of what the government is doing.

I believe that seniors built our country, seniors are the foundation upon which we live and it is because of seniors that I am standing here today. We all stand on the shoulders of our seniors, so they are very important.

We need to provide for seniors. We need to be fair to seniors. No, I do not think it is right to have the two-tiered system for seniors. The government needs to do what it can to take care of them. That is something Conservatives are committed to and I certainly am.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about debt. Canada has $4 of debt for $1 of GDP, a record ratio. There is $8.6 trillion of debt. The government is printing money to pay for all this debt, which is driving up inflation that will lead to higher interest rates and cause a debt crisis.

Does the member worry that when the government's policy of printing money to drive up inflation and interest rates fully plays out, we will have a debt crisis?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely think we will. I can speak to that because I lived through that. I lived through the 1990s. Like I said, my first mortgage had a 13% interest rate and I worry that my children and my future grandchildren, if I have any, will have to deal with this. They will have high interest rates that they simply will not be able to afford. When we talk about housing affordability being out of reach right now, it is going to be impossible if interest rates go to those kinds of levels. That is the future we are heading into with budgets like this.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the budget implementation bill and give some overall thoughts about the budget. The document itself, as tabled by the Minister of Finance, was 725 pages long. It is the largest budget document in federal history. Unfortunately, quantity does not necessarily mean quality.

In terms of quantity, we have record spending and deficits. This fiscal year and the last fiscal year are ranked one and two, and both contain the largest amount of spending and the largest deficits in recorded Canadian history. It is not even close to the third-highest deficit. The current deficit that will have to be paid by Canadians will total over half a trillion dollars. That is just for the last two years. There is surely more to come. If we write on a piece of paper the number 5 followed by 11 zeros, that is nearly the amount of accumulated deficit incurred since Confederation. We are far from where we were when the Prime Minister promised “a modest short-term deficit” six years ago.

Canadians will be paying for this spending for decades. Since all of the spending comes from borrowed money, we will also be paying interest. We are not paying off the debt today, but its effects will drag on our economy like an anchor weighing down a swimmer in the ocean.

Right now, interest rates are being held low. The Bank of Canada is purchasing government debt off the open market, which puts downward pressure on interest rates. This allows the government to borrow and spend, but this is impacting the lives of everyday people in my riding of Richmond Centre.

Consequently, the price of everything is increasing. Indeed, with easy credit due to low interest rates, the prices of real estate have skyrocketed. Young constituents of mine cannot afford a place to live, while older folks are sitting on a windfall. Rents are getting higher because landlords must afford to finance and pay back higher and higher levels of debt. Unaffordability of places to live is one consequence of huge government deficits.

Higher prices are also seen in everything else, ranging from food to gasoline, services, and the list goes on. Disruptions in supply chains due to COVID-19 are not helping. Everybody at street level can see this happening. Prices were bound to rise, but the government's fiscal policy is making things a lot worse than they should be.

I do concede the point that last year in March, we knew a lot less about COVID-19 than we do today. Governments around the world reacted in different manners, but most were consistent in providing emergency supports to the population while we figured things out.

Beyond that, there was no excuse for what we have seen out of the government over the past half-year or so. The Liberal government has been very slow to bring us back on the path to recovery. Nothing illustrates this more than the snail pace of COVID-19 vaccinations that we have seen. Hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars were wasted in this initial effort.

We should be a first-world nation with first-world results, but instead the Liberal government has been lagging badly. Most Canadians at this point, including me, are in the category of having received a partial vaccination. Compared to our fully vaccinated friends down south in the U.S. and compared to countries like Israel, we have underperformed. This will cost us, and we see it in the budget today.

We see plenty of media out there showing obvious evidence that things are heading back to normal in places outside of Canada. People are attending sporting events, socializing and exercising without having to wear masks. Indeed, we are seeing hints of that occurring today from our provincial governments. However, people remember the initial promise of the federal Liberals when they said it would take two weeks to flatten the curve, which did not turn out as expected at all.

With this uncertainty, why would anybody want to make preparations for a recovery that may or may not occur? The rug has already been pulled from the floors of the restaurant industry in British Columbia, twice, with incredibly short notice.

My point is that the government's failed response with COVID-19 vaccinations has directly resulted in the necessity of additional emergency spending support. Tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars would not have had to be spent had we been one of the leaders rather than a laggard in our COVID-19 response.

However, the current Liberal government has made so many missteps that will slow down this road map. The slowness of our government's COVID response has also caused distortion in the labour market. I speak to businesses that cannot find employees because government benefits are competing with them, competing with businesses that want to hire. Going back to my original point about costs, it means the cost of labour is rising and this results in increased prices for everything. The volatile economic climate caused by the government's missteps is stalling our recovery.

At least before COVID-19, Richmond was home to a vibrant tourism sector. Today, we have travel centres and tourism-sensitive areas of the economy that are completely shut down. We need to create an environment that will get this sector back to where it was. We support tourism, but not birth tourism. This is what I have been telling people here in Richmond.

While nearly every industry from coast to coast to coast has felt the negative effects of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the hospitality and tourism industries have been especially hard hit. From international border closures to provincial border regulations and stay-at-home orders, the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Canadians, either directly in the tourism and hospitality industry or in an adjacent field, have been hammered by COVID-19.

I have heard from countless constituents who work for airlines and in the travel infrastructure, hospitality and tourism industries, and they have all told me the same thing: “We need help.”

I want to take this opportunity to express my thanks to my colleagues from Niagara Falls, Abbotsford and Durham for their efforts in bringing the voices of those in the tourism industry to parliamentarians and to this place to be heard, and indeed, they were heard.

Richmond Centre is also home to the YVR airport and to many great aerospace firms that operate and maintain our airlines, airplanes and helicopters. The budget funding needs to be implemented in conjunction with an aerospace strategy that allows us to compete in the global marketplace.

The final area I want to touch on is one which is extremely close to my heart. For a number of years, I was very fortunate to be able to serve not just Richmond, but Canadians from coast to coast—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We have finished the time allocated for Government Orders for this afternoon. The hon. member for Richmond Centre will have two minutes remaining in her time and then the usual five minutes for questions and comments when the House gets back to debate on the motion.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from June 11 consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 2.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to rise again to talk about this very important bill.

I had the privilege to serve as the Minister of State for Seniors for four years in the Harper government. In the ensuing days, my passion for being an advocate and champion of the golden generation has not waned. Indeed, in the last months of the previous Parliament, the House unanimously passed my motion, Motion No. 203, calling for action on fraud against seniors, which is a form of elder abuse. June 15 is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, so it is perfect timing that I am speaking to this very important issue.

Unfortunately, little has been done since my motion passed. For example, in the Lower Mainland, there has been a wave of scammers and thieves targeting seniors through phone calls or emails and taking advantage of those with weaker digital literacy. People of all ages are locked out of their Canada Revenue Agency accounts. Calls on the government to take further steps to address the systemic increase in elder abuse have once again fallen on deaf ears.

Of course, let us not forget those who take the time out of their day to provide support and aid not just to seniors, but to anyone who is struggling to meet the basics of everyday life. They are the informal and unpaid caregivers. Caring for the caregivers must be a central plank of any government steps to address a post-COVID-19 recovery. Unfortunately, there is little support for them in the budget.

In conclusion, the way forward needs to be treated through a reasonable, responsible, fiscally sound approach that spends Canadian tax dollars in a way that will best help Canada weather the fiscal storm on the horizon while also caring for the most vulnerable citizens. Moving forward, the government should seriously consider these urgent needs.

I am happy to take any questions.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of my concerns certainly has been the lack of support for seniors since the pandemic began. Could the member comment further on that?

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, because of COVID, a lot of seniors have been left alone and have not been able to seek assistance. Also, as I mentioned in my speech, a lot of fraud has been committed against them. Protecting seniors against all forms of elder abuse, including physical, mental and financial abuse, is very important. That is exactly what everybody should be doing, but I am afraid the government has done little or close to nothing about it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address this issue this afternoon. There are a couple of aspects that I would like to provide some comment on, but first and foremost is the idea of Bill C-30, now at report stage, and how important passing it is to all Canadians.

The other day, I talked about a progressive agenda. The Government of Canada has put forward a very strong, healthy, progressive agenda that includes today's bill, Bill C-12, Bill C-6, Bill C-10, Bill C-22 and Bill C-21. Of course, I often make reference to Bill C-19 as well. All of these pieces of legislation are important to the government, but I would argue that the most important one is the bill we are debating today, Bill C-30.

The budget is of critical importance for a wide variety of reasons. I can talk about the benefits that seniors would be receiving as a direct result of this budget bill, in particular those who are 75 and over, with the significant fulfillment of our campaign promise of a 10% increase to OAS for seniors aged 75 and above, and a one-time payment coming up in the month of August for that group. During the pandemic, we have been there for seniors, in particular those 65 and over, with one-time payments closer to the beginning of the pandemic, and even an extra amount for those who were on the guaranteed income supplement. That is not to mention the many different organizations that the government supported, whether directly or indirectly, to support our seniors, in particular non-profit organizations.

We have done a multitude of things, many of which are very tangible. The Minister of Finance made reference to the extension of some of the programs, for example, which we brought in so we could continue to be there for businesses and real people. This was so important. At the beginning of the process, the Prime Minister made it very clear that this government, the Liberal Party and the Liberal members of the House of Commons were 100% committed to working seven days a week, 24 hours a day to ensure that the interests of Canadians in combatting and fighting the pandemic were going to be priority number one.

As to that priority, we saw the establishment of a large number of new programs that ensured money was being put directly into the pockets of Canadians. One was the CERB, which benefited somewhere around nine million Canadians. Virtually out of nowhere this program came into being, in good part thanks to our civil servants, who have done a tremendous job in putting in place and administering the many different programs.

We have seen programs to support our businesses in particular, whether it is the Canada emergency wage subsidy program, the emergency rent subsidy program, the emergency business account or the regional relief and recovery fund. We recognized what Canada needed. The Government of Canada worked with Canadians and with, in particular, provinces, non-profits, territories, indigenous leaders and many others in order to make sure that Canadians were going to be protected as much as possible. All of this was done with the goal of being able to get us, as a nation, out of the situation we are currently in.

We have put ourselves in a position where Canada will be able to recover, and recover well. It is interesting to hear the Conservative Party asking about the debt. Many of the things I just finished talking about are the reasons why we have the debt. The Conservatives in many ways are saying we should be spending more money, while the Conservative right is saying we have spent too much money or is asking about the debt. Some Conservatives are talking about the creation of jobs. The most recent Conservative commitment was that they would create one million jobs.

Between 2015, when the Liberals were first elected, and the election of 2019, we created over a million jobs. We understand how important jobs are. Jobs are one of the reasons it was important for us to commit to businesses of all sizes, and small businesses in particular, to get through this difficult time. We knew that by saving companies from going bankrupt and by keeping Canadians employed we would be in a much better position once we got ahead of the pandemic.

I am actually quite pleased today. I started off by looking at the national news. A CBC story said that when it comes to first doses Canada is now ahead of Israel, according to a graph that was posted. When we think of populations of a million or more, Canada is doing exceptionally well. We are ahead of all other nations in dealing with the first dose.

I am now qualified to get my second dose. Earlier today I had the opportunity to book an appointment for a second dose on July 7. Canadians are responding so well to the need for vaccination. We understand why it is so important that we all get vaccinated. We need to continue to encourage people to get those shots.

It goes without saying that we need to recognize many very special people who have been there for Canadians. The ones who come to mind immediately are the health care workers here in the province of Manitoba. They are a special group of people that not long ago, in a virtual meeting, the Prime Minister expressed gratitude for in a very strong and significant way.

Our health care workers, whether the nurses, doctors or lab technicians, and people in all areas of health care, including those providing and sanitizing facilities as well as a whole litany of people, have ensured that we have been there from a health perspective.

We can look at workers involved with essential items such as groceries. Whether it was long haul truck drivers, people stacking groceries or collecting money for groceries, or taxi drivers who took people where they needed to go, whether to the hospital or the grocery store, they were there. Public institutions were there. I think of Winnipeg Transit bus drivers who opened their doors not knowing who was walking onto their buses. They were all there.

This legislation we are debating today is a continuation of getting Canada in a better, healthier position to deal with the coronavirus. We needed to bring in time allocation because of the destructive behaviour of the official opposition. We wanted to work and the Conservatives wanted to take time off. There was an excellent indication of that last Thursday, which was the biggest day in terms of debate for government. The Conservatives attempted to end the session only moments after the day got under way. It is not right that the Conservatives are playing games. We need to pass this legislation. I would ask all members to vote for it.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague. At one point he said that they would help seniors, in particular those who are 75. “In particular those who are 75” implies that there will be help for those aged between 65 years and 74 years, 11 months and 30 days.

What type of help will it be?

I must say, $63 a month is not even enough to buy groceries for a person living alone.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada has been supporting seniors from the very beginning. I might get the month wrong, but my friend might recall the payments made in July of last year. There was a one-time payment for people collecting OAS and an additional payment for people who were being supplemented with the GIS. I also made reference to many seniors non-profit organizations, whether the new horizons for seniors program or the non-profit groups that received millions of dollars to expand services to seniors from the beginning until today. This specific bill is the fulfillment of an election campaign promise from 2019, when we said we would give a 10% increase to those 75 and over, and I think all members should support it.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree. Seniors between 65 and 74 do not think this budget is doing enough for them. That is quite obvious and has been brought to the House many times by the parties in opposition, but my question comes to another issue that has been going on during COVID. The Liberals have had two years for this budget. For businesses that opened during the period of COVID, there have been no supports. I have had all kinds of calls to my offices. Callers are told this budget has something for everyone, but it does not have anything for them.

My question to the member opposite is this: Why did the Liberals not have any supports for existing businesses during this time and why are the Liberals, once again, trying to pick winners and losers?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the government has recognized not only during the pandemic, but even pre-pandemic, the important role that small businesses play in Canada through, for example, the small business tax reductions. Once we got into the pandemic, we recognized the need to support them in tangible ways. That is why there is the Canada emergency wage subsidy program, the Canada emergency rent subsidy program, the emergency business account, the business credit availability program and the regional relief and recovery funds. Ultimately, we are supporting businesses by putting disposable income in the pockets of Canadians so that they will be able to continue to pay bills and be consumers. We are providing business opportunities for small businesses of all sorts, and now there is the new hire program.

I am sure the Minister of Finance would be able to provide more details as to how we support small businesses in Canada.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, the government has told us time and again that its most important relationship is with indigenous peoples. We know that in the last few days the Liberal Party has refused to acknowledge the genocide against indigenous peoples, but if we look at Bill C-30 there are some major gaps. One of the biggest crises first nations face here in Manitoba is a lack of housing. We know that overcrowded housing has been a major contributor to the spread of COVID-19 in first nations communities, yet Bill C-30 has no commitment to indigenous-led housing initiatives to deal with the crisis that exists on the ground and the truly third-world living conditions.

How can the government claim that its most important relationship is with indigenous peoples and fail to act on one of the most significant crises they face?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, from a historical perspective, when it comes to indigenous-related issues I would challenge the member to point to a government that has done more than this Prime Minister and this government over the last four or five years. Take into consideration the financial and social supports, infrastructure, one-on-one and other types of relationships with respect to trying to build healthier relationships and communities.

We need to look beyond yesterday and into tomorrow to find out what more we can do to deal with issues such as the inquiry we conducted into murdered and missing girls and women of indigenous heritage and the calls to action, all of which the Government of Canada is committed to work on. Ultimately, I truly believe that by empowering and working with indigenous leaders and people we will make the desired changes, hopefully as quickly as possible.

The House resumed from June 14 consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 2.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise virtually in the House today to speak to such an important topic, a topic that is of interest to all Canadians: jobs and the economy.

First, I would like to point out that here we go again with another omnibus bill by the Liberals. Let me remind the Liberals what their leader, the Prime Minister, said about omnibus legislation: “I wouldn't use them, period.” It is not surprising they are breaking yet another one of their promises. After all, that is the rule for the Liberal government, not the exception. Canadians are tired of their broken promises and poor performance, especially when it comes to creating jobs and growing our economy. Their tenure in the past six years has been a massive economic letdown.

They will try to respond with well-crafted talking points after I am done with my speech, I am sure of that. I must admit that they are pretty good at the rhetoric. In fact, they are probably the best at it. Unfortunately for them, Canadians see what Conservatives see: The Liberals' rhetoric is just that, words, rarely any actions. The same is also true of their record on the economy. The government's philosophy of growing the economy and creating jobs is by doing everything it can to get in the way.

Unemployed Canadians were hoping that the government would put forward a plan to create new jobs and economic opportunities. These families are going to feel let down by this budget. Workers who have had their wages cut and hours slashed, hoping to see a plan to reopen the economy, are also going to feel let down. Families that cannot afford more taxes and are struggling to save more money for their children's education or to buy a home are going to feel let down by this legislation.

Speaking of buying a home, it is becoming more and more out of reach for far too many Canadians. The cost of housing continues to rise, making it nearly impossible for first-time homebuyers to enter the market. That is why last week Conservatives demanded that the Prime Minister take immediate action to address the housing crisis in Canada. It does not seem like the Liberals are taking it seriously, however. In fact, they voted against addressing the growing housing affordability crisis.

On a larger scale, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has noted that a significant amount of Liberal spending in the budget will not stimulate jobs or create economic growth, as is always the case with that side of the House. It is very clear that the Prime Minister's stimulus fund was more about spending on Liberal partisan priorities than anything else. The Prime Minister will add more to our national debt than all previous prime ministers combined.

What has the Prime Minister achieved with all this spending? For one, Canada has consistently had one of the highest unemployment rates in the G7 and a record economic decline. In fact, the Liberal government has spent more and delivered less than any other G7 country. This bears repeating, considering the Liberals come up with all sorts of talking points on excuses for their failures. The government and the Prime Minister have spent unprecedented amounts of money, more than all previous Canadian governments combined. The Edmonton Sun writes, “Canadian babies born on federal budget day 2021 had more than $28,000 of debt the moment they open their eyes.” That is each Canadian's share of the federal government's $1-trillion debt, and it is only going to go up.

The Liberal government has delivered less than any other G7 country and is responsible for one of the highest unemployment rates in the G7, along with a record economic decline. Last week, Statistics Canada reported that Canada's unemployment rate climbed to 8.2%. It also reported that 68,000 jobs were lost in the month of May alone. We lost 68,000 jobs while our American cousins added 559,000 jobs. What is more, businesses in the U.S. are hiring at such speed that they cannot find enough workers to fill vacant positions.

Yes, it is also important to keep things in perspective. I cannot say this enough. We support getting help to those who have been hit hard by the pandemic, and to the government's credit, programs rolled out and have helped many people. Conservatives were there with the government, working together to extend emergency support programs during the crisis. We have worked tirelessly to make these programs more effective, and I think my hon. colleagues across the aisle would agree.

We are also fully aware that the jobs lost in May were, in large part, due to provincial restrictions put in place as a result of the third wave of the pandemic. That is a fact, but why did the third wave come with such ferocity, forcing provincial governments to implement yet another lockdown? Why did Sean, a small business owner in my riding, in business for the past 30 years, have to take on $160,000 in additional debt just to stay afloat, and that is after he spent his life savings?

The answer is the government's delays in procuring vaccines, the government's delays in closing the border and the government's ineffective rapid-testing strategy. Why did the travel and tourism industry and so many other sectors have to suffer so badly and for so long? By the way, many of those businesses are not coming back. The answer, once again, is the government's delays in procuring vaccines, its delays in closing the border and its ineffective rapid-testing strategy.

I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that the travel and tourism industry has been nearly crushed. It is terrible, what has happened to those businesses. I have heard many of the sector's concerns in the tourism recovery caucus, headed by my colleagues from Niagara Falls and Banff—Airdrie. My two colleagues have done an incredible job staying connected to stakeholders, listening to industry challenges and taking action where they can. These are two great members of Parliament, and I commend them on their efforts, as we all try to deal with the fallout of this pandemic in its hardest-hit areas.

Back to my question, why are so many small businesses hurting to this extent at this time? The answer is simple. For the most part, they were not allowed to stay open, because of the government's and the Prime Minister's failures to act on vaccines, the border and rapid testing. Furthermore, this is what the National Post had to say about the Liberal government's pandemic response: “The Liberals' most galling pandemic failure—they couldn't even master basic inventory control”. That is a pretty accurate statement.

Last year, the Prime Minister was denied vaccines by the Chinese communist regime, and, most importantly, he did not sign contracts with other companies until it was too late. That is a classic example of putting all eggs in one basket. In this situation, the Prime Minister relied on a Chinese-based company, which basically means that he relied on the Chinese communist regime. What could possibly go wrong? In doing so, he neglected other companies working on the vaccine, which delayed procuring vaccines from them.

This failure to act is why we are seeing many countries, including our neighbours to the south, ahead of us by at least three months in their vaccination efforts and reopening plans. I think we have all seen the packed sports events on TV in many U.S. cities, but here in Canada we are still on lockdowns.

It is important to mention that Conservatives were first to call for strong and clear border measures at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, the Liberals dragged their heels, going as far as to say that border control measures do not work, while calling us racist for suggesting that border measures are necessary to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus.

We also fought hard to get Canadians better tools to stop the spread of COVID-19, like vaccines, therapeutics, rapid tests and better data. Those tools now exist; however, the government has not come up with a comprehensive and effective plan to use them to safely lift the restrictions. The government loves to blame provincial premiers, but let us face it, the Liberals do not provide the necessary tools for the premiers to defend their provinces properly against the virus. They left premiers scrambling. Without the responses, the resources or proper action by the federal government, the premiers implemented the only tool they thought would work: lockdowns.

At this time, as we hopefully see the last of this pandemic, the government needs to start thinking of ways to secure the future of Canadians. This could be done by creating jobs, introducing policies that result in better wages, and introducing policies that help small businesses, especially now when so many are struggling, to get back on their feet.

In conclusion, this is not a growth budget. It fails to put forward a plan to encourage Canada's long-term prosperity and leaves millions of Canadians behind. We were very clear that we wanted to see a plan to return to normal that would safely reopen the economy and get Canadians back to work, and that is not what this legislation would do. We were also looking for a plan to create jobs and boost economic growth. Once again, that is not what this legislation would do. For those reasons, I cannot support it.

I would also like to say, to those watching at home, that Canada's Conservatives got us out of the last recession. We can, and we will, do it again. We are ready, we have a plan and we will get it done.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had a chance to say it yet, but I congratulate you on your retirement as a tremendous Speaker of the House. I do not think people know about the tremendous work you are also doing for the downtrodden people of Myanmar. You have been a wonderful MP and representative, and we all have great respect for you.

I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech and remind him that all budget implementation bills are omnibus bills, because every budget deals with a number of federal departments. I am glad he wanted a plan and support for tourism, because there is over $1 billion, a record amount, for tourism in the budget, for festivals, cultural events, heritage celebrations and local museums. On top of that, there is $700 million more for small business, green, inclusive, enhancing competitiveness and creating jobs.

There is an over 700-page plan that deals with indigenous and women entrepreneurs, an A1 strategy, the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, a quantum strategy, the Canadian Photonics Fabrication Centre, business R and D, Mitacs, CanCode, net-zero accelerator, clean growth hub, the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, the strategic innovation fund, IRAP expansion, Elevate IP, innovation superclusters—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We will need to go to the hon. member for Niagara West for a response.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about the tourism industry. I come from Niagara. My riding is Niagara West. I am a couple of ridings over from Niagara Falls.

The tourism industry has been devastated, absolutely devastated, in this country, because of a failure of the government to get things we need, like vaccines and rapid testing. There was a perfectly decent program happening in Calgary with rapid tests as people returned to the country.

What did the Liberal government do? It implemented a worse plan that took more time. It failed to use rapid testing.

Our tourism industry continues to be crushed. It is unbelievable, the amount of negligence the government shows when it comes to tourism and small business. Small businesses are in lockdown after lockdown because of the government's failure to act. We need a plan to reopen the economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate hearing from my colleague and friend from Niagara West. He knows I have a lot of respect for him.

I have two questions that I think are very relevant. The member spoke of the tourism industry. We know that the pandemic continues to have economic impacts, yet the Liberal government is cutting the CRB within a matter of weeks, from $500 a week to $300 a week, which is far below the poverty line.

What does the member think the impact of that will be, when people are trying to put food on the table and have almost 50% less to do it with, even though they still cannot get back to their jobs because of the ongoing impacts of the pandemic?

Also, many profitable companies used the wage subsidies for dividends and for big executive bonuses. Does the member believe that those profitable companies should be paying back the wage subsidy? In that way, we could afford to make sure that the CRB continues at the rate of $500 a week.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of working with the member over the years, on trade in particular. We have not always agreed, but the member is a huge champion for his constituents, and I have always appreciated that.

Originally, how fast the programs came out was a good thing. There was a lot of discussion amongst all opposition parties about how things and people had fallen through the cracks. People are still falling through the cracks, as the member mentioned.

It is important for the government to listen and realize that small businesses and people who are dependent on some of these programs still need them when the only option is lockdown and these people cannot actually go to work, through no fault of their own.

I believe we need to constantly push the government to do better when they are rolling out programs. I know there has been lots of great input from all opposition parties here in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I would like to thank the hon. member for Yukon for his kind comments.

Resuming debate, we will go to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, if I could add to the glowing comments on your forthcoming retirement, it has been a pleasure to get to know you these last several years in the House of Commons. You have always been kind. It has always been a pleasure to chat and I wish you the best. I am sure your family will be very happy to have you home on a much more full-time basis.

Good evening to all my colleagues and to all Canadians who are watching, including the wonderful residents I have the privilege to represent here in Vaughan—Woodbridge.

This evening's debate on Bill C-30 is not only to ensure that Canadians who remain impacted by the pandemic are supported but also to put in place a number of measures that grow our economy and ensure that the economy is inclusive and lifts all individuals. Prior to the pandemic, we knew Canada's unemployment rate was at a multi-decade low and that literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians had been lifted out of poverty. We were, and we are, going in the right direction.

I would like to take a moment to thank the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge and all residents of York Region for their desire to get vaccinated and allow us to safely return to normalcy. As of today, 76.8% of York Region residents above age 18 have received a single dose of a vaccine and over 22.7% a second dose, including me. I am happy to report that this afternoon I received my second dose of vaccine from Moderna. Millions of vaccines are arriving, and Canadians can rest assured that our government is laser focused on protecting them and their families and on ensuring a strong economic recovery.

I am pleased to rise tonight to participate in the continuing debate on Bill C-30, the government's budget implementation act. Budget 2021 is a historic investment to address the specific wounds of the COVID-19 recession and to grow the middle class. The bill is therefore an important one. It would enact the government's plan to finish the fight against COVID-19, create jobs, grow the economy and ensure a robust economic recovery that brings all Canadians along. We truly want an economy that works for all Canadians and that is inclusive.

Among other important measures, the bill would enable funding to establish a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. It would extend the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the Canada emergency rent subsidy and lockdown support for businesses until September 25, which would keep an important lifeline available. It would extend important income support for individuals, such as the Canada recovery benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit, and it would enhance employment insurance sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks.

The bill also proposes to establish a $15 federal minimum wage and to increase old age security for seniors aged 75 and older to provide them with better financial security. It would significantly expand the Canada workers benefit and invest $8.9 billion over six years in additional support for low-wage workers, extending top-ups to about a million more Canadians and lifting nearly an additional 100,000 Canadians out of poverty.

I have been a great proponent of the Canada workers benefit since day one, when I arrived on Parliament Hill in 2015. I am seeing it expanded for the third time since we have been in office. It is great to see we are ensuring more Canadians are lifted out of poverty while incentivizing Canadians to remain in the labour force and increase their number of hours of work.

Bill C-30 would also provide an emergency top-up of $5 billion for provinces and territories. Specifically, $4 billion would go to the Canada health transfer to help provinces and territories address immediate health care system pressures, and $1 billion would support vaccine rollout campaigns across the country. As well, the bill proposes to provide $2.2 billion to address short-term infrastructure priorities in municipalities and first nations communities. The funds would flow through the federal gas tax fund, which is proposed to be renamed the Canada community building fund.

There is one aspect of Bill C-30 I would like to discuss in particular. It is a clause that would amend the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act. This clause would authorize the government to provide an additional $12 million to fund the continuation of the Canadian Securities Transition Office, or CSTO, for a further two years. For those who may not be familiar with this body, the CSTO is a small federal office that was established in July 2009.

Since 2013, the CSTO has supported federal efforts to establish the co-operative capital markets regulatory system. Today, the principal focus of this office is to support the government with analysis and advice on preparing for the successful administration of the proposed federal capital market stability act in a collaborative manner that respects provincial jurisdiction.

A well-functioning and resilient financial system that instills confidence in domestic and international businesses, in addition to individual Canadians, is paramount to growing Canada's economy. Canada's financial system demonstrated resilience in weathering both the shocks of the global financial crisis more than a decade ago and, most recently, the considerable economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Importantly underpinning this resilient financial system is a regulatory framework with legislative mandates and authorities, world-class leadership and years of preparation, planning and experience. While the regulatory authorities work in a coordinated system, the federal financial stability oversight framework does not include management of systemic risk across Canadian capital markets. This is a critical gap given the current global risk environment and is an area that the Supreme Court has opined is a federal responsibility. Some steps have been taken in this field by provincial securities regulators. However, no Canadian authority has the ability to monitor capital markets' systemic risks across the Canadian financial system, nor to act on a national basis to address them.

This is what the federal government wants to strengthen in collaboration with provinces. The federal government is also committed to strengthening authorities to combat capital markets crime and protect Canadians' hard-earned savings and investments from fraud. These are targeted areas that CSTO is assessing and providing advice on. Before moving forward, more work is required by federal officials, including identifying opportunities and developing processes for administering a systemic risk oversight regime in collaboration with provincial securities regulators. This work would be undertaken in consultation with the provinces.

The additional funding contained in Bill C-30 is needed for the CSTO to continue its important work on systemic risk in criminal enforcement in Canada's capital markets. The CSTO has already made excellent progress. It should receive the funding to continue this important work. I encourage all my colleagues from all sides of the aisle to pass Bill C-30 not only to support Canadians during this pandemic, but also to strengthen our CSTO and move forward in growing our economy once again.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during the second reading stage of debate on this bill, I asked the parliamentary secretary for revenue why this bill fails to address issues on direction and control. These are issues that the international development sector and the rest of the charitable sector have been raising for a very long time. “Direction and control” is about needless red tape piled on charitable organizations. It relates to them spending more money on lawyer fees and sending less money to the front lines. When I raised this issue on March 6 during second reading debate, the parliamentary secretary did not give me a very specific answer. He told me he would love to learn about this further. Again, this bill is a missed opportunity to address the direction and control regime that needs to be changed to strengthen opportunities for the charitable sector.

Has the member had a chance, since our last exchange on this issue, to do more research on it? He could update the House on what, if anything, the finance department is prepared to do in subsequent bills to address direction and control.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was our government that put in place the advisory council on the charitable sector, which has a volunteer base. I thank the members who have volunteered countless hours in delivering two very substantive reports not only to the CRA, but to all of government. We have looked at those reports. We have implemented some of those measures and we continue to work with the advisory council on the charitable sector in doing the good work that it does, day in and day out. We are also reflective of how important the charitable sector is to the Canadian economy and to how many countless hours the millions of volunteers put in here in Canada to help out their neighbours and friends.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague the following question. There is still a desperate need for support, especially in the tourism sector. If the bill does not pass by the end of the parliamentary session, what will the consequences be for our artists, the hotel industry, restaurants and everything that goes along with tourism?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we get Bill C-30 passed. We need to continue to support all sectors of the economy, all individuals and all businesses, including the tourism sector and hotels through the rent subsidy. That can only happen with Bill C-30 and the measures it will put in place: the extension of the programs being run by the Canada Revenue Agency and the wonderful individuals who are implementing eight out of the nine programs we brought forward to help Canadian businesses and workers during this most extraordinary period of time.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned and perplexed by the reduction in the Canada emergency response benefit from $500 per week to $300 per week starting in July.

Could the parliamentary secretary walk us through the rationale for that reduction from the perspective of someone who is self-employed or is a gig worker, and still does not have income? They lost their income because of the pandemic and are not going to have it in July, August or September. Could he provide the rationale for cutting those benefits for people who need them more than ever?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, which is where I was born and raised. My hometown is Prince Rupert.

I will say this. Our government has been steadfast in its support of all Canadians since day one. We continue to provide the benefits they need so they do not have to choose between putting bread on their tables or paying their rent, and we will continue to be there for Canadians.

Our economy is recovering. We have recovered approximately 81% of all jobs. I expect in the next one to two months we will see further job gains as the Ontario economy specifically recovers. We have seen full-time employment in a number of sectors actually improve and be at higher levels than pre-pandemic.

We know there is much work to be done. Our government will continue to be there for all Canadians. At one time, almost nine million Canadians collected the CERB, and 5.5 million Canadians were benefiting, through their employers, from the CEWS. We will continue to be there for Canadians. We will have their backs during this most extraordinary period of time.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you and your family on your 15 years of public service. You have been a leader in our caucus for many decades. Last night, I caught your retirement speech, whenever that retirement comes. You reflected very well on your years of service. You have done our country very proud and I want to wish you all the best when you do leave that chair and you leave this place. On behalf of me and my family, thank you very much for your years of service.

Now to the topic of the budget implementation act, 2021. It was one of the most important budgets in recent memory. Canadians were waiting for it. Why do I say that? We waited over two years for the budget. The pandemic started last March and the Liberals continued to delay the budget and the numbers went higher and higher. Then we found out we are $600 billion, or so, down over a trillion, in debt in this country. It was interesting when the numbers started popping out and Canadians from coast to coast to coast were surprised at the big numbers.

As we see a little inflation here in the last while, they are really going to be surprised at the results. We all know workers faced a year and a half of uncertainty about their employment, about their wages. In fact, now the question is when they will be able to return to work and whether a job will be there for them in the coming weeks.

Business owners continue to face uncertainty whether they have a small, medium or large company. Tonight while I was listening to the speeches, I received a text from Allan who owns SaskWest Mechanical in Saskatoon. He told me the costs are skyrocketing in his business. Sheet metals are going sky-high. He said that last August they were $24 a sheet. Today, suppliers are charging him $49.21 and they will not even hold pricing for more than 24 hours. Think of the uncertainty even quoting a job for the employees that he has. I cannot imagine quoting a job. It was nice to hear from Allan today. He has been in my office a couple of times. There is uncertainty with his business. He employs a lot of people. Heating is his business. He does a lot of commercial jobs and he faces the rise in costs as he quotes for jobs.

Prices are going up, for food, meat, lumber, almost everything that we have talked about. I hope I do not jinx it, but I think we are seeing the end of the light. I look at my province of Saskatchewan and I am going to give some kudos here tonight. Saskatchewan wants to be fully open by July 11. I have had my second dose of vaccine, so I am happy. I had the first one in April and my second one last week, so we are pretty good. I arrived in Ottawa on Sunday, and here in Ontario it is night and day. Shops are still closed. People can only go to restaurant patios. In my province of Saskatchewan we are almost wide open right now. I credit that to the Saskatchewan Health Authority and Premier Scott Moe.

The goal is to have everyone age 12 and over completely vaccinated. Right now the goal is to get to 70% of people having at least one vaccine. Today, we are at 67% in Saskatchewan. We are only 3% below that goal. In fact, Saskatchewan officials said today we only need 28,000 more people to get their first shot and then we are going to open things up. Is that not a great story in the province of Saskatchewan.

However, for the last 14 months, the province could not get the vaccines it needed, especially up in northern Saskatchewan where vulnerable situations exist. The first thing the Province of Saskatchewan tried to do was work with the indigenous communities. In fact, I am so proud of Saskatoon Tribal Council Chief Mark Arcand who took it upon himself to have vaccines made available at the SaskTel Centre for indigenous people and everybody else in the Saskatoon area. It has been a wonderful outreach by the Tribal Chief of Saskatoon. People in the community have been able to get their vaccine.

Today, for football fans, it was announced that Saskatchewan's premier wanted to see 33,350 people at the Mosaic Stadium for the home opener on August 6 against the B.C. Lions. That is now a goal in the province of Saskatchewan. However, the last 14 months have been devastating in Saskatchewan and across the country. We are all asking ourselves, “When are we going to reopen? How are we going to manage the debt. How much debt will there be?”

I talked about inflation, which is at its highest point in over a decade. We are up 3.6% this year alone. The declining state of the Canadian economy is a major concern. The member from Niagara talked about a baby born in Canada today is already $28,000 in debt. My daughter will deliver our second grandchild next Thursday in Saskatoon. We should be celebrating. I will now have two grandchildren. One is five and a half years old and the other will be born next Thursday, but with a $28,000 debt. That is what we have done to our kids. When the baby comes next Thursday, June 24, we will celebrate, but I also have to tell my daughter and son-in-law that is $28,000 in debt. How are they going to pay for that?

Canadians are resilient. They have faced uncertainty about the stability of our health care system. Thankfully, it has held up so far. We have had hiccups all over the country, but I think everyone would agree that we are coming out it now, some faster than others. We are a little concerned about Ontario and Manitoba, but they are coming out of it as we speak.

Therefore, we need a plan to secure the future of our country, to secure the future of my daughter's child who will be born next Thursday. We also need a plan that secures good jobs for Canadians; that secures accountability in governments, and we have talked a lot about that tonight; that will secure mental health for Canadians and supports for those who are really struggling.

Over the last 14 months, we have seen a decline in mental health. We all know someone who is struggling; some openly and others sit at home and say nothing. We see it in the House of Commons. Many of our staff have not been in the office. How are they doing at home? They get their work done, but when we come back to Ottawa and have a chance to see them, that is when we will know if things have changed in the last 14 months.

We need to secure our country against the next pandemic. We must get prepared for that. We need to secure our economy in the long term. The government is woefully unprepared to implement such a plan, and budget 2021 missed the mark in providing one.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer even noted that the significant amount of Liberal spending would not stimulate jobs, and we saw massive job losses in the last two months alone. In April, 129,000 jobs were lost. We had another decline in May. That cannot happen anymore, because mom and dad coming home without a job does not sit well in the family.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech, for a couple of reasons. One is that he mentioned the very important item of mental health, and we really appreciate that and agree with him because of our large contributions to that area before the budget and in the budget, but I basically want to thank him for his support of business. I know he would appreciate that we have provided over 27,000 CEWS loans worth $1.4 billion to Saskatchewan and protected 98,000 jobs in Saskatchewan with $1.28 billion, as well as putting $50 million into 731 RRRF projects.

I am hoping the member will support the budget, because some of these business owners, as he heard in an earlier speech tonight, said they will not be quite ready to get back, and without this budget the rent subsidy and the wage subsidy will expire in June, at the end of this month. This budget would extend them to September and also add a billion dollars for tourism and $700 million for small businesses, so I hope the member will quickly support the budget implementation act, Bill C-30, so that we can get these things in place to continue to support Saskatchewan businesses.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary; he has been a great spokesman for northern Canada.

In my province of Saskatchewan, the hospitality industry has really been hit in the last 14 months. We have hotels that had opened, and the operators have phoned my office in the last couple of months saying that they missed the timing when they opened last April. Twelve or 13 months later, there is no business.

The other one is the tourism industry. The member is from northern Canada. The tourism industry is very important up north, but it is also very important in our province.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I often hear the Conservatives say that we must secure the future. In my opinion, this can only be achieved by fighting climate change. I know that our views are diametrically opposed, but, when I review the budget, I see that the government has invested $17.6 billion in the green recovery. That is a few million dollars shy of what has been shelled out to the oil industry in public subsidies, or $18 billion to be exact, since the start of the pandemic.

Even though we have opposing views, does my colleague agree that the recovery we are talking about is not green, and that more must be done for the environment with the amounts that have been announced?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan is an innovation leader. Carbon sequestering in the city of Estevan was the first of its kind in Canada, and we are hoping that Alberta joins Saskatchewan. The government has talked about billions of dollars maybe in the next little while to get the carbon into the ground.

Our farmers in Saskatchewan are the best. I know that when they are drying grain in the fall, carbon capture and all that is expensive, but there is zero tillage. We are on the cusp and have been for decades in our province. We are world leaders. I am very proud of Saskatchewan's innovation. Saskatchewan will beat the curve. Saskatchewan will far exceed the green economy from other regions in this country. I know that for a fact.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for raising the plight of students. He mentioned the crushing debt that students have to incur now to get a post-secondary education.

The history of education in this country over the last 150 years has been one of extension. At one time, having primary school education was enough. In the 1950s and 1960s it was high school. Now, let us face it: People really cannot participate in our society unless they have some form of post-secondary education, whether that is a trade, a community college or a university.

Does the member agree that it is time that we extended our concept of public education to include at least the first two years of post-secondary education so that we can make it accessible to all Canadian students, not only to help them get the education they need to succeed but also to help our economy meet its full potential by having free tuition for students in post-secondary education?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway asks that question, because my wife is a former teacher and both my kids are teaching, one in Saskatoon and one in Lethbridge, and I spent 10 years as a school board trustee.

Yes, education is first and foremost in our province of Saskatchewan. In fact, it should be in Canada. It is funny that we do not even have an education minister, and yet we control education on reserves. When I asked two or three years ago what the attendance figures are on reserves, the government did not have any answers.

As parliamentarians, we have to do a better job in this House. We have to ask the questions about grades and attendance. I totally agree with the hon. member.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate, I would advise the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue that he currently has about three and a half minutes left for his remarks. The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your generosity with regard to my time. By the way, I would like to offer you my congratulations. I had the privilege of witnessing your speech yesterday. It was a great lesson in democracy. I was pleased to hear it.

With Bill C-30, the federal government is demonstrating a flagrant lack of consideration for Quebec, its choices and the will of Quebeckers. I wish to remind members that the Bloc Québécois voted against budget 2021 because the federal government did not respond to our two main requests, namely to permanently and significantly increase the Canada health transfers by raising them from 22% to 35%, a demand shared by the National Assembly and unanimously supported by the provinces, and to increase old age security by $110 a month for people aged 65 and over.

Despite our reservations, the Bloc Québécois recognizes that budget 2021 is geared towards the post-COVID recovery. It will make it easier for Quebec's small businesses to access credit. It was essential that Bill C‑30 include an increase in credit-related funding for small businesses, especially start-ups, which have been struggling during the pandemic. Bill C‑30 encourages innovation and the potential for a greener economic recovery through its expanded lending against intellectual property.

However, access to credit is not the only way to help businesses recover, as credit often leads to debt, which can push businesses into bankruptcy. Credit becomes harmful when it is used to cover fixed and recurring business costs. In some cases, it merely postpones bankruptcy. What has the government done to revitalize businesses and reduce their administrative burden? Little or nothing.

The government could take action. It has no excuse not to. With a deficit of over $1 trillion, I think it has some leeway. The federal government is not doing enough to help businesses take advantage of opportunities arising from international agreements. These agreements are so complicated and hard to understand, involving so many laws, regulations, measures, norms and provisions, that it is hard for business owners to properly assess them and see all of the possibilities. There needs to be communication. What is the federal government waiting for? When will it reduce this burden in order to better support businesses in getting their goods to market internationally and strengthen the ability of Quebec and Canadian industries and businesses to compete globally?

I care about Quebec businesses, particularly agricultural businesses, so I find it troubling that the government is doing so little to reduce the tax burden on agricultural business owners. What is more, one of the simplest solutions for reducing the administrative burden on businesses in Quebec is to implement a single tax return administered by Quebec. That is something that has been repeatedly called for by the Premier of Quebec, François Legault, and it reflects the unanimous will of the Quebec National Assembly.

I will point out that the Government of Quebec already collects the GST on Ottawa's behalf. That means the Government of Quebec has everything it needs to collect all taxes in Quebec. Direct access to foreign tax information would also give the Government of Quebec the power to fight tax havens. Ottawa has no credibility on that front. If Revenu Québec acquires that expertise, it will be in a better position to ensure tax fairness for all Quebec taxpayers.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue will have another six and a half minutes to finish his speech when the House resumes debate on this motion, plus another five minutes for questions and comments.

The House resumed from June 16 consideration of Bill C‑30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 2.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate. The member has six and a half minutes to finish his speech.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the facts show that Quebeckers cannot count on the federal government to take action against tax havens. There is nothing in budget 2021 to do away with them.

Unfortunately, there are provisions in Bill C‑30 that make it even easier to use tax havens. The federal government is therefore still complicit in tax avoidance schemes, which makes Canada part of the problem and not part of the solution in the fight against tax havens.

In budget 2021, which serves as a springboard for the post-COVID‑19 economic recovery, the federal government offers little or nothing to help small farms get better access to credit. This inability to access credit was one of the most serious problems that farmers encountered during the health crisis. That is unacceptable.

Agriculture is obviously not a priority for the Liberal government, but it is a priority for Quebec and an integral part of our culture. The Liberal government has never been interested in supporting a bill to better protect supply management, which is essential to the survival of the agricultural model. Protecting supply management has always enjoyed broad support within Quebec's agricultural sector, but it is also acknowledged by producers in the other provinces as well as in the United States, which says something.

Why did the Liberal government recently do everything it could to prevent Bill C‑216 being passed in committee? Well, it did pass, and we hope the accelerating pace of the coming days will bring this bill along for the ride. Quebec's agricultural sector is counting on us.

In the Bloc Québécois's view, parliamentary proceedings and debates too often take too long, things do not move fast enough, and people talk even though they have nothing to say. For years, and again this week, members have spoken at length in the House of Commons about various aspects of the housing problem.

Still, there remains a desperate need for housing in Abitibi—Témiscamingue as well as in several other regions of Quebec, and that need is only being made more acute by the communities' sustained efforts to attract workers.

What of the federal government's solutions to this problem? There are none. The federal government has not proposed any. I would, however, like to highlight a local initiative undertaken by the Fondation Martin-Bradley. They organized a radiothon and raised $301,000 to, among other things, build housing for people who are struggling, especially people living with mental health problems.

The Fondation Martin-Bradley got things done. I am thinking especially of Ghislain Beaulieu, and of Jean-Yves Morneau and his son, Jean-François, who organized a fundraiser among the region's entrepreneurs and businesspeople. The amount raised, $301,000, is huge, and I want to salute them. Among other things, the funds will go to finance projects, like for farm outreach workers in Abitibi—Témiscamingue's farming community, for whom psychological support is so essential. I have to say it again: All this stems from the fact that the federal budget does nothing to address the situation.

Legitimate transfer payments to Quebec to encourage housing initiatives are both slow to come and hugely insufficient. Not enough construction is happening, which is having a direct impact on the economic and social development of our regions and Quebec as a whole.

Out of respect for Quebec's jurisdictions, more substantial amounts need to be transferred, especially considering the current context, which includes the significantly higher cost of materials and labour. At the same time, tax incentives for developers would be a way to support and stimulate infrastructure initiatives that offer exciting opportunities for the recovery by building on what has been achieved in our communities, not to mention community-based housing projects that would provide a sustainable solution to this problem.

Finally, why will Ottawa not allocate funding for the regions, with no strings attached, to be administered by Quebec and people on the ground? This would encourage development projects based on specific parameters and priorities linked to specific needs. More than ever, labour shortages are hindering the economic recovery of my region, Abitibi—Témiscamingue. More than ever, the federal government needs to come up with solutions, because we are feeling abandoned right now.

I believe that the particular status of a region like Abitibi—Témiscamingue, which borders Ontario, places it in a certain situation. People back home are moving to the riding of the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing because immigration cases are processed in 12 months in Ontario, whereas in my riding it takes up to 27 months, or even 30 months in certain cases. That is ridiculous.

As I was saying, in Abitibi—Témiscamingue there is a housing shortage coupled with a labour shortage, and therefore it is important to stimulate housing construction. How can we attract and keep skilled workers in Abitibi—Témiscamingue when they are unable to find a home for their families? The federal government must act quickly.

Bill C‑30 also attacks Quebec once more and its securities regulator. That is unacceptable.

How can we ignore one of the federal government's most blatant centralizing moves in recent years, its attempt to bring the financial sector under federal control by making it responsible for insurance, securities, derivatives, deposit taking institutions except for banks and the distribution of financial products and services?

The objective of this Canada-wide securities regulator is another example of the centralization of financial markets by the federal government. It wants Toronto to become a single Canada-wide regulator, which would be contrary to the independent economic development of all the other provinces. This is not just a jurisdictional dispute or a squabble between the federal and provincial governments, it is a battle between Bay Street and Quebec.

I remind members that the Bloc Québécois and Quebec are strongly opposed to this. Four times now, the National Assembly of Quebec has unanimously called on the federal government to abandon that idea. It is no exaggeration to say that everyone in Quebec is against it. Seldom have we seen Quebec's business community come together as one to oppose this very bad idea of the federal government, which just wants to cater to Bay Street.

Let the federal government and Bay Street take note: The Bloc Québécois will always stand in the way of creating a single Canada-wide securities regulator.

Having a financial markets authority is essential to Quebec's development. This is nothing short of an attack on our ability to keep our head offices. Preserving Quebec's distinct economic pillars is essential to our development. We will not let the federal government get away with this.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, it is always good to hear members of Parliament talk about housing. However, the interesting issue in this respect is that housing is one of the areas where exclusive jurisdiction has been sought, secured and delivered to Quebec.

If the member's riding is not getting housing money, why is he coming to Ottawa to complain? We have given every single dollar we spend on housing to the Government of Quebec. It distributes the dollars. It sets the priorities. It chooses the projects. It makes the investments.

I realize that the Bloc is here to antagonize the federal government rather than co-operate and work with us, but if the member opposite wants housing in his region, he should be going to Quebec City to get the dollars because that is where we sent them on the request of parties like the Bloc.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is plain to see that the parliamentary secretary did not listen to the first part of my speech. I can forgive him to some extent because I gave it at 12:48 a.m. two days ago.

I would say that one of the problems is that it took three years to get these agreements in place. The federal government really dragged its feet on transferring the money to Quebec. Why did the other provinces get their money quickly but not Quebec?

Furthermore, in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, now that housing construction can start, the cost of materials is skyrocketing and these amounts are largely insufficient. I understand that the government did not anticipate COVID‑19, but it has a responsibility to take action on housing.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the pandemic has exposed many flaws in our health care system, whether in terms of our vaccine supply or the quality of long-term care facilities. Our health care workers and seniors have suffered the direct consequences of years of successive Liberal and Conservative cuts, yet the budget announcement makes no increase in health care transfers.

Could the member tell us about the impact of health underfunding on the worsening of the pandemic?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hamilton Centre for his excellent question.

That is indeed the crux of the matter, and that is why the Bloc Québécois voted against the budget. We are in the midst of a pandemic and the federal government has a responsibility to respect the agreements it has made in the past.

Under normal circumstances, the costs associated with health care spending should be shared 50-50. We are barely receiving 20%. The provinces and the Quebec National Assembly are unanimous in their request to increase this percentage to 35%.

When we see the federal government rack up more than $1 trillion in debt, money becomes very relative. That really worries me, and I think that one of the solutions would have been to give the people who are managing the pandemic the necessary means to achieve their objectives, instead of trying to impose national standards, as in the case of long-term care facilities.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, interestingly enough, the first speaker asked a question about housing and said that the federal government had invested enough, while the second speaker spoke about health transfers.

I just had a discussion with Marguerite Blais, Quebec's minister responsible for seniors and caregivers. She spoke about two things.

First, she spoke about how the federal government did not want to increase health transfers to 35%, even though that is Quebec's main demand to help our health care system. Second, she spoke about housing, about how we need to help workers—and therefore businesses—back home, in the riding of Shefford, who are struggling to find housing. She also spoke about how we must help seniors, who need safe, affordable housing.

There is not enough funding; we need more. On top of that, the agreements have been dragging on.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the member for Shefford for her commitment to seniors. One of the key things missing from this budget is help for seniors aged 65 to 74. It is fascinating that the government wants to create two classes of seniors. I just cannot understand it.

How did the government determine that the needs of seniors aged 65 to 74 are not the same as those aged 75 and up? I am thinking here of prescription drug assistance and rent relief, or even the increase in the cost of Internet services and electricity. Only this government would think that people should have to wait until they are 75 to live with dignity.

Housing is a top priority in indigenous communities, as well as in our cities and towns. It is a matter of dignity. Housing is a tool for economic development, but it is also essential to every individual's psychological and mental health. Every Canadian should have a decent roof over their heads, and that should be the priority of this government and future governments in the years to come.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to Bill C-30, the budget debate.

I first want to reflect on my constituency's strengths and its ability to adapt to these changing times. This is because Egmont is a place where people take care of one another. First, there is a great respect for family, and in a tight-knit community that means the residents are very conscious of both the successes and the challenges faced by their neighbours. Further to that, there is a collective understanding that every individual has a contribution to make. Within that fabric of individuals, families and communities there is a real strength. As a result, Egmont has fared relatively well during the pandemic because virtually every individual recognizes a real sense of duty to the whole.

People have worked hard to keep the community safe, and all the while we have been hard at work building one of the greenest ridings in the country with a thriving economy based on fishing, farming, high-level services and a very successful aerospace sector. Indeed, the City of Summerside has recently been recognized by a national magazine as one of the leaders in the field of green energy. It has spent a great deal of time focusing on wind energy, solar energy with a smart grid system, industrial-scale lithium batteries and the highest per capita concentration of electric car chargers in the country. Those are just a few of the green energy initiatives the city has moved on. I am pleased to be part of a government that has supported the city's initiatives in its innovative, leading-edge green energy solutions and innovations. We have continued to build on those infrastructure investments over the last number of years.

Summerside is just one example I use in identifying Egmont as a leader in the field of green energy across the riding. We were one of the first parts of the country to move toward wind energy and, indeed, the Wind Energy Institute of Canada is located in the riding of Egmont. This has allowed us to build a very successful and thriving green energy infrastructure here in my riding.

Summerside is one of a number of communities that makes up the riding of Egmont. In each of these I could look at the improvements that our government has supported, community by community, in a host of infrastructure initiatives that have built stronger communities right across the riding, including in the rural parts.

We have also maintained a trajectory of success at a difficult time because of hard work, diligence and a constant sense of optimism that these qualities can transcend any difficulty thrown at us. I am proud to be a member of a government that recognizes and celebrates meaningful support for individuals. I say that because I believe this government understands that support for the individual is the foundation of a strong community. From speaking to residents, I know that their confidence levels grew dramatically over the last year because they knew this fact: Our Liberal government has Egmont's back. Why am I so sure of that? Let us look at just a few priorities.

Programs for students are a priority. In 2021, our government has committed record financial contributions to the Canada summer jobs program, which students depend on for securing work over the summer months. We continue to waive student loan interest during the pandemic. We are enhancing repayment assistance on student loans and we are doubling the Canada student grants. These are just some of the initiatives that have been identified in this budget.

We have extended sick time for individuals. When this budget is passed, this will be a major initiative. An issue that we have heard a lot about over the last number of years, especially through the House of Commons HUMA committee, is that the existing sick time benefit is not adequate. I am pleased that our government has recognized that.

We also have an extensive array of business supports that were required to carry businesses through this unprecedented pandemic. We hear constantly in the House of Commons that this is an area where we have to continue to offer more support as we begin to emerge from the pandemic.

We have also supported enhanced educational opportunities for everyone.

For all these reasons and many more, I am proud to be part of a government that is active, that is smart, that protects Canadians and that understands the real challenges that have confronted each and every one of us. I compare that system of values to the one so fondly embraced by the Conservatives.

Too often, I have heard our colleagues in the opposition rail against support for individuals, saying that the so-called “free market” will be the salvation of our well-being. Such a direction would have led to catastrophic results in Egmont, and the deep and terrible worries unleashed by the pandemic would have been swollen with further concerns about bills, putting food on the table and shelter costs.

I believe in a government that will be there to support individuals during difficult times, because if that is not the government's role, then what is it? In a difficult time, we should not only be focused on bean counting and should not reject the legitimate needs of Canadians. Instead, we should be responding effectively, with reliability and in a way that builds public confidence that the government is there to prevent disaster and guide Canadians through a difficult time.

That said, I believe there is an area of public responsibility that requires greater attention. I have always been of the opinion that seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement require more assistance. These are the most financially vulnerable members of the seniors community, and after a lifetime I believe they have earned the right to have fewer worries and more comfort. Therefore, I firmly believe the GIS should be increased, and I will continue to raise this subject.

My firm hope is that, in the very near future, government will take the steps to adjust these supports in a way that reflects two items. First, I believe we have the capacity as a country to offer this additional assistance, and second, I think it is very important that we recognize the challenges associated with being a senior in a changing world. I will continue to raise this subject in the hope that the government will adjust its plan and decide on a different course that is more helpful to the larger community and that helps individuals in a much more focused way.

To conclude, I want to congratulate the government. In effect, I am grading this budget at well above 90%, which is a very good mark by any stretch of the imagination. I am proud of my constituency and its efforts to get through a difficult year, and with the ongoing and dedicated support of an active and reliable government, the constituency of Egmont will emerge stronger than ever before.

As I indicated throughout my comments, I am pleased to be part of a government that has the backs of Canadians, the backs of Islanders and the backs of the residents of my riding of Egmont. I have been most proud to be part of the decision-making process in supporting those programs that have been so beneficial to Canadians, to Canadian businesses, to non-profit organizations and to municipalities and infrastructures that needed so much assistance during this unprecedented change in the economy created by the COVID-19 pandemic.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like him to comment, in detail, if possible, on the creation of two classes of seniors.

This measure would have cost around $4 billion if the government had included seniors aged 65 to 75. Once taxes are paid, that figure drops to a little over $2 billion.

This is not money that we would lose to tax havens. This money would be reinvested in the economy, so the final cost is relatively low. Would he agree that not only would this have been a good measure to help with the economic recovery, but it would also have kept seniors from falling through the cracks?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Madam Speaker, there are valid reasons we chose to increase the OAS program for those over 75. Those are well documented, but I would draw the member's attention to the record of this government. One of the first actions we took after being elected in 2015 was to raise the guaranteed income supplement for all seniors across the board. At the same time, we have to remember that a Conservative policy that was in place and a decision that was made removed the old age pension and guaranteed income supplement for seniors between the ages of 65 and 67. That, in effect, took well over $18,000 per senior out of their pockets. Yes, we have more work to do, but the initiatives taken by this government signal to the senior community that we know the issues before them and we are committed to working with them to make them better financially.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting to hear the Liberals tying themselves in rhetorical knots about defending aspects of policies and trying to distance themselves from decisions that were made in the past. It certainly is a fascinating discussion in rhetoric.

My question for the member is quite simple. In Bill C-30, there are some changes to the Elections Act that are related to a court decision. Specifically, it would make it illegal to knowingly mislead constituents during an election. Now, there has not been a lot of focus on this in the debate on this bill because it is a bit like an omnibus bill, which the Liberals had promised not to do, but this has been inserted into the bill. I would like to hear the member's comments on that particular aspect of Bill C-30.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the question from my colleague, and having listened to many debates and speeches in the House of Commons since 2015, I am often perplexed when the opposition Conservative Party rails against our government on the key area of energy as it relates to the western provinces, where the member is from. I am often left arriving at the conclusion that every member from western Canada who was part of the former Conservative government should be apologizing to the people of the prairie provinces for not taking any steps to unlock the oil industry there. They did not get any pipelines approved under that Conservative government because it had a process that was so flawed it was constantly being challenged.

One of the first initiatives of our government was to recognize that we had to have a process in place that met the needs of first nations communities and the environmental community to approve pipelines that met the test of protecting the environment and included first nations communities, and our government has done that. It was a major achievement that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I do want to allow for one more brief question.

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for touching on the importance of more investments for seniors, which is absolutely necessary.

As the critic for small business and tourism, I will focus on small businesses because they have been very clear that they want to see an extension of the wage subsidy and rental program into next spring, especially for those in the tourism industry. Many of them cater to international tourists, and we know that they are not going to see international tourists this year.

Does my colleague agree that those programs should be extended to ensure that those businesses survive into next year given the border will not open any time soon?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has a valid question.

I will simply respond by telling the member that the Prime Minister has been very clear that we will have the backs of Canadians and businesses for as long as it takes to get us successfully through the pandemic.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is good to be here. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on what could very well be one of the last sitting days of the 43rd Parliament. It remains a tremendous opportunity to represent the riding of Edmonton Riverbend, and I certainly look forward to continuing important discussions during what is likely a potential election around the corner.

Now I want to get to the topic at hand, the budget. I want to highlight an aspect of the budget that I think is important, but maybe has not received a lot of the attention here in the House, and that is Canada's aerospace sector. Canada's aerospace industry was one of the hardest-hit industries as a result of the pandemic, and the budget has not allocated enough for its recovery. Specifically, there was very little mention of Canada's space industry and the government's long-term plans.

Canada's space industry supports approximately 21,000 jobs across the country. The sector is composed of small businesses, multinational space companies, not-for-profit organizations, research centres and, of course, universities across the country. Canadian space organizations are internationally renowned for their scientific excellence and leading-edge technologies, such as space robotics, optical telescopes, satellite communications, earth observation and space situation awareness, and countless contributions to international collaborative science missions over the past five decades.

There is a clear need for Canada's space sector to maximize Canada's leadership at the forefront of space. By charting a new course and taking a balanced approach, we can realize the full economic, social, scientific and strategic benefits to Canada's place as a global leader in the exploration, research and commercialization of space.

This budget was a missed opportunity to provide Canadian space stakeholders clear guidance and a way to contribute to the future of the growing space program more proactively. If Canada is to remain competitive in space, it must adopt an overarching aerospace strategy that includes a clear and visible plan for space for the future. Every other aerospace nation has a national strategy to position their industries for recovery and growth and seize their share of the multitrillion-dollar emerging aerospace clean tech market. Canada needs to proudly support its aerospace industry and plan for the future. This budget fell short of that.

I am a member of Parliament from Alberta, a province that has experienced great upheaval over the last few years. Oil prices have dropped and thousands are out of work. Every day I hear from families who are struggling to get by. This budget, which I will remind my colleagues is the first in two years, missed an opportunity to address these concerns and make long-term plans for the future of the province.

We understand that transitioning to a green economy is in the best interest of our planet, and Alberta can play a big role in that transition. More than 17,000 Albertans already work for energy companies that have committed to net-zero by 2050. There was nothing in the budget about a long-term vision for Alberta's future.

Western alienation is very real. Albertans are feeling like undervalued members of the Confederation, and talk of separation from Canada has become more and more common. There is a real anger toward Ottawa, and the budget was an opportunity for the federal government to make amends and show Albertans they are valuable and needed for a strong Canada. Sadly, it did not.

My colleagues representing Alberta have been working extremely hard in the past number of years, and I am proud to say that our party has released a plan for economic recovery, stood up for Canadian energy workers and introduced a number of our members' bills to help Albertans and all Canadians. We all know that a strong Alberta means a strong Canada, and we will keep fighting for our province to be treated fairly by the federal government.

If I may just beg the indulgence of the House for a few short minutes, I would like to reflect and offer a statement.

In 2017, I was a member of a caucus that largely voted against Motion No. 103 when it was put forth in this House. Although nuanced, essentially it was a vote against recognizing that Islamophobia exists. I was wrong, and I am sorry. I want not just the Muslim community, but all of the communities of Edmonton, Alberta and Canada, to hear me say that Islamophobia is real. Islamophobia does exist within our communities, as witnessed this week at the Baitul Hadi Mosque in Edmonton.

Since 2017, I have spoken to many who have helped show me what this vote meant to their community, and the sense of unbelonging it helped to perpetuate. Quite simply, the impact of our words and actions in this place reverberate throughout our society. I do not want to do this in a self-promoting way, but I wanted to make this statement here, in arguably the most important building in our country, that I recognize that Islamophobia exists here in Canada. The attack in London was an attack against the Muslim community and an attack on Canadian values.

I want my children to also hear this lesson, and that is the lesson that, no matter how hard it can be, they can grow. I needed time to say this not only for my children but also for all children of Canada. I want them to see members from all political parties condemning these actions together because, after all, we are one Canada, and it is never too late to do the right thing.

I will conclude with something that I think has interrupted every aspect of Canadians' lives. Canadians have really borne the brunt of the economic damage the pandemic has caused. Donations to many charities have dropped, and Canadians have seen their incomes impacted. Canadian charities play a critical role in the day-to-day lives of Canadians.

Health charities support people living with diseases with information that has been backed by research and clinical studies. The pandemic has put many research programs at risk. Without funding for research that is usually provided by donors to charities, we could miss out on an important scientific breakthrough that could drastically improve the lives of Canadians. It is vitally important that we keep supporting our important charities.

I was pleased to see the budget addressing the gap created by COVID-19, but we need to act urgently. The budget proposes launching public consultations with charities in the coming months. However, the eligibility has yet to be unveiled and the consultations have only just begun, despite the fact that charities of all sizes have been calling for additional supports from the federal government from the start of the pandemic.

There is no guarantee that large national charities will qualify for this recovery fund. The allocated $400 million is unlikely to be enough to resemble recovery for the charitable sector. The government must have clear ineligibility guidelines and a timeline. These charities and the Canadians they serve need help now.

I have had the privilege of working very closely with a number of Canada's health charities over the past number of months, and I can personally attest to the good work they do in our communities and all across the country. It would be a tragedy to lose the invaluable services that they provide and to lose any research funding that could lead to the breakthroughs. I urge the government to fast-track its commitment to charities.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to what the member had to say, and I was particularly touched by his comments regarding Motion No. 103 on Islamophobia and how he recognizes that it is very real and something that needs to be dealt with in this country.

All I really want to do is thank him for being able to acknowledge that and saying he was wrong with respect to that. We can all learn a great deal from the member's speech, myself included. It is very easy to become blindly partisan sometimes, and I put myself in that camp, but the member has demonstrated how we can learn from what we have gone through and the experiences we have had, and hopefully this place will be better as a result of that.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, my statement speaks for itself, but the member is right that we can always grow. What I tell my children and the people I love is that it is never too late to do the right thing, and that is what I did today.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, Islamophobia is real. We see it daily. We have seen the height of it in the last few days and the recognition of it is important, albeit delayed.

With respect to addressing systemic racism and Islamophobia, in particular, what can we do together as parliamentarians to elevate the debate on issues of racism and Islamophobia, instead of using them as wedge issues? What do we need to do to ensure that we can move forward in building a country where we address underlying issues of systemic racism?

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is great to see my friend and neighbour in the Valour Building here in Ottawa. I had an opportunity to see him just this week. It is refreshing to start to be able to see more people around this place.

The member raises some great questions. The important thing to remember, and what he and I often talk about, is that there are a lot of partisan lines drawn in this place. It is unfortunate at times, because I think we do have a lot in common. We could all learn from each other, no matter what part of the country we come from, no matter what political beliefs we have. There are always opportunities to grow. He is a perfect example of someone I have learned a lot from.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just want to share a story and ask the member a question.

I went to a Catholic high school but grew up in a Muslim household. I remember taking a world religions class. It talked about all the religions of the world. It was a great course to introduce students to a lot of different ethnicities, religions and backgrounds. When I was in that high school, I can say without a doubt that I did not experience Islamophobia one bit. However, after 9/11, this has accelerated and brought Islamophobia and the fear of others into the limelight.

Would my hon. colleague agree that these types of education courses in certain particular schools would help alleviate Islamophobia?

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is great to see my friend joining us here in the chamber today.

Education is, of course, a very important aspect. I think of my friend who works in my constituency office. She is scared to go out in public to a train station where other members of her faith have been attacked and have had their head scarves pulled off. To me, that means something is wrong.

Together, members from all parties could help to raise that issue more. I can only think that this would help fight the fact that Islamophobia is real and it does exist in our communities here in Canada.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking to members from Scarborough—Rouge Park, the traditional lands of many indigenous nations, most recently of the Mississaugas of the Credit. I will be speaking in support of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021.

Before I go deeper into the budget, I want to reflect on the past few weeks. It has been a difficult few weeks for many in our country, and I think it is safe to say that our hearts ache on a number of different fronts.

First and foremost, learning of the graves of 215 children in Kamloops has really opened existing wounds and has shaken us up in a way things have rarely shaken us. This is a moment in time when all of us need to come together and ensure that there is justice, accountability and reflection. There is also a real commitment to ensure that all of the 94 calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report are implemented.

There are sadly going to be other findings along the way, and I think in order for us to have closure, in order for us to truly live up to the past and move forward, we need to support indigenous-led initiatives that will commemorate and remember, and that will ensure that the children are brought home. I send my heartfelt condolences to the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc people and I want to assure them that I, along with my colleagues in the House, will continue to work to support them and others in these efforts.

Just last week, I sadly attended another memorial, in London, Ontario, to pay respects to the Afzaal family. I was joined by members from all parties and leaders from across different levels of government, but most importantly the members of the Muslim community in London.

The Afzaal family were walking, like most of us have relearned to do over the past 18 months or so. They were going on an evening walk and they were sadly mowed down by a terrorist, by someone who espoused so much hate. I do not even know if I could fathom the level of hate this individual had to do this to this family, but more broadly, to attack us as Canadians. When we see an attack on one individual community or family, it really is an attack on all of us. It is an attack on the values that we espouse.

Sadly, it did not stop there. We know that incidents of Islamophobia have been on the rise exponentially over the past several days. We have seen incidents in Edmonton, as my friend from Edmonton Riverbend just referenced. We have seen daily microaggressions toward many friends, colleagues and others we may have worked with. This is a real moment for us to reflect on the level of hate speech, the level of hate propaganda on social media. We know that incidents of anti-Semitism are on the rise.

This is a moment for us to reflect and make sure that we do better and we collectively work together, that we do not use race and these differences as wedge issues, but rather as issues that we can all come together to fight against as a common good. I sincerely hope that we have turned the page in our Parliament where we can do that. I hope to work across the aisle with my friends opposite to do that.

On a very personal note, I must thank all those colleagues who are not going to be running again in the next election. Most importantly, I want to acknowledge and thank my good friend from Mississauga—Malton, the former minister of innovation, for his extraordinary guidance for me personally and the doors that he opened for me to ensure my success. I want to pay particular respect and thank him and his extraordinary family, Bram, Kirpa, Nanki, Poppa Bains and Momma Bains, for all they have done.

In his speech, he reflected on the issue of identity, on the issue of being Sikh and being able to practise his faith and live day to day as a Sikh with enormous and extraordinary challenges, and yet he has overcome so many and has led us in ways that I do not have time to describe here.

I do want to get to the budget, and I want to talk about something that has been very important for the people of Scarborough. Scarborough region used to be its own municipality prior to amalgamation with the broader city of Toronto. We have a population of roughly 630,000 people. We are represented by six parliamentarians; we call them the Scarborough caucus. We have set out since 2015 to prioritize one singular ask, which is additional support for transit.

The Scarborough region has not had any higher levels of transit built in a generation. The last project, the rapid transit, the LRT, is coming to an end in 2023. It is broken down. It is far past its best-before date, and it is fair to say that it is not serving the people of Scarborough.

In 2015, Scarborough Agincourt was represented by Arnold Chan. We got together and said we absolutely needed to make sure that we built higher orders of transit. At that time, the singular project that was in the pipeline, with almost a 10-year debate behind it, was the Scarborough subway extension. It was initially a three-stop subway. It became a four-stop subway, then a two-stop subway, and finally here we are today and we were recently able to announce a federal investment of $2.25 billion into a three-stop line, which will start construction before the end of the year, and we are hopeful that it will be constructed by 2030. That is the timeline that has been provided.

This is a game-changer. This is very important, and this is an important investment in the people of Scarborough, all the hard-working people. Scarborough had one of the most affected populations during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have had so many issues of riders, essential workers, going downtown in crammed buses and being affected disproportionately to the population. I believe this is a very important investment.

As much as this is important, this is not the end for us. Scarborough as a region will require additional supports in terms of infrastructure, and that is why this budget is so important, as it outlines a mechanism through the permanent public transit funding that would enable places like Scarborough to build. I am looking forward to supporting the construction of the Eglinton East LRT as the next project.

I look forward to the questions and answers today.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we heard the hon. member reference the atrocities committed across these lands under the guise of residential schools and we know [Technical difficulty—Editor] from future generations from their lands. Near me, at Six Nations territory, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy council has called for a moratorium on all developments on disputed territories, and yet the government refuses to come back to the negotiating table with the hereditary chiefs.

When will the hon. member and his government finally get back to the table with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy council and honour the request for a moratorium on development?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to note that the one thing I did not mention is that Bill C-15 passed through the Senate this week, which is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It has clearly outlined many of the issues that my friend opposite talked about. The declaration offers us guidance regarding how we engage on a nation-to-nation basis with indigenous people. I know that, with respect to his particular concern, we will continue to work with all of the parties to come to a solution on the dispute that he referenced.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I also heard the good words from our colleague from Alberta in response to a change of position regarding Motion No. 103. The very aggressive and quite frankly dangerous words that were shared around the time of that debate put a number of members of this Parliament in a very precarious place in their private life.

Right now I represent the oldest Chinatown in Toronto. The member represents some of the newer communities of the Chinese Canadian settlement, but the language around China has taken on a very similar tone to the language around Muslims in this Parliament. I know from talking to community leaders and individuals in my riding that anti-Asian hate crime is rising as China is singled out for a whole series of challenges. I wonder if my colleague could talk about the impact some of that rhetoric around China is having on Chinese Canadians in our communities.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, when we were developing the anti-racism strategy in 2019, we realized that racism has a different impact on different communities, and anti-Asian racism is one that has historically, whether through the head tax or other forms of indentured labour to bring people of Chinese origin into Canada to work, had a disparate impact on the Asian community. I know language is important and as we continuously and rightfully criticize China on a number of issues, we have to differentiate between the state and the people. I think that is sometimes lost here and I hope members will be much more careful with the language that is used.

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

Madam Speaker, when it comes to Bill C-30, there are a lot of measures in it for Canadians that have to be passed in order to get us through the rest of this pandemic. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can give his feedback on how important he thinks it is, now more than ever, to make sure this bill passes as quickly as possible.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think there is an urgency here, especially with respect to the supports to individuals and small businesses. I know many of the small businesses in my community are struggling. Although we are on the cusp of opening up in phases, they are really behind with respect to rent and other financial needs, so we really need to get this budget implementation act through in the next couple of days for this to have a meaningful impact on Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on the importance of passing this legislation and other progressive pieces of legislation over the next few days and how Canadians would benefit from such.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is important legislation, as is Bill C-12, Bill C-10 and Bill C-6. They contain important value-based measures for Canadians that we need to pass before we rise for the summer.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 2.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures.

Canadians have been hit very hard over the past year and a half because of the global pandemic, and many have lost jobs or had hours reduced. Some have had time off work to care for loved ones. Sectors, such as tourism and retail, have been hit especially hard.

After going years since the last budget, Canadians were hoping to see some leadership from the Liberal government, and perhaps a clear direction and a path forward as we move closer to putting the pandemic behind us. Instead, Canadians were presented with a budget that was big on promises and very low on substance. Instead of a concrete plan of investment, increased economic activity and a pathway toward economic recovery and reopening, Canadians were presented with a collection of the greatest hits of past Liberal promises, which have never been delivered on to this day. The government has been high on rhetoric and low on results. Canada has a great story to tell, and we should have a government that is willing to do the work to put Canada in a position to prosper as we transition out of the pandemic.

In the early weeks of the pandemic when Canadians were facing tremendous uncertainty, I took a drive through the beautiful riding of Tobique—Mactaquac in western New Brunswick. During the drive, I remember reflecting on what a difficult time Canadians were facing, some even more than others, and how many sectors were affected by the devastating effects of the pandemic. Some were fully shut down. Others were facing tremendous uncertainty. The headwinds of this unprecedented circumstance were truly overwhelming for many parts of the world, and Canada was no exception.

As I was driving through my riding that day in the spring of last year, something caught my eye, and it left a deep impression on me. I still reflect upon it to this day on occasion. I come from a large rural riding, a farming and agricultural riding, that plays a tremendous role in our local economy. Particularly, I come from potato-growing country. In fact, part of my riding is known as the french fry capital of the world, and I must confess that my physique sometimes portrays that. It is a bit of a weakness. We do have great potatoes, meat and beef in my riding.

This, in turn, drives many other sectors in our region, such as trucking and manufacturing, and our processing facilities. While much of our lives were shut down and despite the great uncertainty, fear and anxiety, some sectors kept going. even in the face of great uncertainty. They kept doing what they needed to do in the face of unprecedented obstacles.

What I observed that day last year left an imprint on me: I saw farmers once again, in the spring, going out into their fields to plant seed in the ground. They did not know what the market would be like and they were not sure about the demand, but they got up and went to sow seed into the soil. They kept doing what they knew they could do, and entrusted things they were not sure about to what would come and who could be trusted to take care of them.

Through faith, through hard work and through pure tenacity, many farmers in my region faced the headwinds of uncertainty head-on, and I drew inspiration from that. I thought that if the farmers can keep doing what they know is right to do in the face of uncertainty, all of us as Canadians can draw inspiration from that and keep doing the things we know are right to do, even though we are not sure what the ultimate outcome may be.

I am glad to report that in my region several sectors kept going. Truckers kept moving their goods, farmers kept planting their seeds and the processors kept processing. The demand for food has remained.

I think this has taught us all a significant lesson that we need to reflect upon: Now is the time for Canada to be positioned to take advantage of a post-COVID world. Now is the time for Canada to make the decisions that state clearly that we believe in ourselves and we believe in our potential as a country to move past COVID-19. This is a time when we can show the strength and fortitude that I saw in the producers, truckers and first responders of my region and that we have seen throughout this entire country. Now is the time to build with the future in mind. Rather than continually speaking to the perils and the overwhelming challenges that we face, let us as parliamentarians and as a collective body in the House speak to our potential as a country.

The world wants to do business with Canada. The world likes Canada and the world sees our potential, and I think often more than what we may see in ourselves. We need the leadership here at home to say that Canada can become even more than what it has ever been. Canada can be positioned to thrive and prosper for generations to come if we make decisions to prioritize Canadian industry, Canadian entrepreneurship, Canadian technology, Canadian resources and Canadian know-how. Our greatest asset is our people, and the more we can empower our people and allow them to do what they do best, the more Canada will be positioned to thrive, grow and prosper on the other side of the pandemic.

I speak with faith and optimism because of what I have witnessed at home and what I have heard from across the country: Canadians rose to the occasion in the face of great uncertainty. What we need now is a government that will respond in kind and say that it trusts Canadians to do what only Canadians can do and in a way that only Canadians can do it, that is, rise to face the challenges of this moment.

Today I stand before the House with a great deal of gratitude in my heart for what I have witnessed in people and what I see in Canadians. I also stand before the House with a challenge for each of us. We should draw inspiration from those we work with, those we have witnessed on the front lines and those who have kept doing tremendous things when they were facing overwhelming odds and obstacles. I feel we can even draw inspiration from our very own coat of arms, which says, “They desire a better country.” That is in our coat of arms.

In this post-COVID time when we move beyond the pandemic and get to the other side of it, why not desire an even better country to hand to future generations? Let us make decisions to invest in our people and entrust our people, and make the decisions we need in order to secure our future in a way that will make Canada sustainable for generations to come.

How do we do that? We do it by maximizing the areas that we do and know so well, whether it is in agriculture, where we grow some of the best and finest foods in the world; in energy, where we have the most environmentally regulated and sustainable energy resources in the world and where we treat ethically the people who produce and work in its sectors; or in our technological fields, which are advanced. We have amazing potential, and I am speaking to it today.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I do not want to get in the way of the member opposite's optimism. I think we all believe that this issue is critically important. However, I will note that yesterday, my family buried an uncle who passed away from COVID this week. His wife, who is even more frail that he was and is still in hospital, has not been told she has lost her husband. The contact tracing shows that COVID came through the health care workers in the family, who continue to battle on the front lines even though the vaccination rates are brilliant and we are leading in the G7 and the G20 on the first dose and are closing in on the second dose. All of these circumstances have to be dealt with, and I would really caution the member opposite not to speak as if the crisis is over, because in many, many communities it quite frankly is not over.

Since he spoke to the future and to the budget, I have one question for him. People tell us to invest in the people, invest in our sectors and invest in the economy. It is invest, invest, invest. However, all we hear from the Conservatives is cut, cut, cut. How do we invest and cut at the same time?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his insight and perspective, but being wise, being good stewards, planning ahead and seeing around corners is the essence of leadership and good governance. We cannot just speak to where we are currently; we must speak to where we are heading. I find the current government puts too much emphasis on what is behind, what we have gone through already. We need to have the vision to see where we are going in order to traverse the uncertain waters we are in now. That takes away nothing from the horrific challenges that COVID has presented to the country, and is still having its effect on, but we must speak to the future.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for speaking at length about agriculture. I understand that he wants us to turn our attention to what comes after COVID-19, but I would like him to speak to what happened during the pandemic.

In question period today, I asked why support for mandatory quarantines was cut in half a few days ago when the war on COVID-19 is not over and our farmers need support.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the general support provided to the agriculture and agri-food community during the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular the inadequacy of the emergency processing fund.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's question is a good one as it relates to the inadequate support that we have found for those who literally grow our food and keep our land. Our agriculture producers are the backbone of our economy and are essential to our food security. If this pandemic has revealed anything, it is the absolute need to prioritize our agriculture and food supply chains.

The current government has not. In fact, it has put priorities on so many things, but the one sector that seems to have been overlooked in many cases are those who actually grow and supply and literally keep our land in this time; that being, our farmers and our agricultural sector.

I agree with the hon. member. This must be an ongoing priority for the government and we must do everything we can to ensure that our food supply chains are secure and that proper investment is made into agriculture.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is very clear to me that the member represents a rural riding like I do. Could the member speak to a motion I tabled in the House, Motion No. 53, which talks about an equitable and fair future. It talks about ensuring that resources are going out to rural and remote communities, especially as we know the climate is changing and the economy is changing and our resource-based economies need support to transition and change.

Does the member have any thoughts on that and would he support the motion I have tabled.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her passion for rural Canadians, and I share that passion.

We need to ensure that rural Canada remains and actually becomes a much greater priority for our governments. Our rural areas literally grow and produce so much of the food that we enjoy and require. Our rural areas oftentimes are the key manufacturers and developers of our natural resources. They are the ones that oftentimes house those who truck and ship our goods all over the world and throughout our continent. Our rural areas will be key in getting us to the other side of COVID-19.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks on Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, with a solemn reflection of my time in the House.

When I first began, I had the opportunity to reply to the Speech from the Throne. At that point in time, we were all hopeful that in a minority government, we could work through in a way that would be of the greatest benefit to Canadians. Then, with the next Speech from the Throne after prorogation, I rose in this very spot and talked about the regret I felt, that we could have done better by Canadians in this time of crisis.

I want to take this moment of solemn reflection and centre the conversation back to the 25,000 people who have died from COVID in our country. We heard the remarks from the previous speaker about our agricultural sector. I want to note the recent passing of a migrant farm worker, someone who was left without the basic protections that most Canadians seem to take for granted. I want to think about the key question of what a budget implementation act is meant to do in a time of crisis, in this time of COVID. We have heard the term “unprecedented” time and again.

The last time I rose in the House, I talked about the opportunity we had before us and how, as New Democrats, we could fight for what could be in Canada and not what was. I wish I could suggest today that we have somehow found that dream, but I continue to point to the promises made, but not kept, by the Liberal government to the working-class people of the country. We know this crisis was not experienced equally.

During the pandemic, inequalities have increased. There was not an all-hands-on-deck approach. This has not been a team Canada approach. While everybody else was $200 away from insolvency, while 25,000 people perished, many of them living in deplorable conditions in long-term care facilities that had been privatized and carved out of our so-called universal health care, the ultra wealthy among us acquired close to $80 billion in wealth.

We have learned a lot about the Liberal government over the last few years. It talks a really good game and chases those headlines, but has no intention of delivering. Even elements of its own budget announcement have been left out of this budget implementation act. There is no wealth tax. There is no excess profits tax. The government talks about consultations, so it can report back to the House at a future date, and all the while the ultra-wealthy in the country continue to profit from the misery.

There is a choice to be made each and every time a budget is presented. It is ultimately a choice of which side one is on, that of the ultra-wealthy 1% or the rest of us. Since the beginning, people in my community of Hamilton Centre, noting the chuckles in the House from the Liberal side, are worried about whether they will be able to keep their job or pay rent. Let us forget about them ever being first-time homeowners. That dream is long gone for the people in my city, because the working-class wages have been suppressed. while the ultra-wealthy gained incredibly obscene amounts of money.

This crisis has revealed the fragility of the social safety nets we tout and for which we have so much pride, those measures that supposedly distinguish us from the rest of the world. The whole system has been set up on the backs of working-class people. We only have to look at the way the EI program, which had been raided by previous Liberal governments to balance the budget, completely fell apart and left out part-time workers and people who were self-employed. During this crisis, it was the workers who experienced the direct consequences of years of austerity and underfunding from successive Conservative and Liberal governments.

In this moment of historic crisis, when we stood here fighting for greater benefits for workers and pushing to ensure people had some kind of security, we heard people in the House bemoan the fact the average everyday Canadian may have received a meagre $2,000 a month. All the programs and social spending combined, at about $100 billion, pales in comparison to the $750 billion that was transferred to Bay Street and the big banks.

When were talking about a guaranteed livable income and about increasing CERB supports for people, I remember the hon. member for Winnipeg North asking “What are we going to do, click our heels to support Canadians?” The Liberals certainly did that for Bay Street. This represents the largest transfer of wealth from the general public, the working-class people, to the ultra-wealthy in the country. Main street was absolutely mugged by Bay Street.

We were fighting for workers and tried to find that balance. One of the mistakes made over the course of COVID was the fact that rather than ensure the direct supports for wage subsidies went directly for workers, we allowed it to go to businesses. The Liberals did it in such a way they knew had significant holes and gaps, loopholes almost as big as their tax haven scams. What did that result in?

There were $18 billion that went into oil and gas in 2020. Imperial Oil took $120 million in the Canada emergency wage subsidy, while paying out $324 million to its shareholders. Chartwell received $3 million and paid out 11 times that amount, $33 million, to its shareholders.

Yesterday, in debate, I recall one of the hon. members from the Liberal side tried to challenge the hon. member for Burnaby, suggesting somehow he was not doing enough as an individual to contribute to his community.

I put a question to the House, to all the members who are watching in the Canadian public. When I talk about the theft of corporate Canada from taxpayers in the country, the question is cui bono, who profited from that crime? Who in the House holds stocks and shares that may have been paid off the dividends and off the back of our Canada emergency wage subsidy?

Air Canada was given $6 billion, yet Greyhound leaves and the government does not see fit to support northern and rural communities by expanding government as a service, a national passenger bus transit strategy that would have ensured people had the ability to move around the country. We can look at the close to one billion dollars given to pharmaceutical companies. We have no preferable procurement. We are giving money away to the private sector and getting nothing in return.

Why do we not have in this moment, in this budget implementation act, the ability for us as a nation to procure our own life-saving vaccines? Because the government would rather kowtow to pharmaceutical companies, to allow them to set the agenda, the prices and the market, the global market.

Nobody is safe in the country until the entire world is safe. The government continues to tout how many vaccines it has taken in, while simultaneously taking from the COVAX facility. At the very same time, with absolutely zero moral authority, it blocked the patent waivers for which the international world is calling.

My city was just named a Delta variant hot spot this week. This budget does not deliver on the ability for us to adequately respond to how this could potentially have mutations and could potentially make all our vaccination efforts useless.

I want the Liberals to reflect on the things they have said over the last two years versus what they have actually delivered. At the end of the day, I want them to be accountable for all the people they have left out in this implementation act.

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

Madam Speaker, listening to the member's speech, it would appear as though he is not going to be supporting this budget and voting in favour of it.

Could he confirm if he and the NDP are opposed to it and would be voting against it?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is the cute game that Liberals like to play. They know that we are here to fight for Canadians. We know the Melba toast efforts of the Liberals.

If we do not support this bill, we know that the meagre supports Canadians have would be cut in July. The Liberals like to play those games of half-measures. They would like Canadians to believe that they have been there fighting for them, when at the end of the day, I have people calling my office every single day, concerned about what will happen when CRA begins to claw back some of the benefits that they are now being told they were not eligible for, that they had not successfully applied for.

When those critical services are cut back, that is going to have a ripple effect on OAS, the guaranteed income supplement. Mark my words, to MPs all around this House, their lower-income seniors will start calling. The Liberals, in their headlines, told everyone to just go ahead and apply, and on the good word of the government and senior members of government, they did so. Now it is going to be clawed back and people are going to be left with the tab, for some, in the tens of thousands of dollars.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that Bill C-30 does not address, and it is a wide chasm, is the issue of those who fell through the cracks under previous iterations of some of the benefits.

I am speaking specifically about travel advisers and businesses that were started in 2020 that did not have access to many of the benefits that other businesses or other Canadians had. The fact is that the implementation bill neglects to address those issues and causes severe problems for those Canadians who otherwise did not qualify for these types of benefits.

Could the member comment on that?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, let us think about all the businesses that this hon. member just listed. They are small mom-and-pop entrepreneurs, people who are struggling to get by.

By design, the government programs left them out. They absolutely left them out. I brought it to the government's attention, that it needed to close the loopholes for the ultra wealthy and the big corporations that were soaking this country and then paying out CEO bonuses and dividends. Every single person on Main Street who is struggling to get by in the small business sector, when all is said and done, will hold the government to account in the next election.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hamilton Centre for his speech. He spoke a lot about the Canada emergency wage benefit. I would like to hear his thoughts on the political parties that received the wage subsidy.

What does he think about that?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, in a moment of candour, I personally do not think it was appropriate. I will say that on the record. At the same time, particularly those parties that were flush have to significantly account for it.

All of our efforts in this House should have been directed at everyday working-class Canadians.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his very important and powerful speech in the House today.

I know that in my office I am getting a lot of calls from constituents who are hard-working people who cannot go back to work. Their jobs are simply not there. They do not know what they are going to do when the CERB goes down to $300 a week from $500 a week. What is most shameful is how these people are apologizing to the people who work in my office and saying they want me to know they are not trying to be a burden.

What does this do to people who work hard for our country?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was glaringly obvious from the outset that the government really only values people who it deemed were contributing directly to the economy in ways that left out people with disabilities and people who continue to fall through the cracks. That is apparent each and every day in the calls we get. If there is an MP in this House who denies the fact they are getting those calls, that is something they are going to have to answer for to their constituents in the next election.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating Bill C‑30, but that does not mean much to the average person. This is a budget implementation bill.

It is interesting that we are talking about the budget and the budget implementation bill. It is 2021, and the government was elected in 2019, which means that the government took two years and a bit to finally present a budget. That is a problem. The COVID‑19 crisis started at the beginning of 2020, and it is still not over. It seems like the government took advantage of the crisis to avoid tabling a budget. This is a minority government, and it would normally have been held to account. Normally, the government would have had to try to work with the other parties, especially since it got even fewer votes than another opposition party.

A result like that on the heels of an election should be a wake-up call. The government should have understood that it might be a good idea to face the facts and that it would have to think carefully about its next moves and reach out to others. Unfortunately, it seems that [Technical difficulty—Editor].

Madam Speaker, I just realized that I had some technical issues.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Everything seems to be working fine on our end; perhaps the problem is on the hon. member's end.

The problem has now been resolved.

The hon. member for Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères can continue his intervention.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I seem to have gotten cut off for a moment. I think a member had their microphone on, and a meeting host put everyone on mute to turn the member's sound off. I think that probably put me and the Chair on mute. I could be wrong. I am not a tech expert, but that would be my guess.

What I was saying was that we would have expected the government, upon winning a minority, to make an effort to negotiate with the parties, to present a budget and to make concessions. Instead, it dragged things out and took advantage of the pandemic to avoid presenting a budget, to avoid being held accountable and to do whatever it wanted. Once the pandemic arrived, the government came to us with piecemeal legislation that we always had to vote on quickly. We then noticed all of the holes and all of the problems these programs had.

It is now June 2021 and we are hearing all kinds of rumours about a possible election. Meanwhile, we are still on this government's first budget. That speaks volumes. We agree that that is not much of a record, that it is not very impressive.

Let us also talk a little bit about the way this crisis was managed, the way we experienced it as parliamentarians and the way the population saw it. I am not sure that the Liberals were the great champions they sometimes claim to be.

In fact, when looking at the situation, we see that they took advantage of the crisis to try to give contracts to their friends. They arranged for a nice wage subsidy and included a special stipulation saying that political parties would be eligible. That is about it. They arranged things and no one seemed to be aware of it. However, at a certain point, we realized what was happening. We wondered how the Liberals could take advantage of the wage subsidy when their coffers were already full. It was the same for the other parties. The Bloc Québécois is the only party that refused to take advantage of the wage subsidy.

The Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, two political parties that are far from lacking in funds, took advantage of the pandemic to get rich and fill their coffers, at the expense of people who were in need and who needed the support of the government.

We will not stop reminding the House of this, even though the government may not like to hear it. We are going to repeat it because we know that the public is eventually going to have to vote and pass judgment.

We also saw a company being incorporated and, practically the very next day, magically receiving government contracts at prices that were frankly pretty high. First of all, the company did not manufacture equipment or respirators. Second, the people linked to this company were former Liberals.

We saw the WE Charity program brought in, again in a rush. The government claimed it did not have the expertise or staff to run a program. In the end, we realized that this charity had dubious practices. For example, it might get four or five different donors to fund the same project and just change the name on the plaque out front. We discovered that some people in the organization were particularly close to the Liberals and that the government was going to put the group in charge of distributing about $1 billion in grants for “paid volunteer work” without a competition and without consulting anyone. It is a weird story, and I think that many people had a hard time following the government's reasoning, the Liberals' reasoning. It is so hard to explain. We still have a hard time explaining it. The whole thing was called off when the parliamentary committees started looking into this infamous program, which seemed tailor-made for a group that had ties to the Liberals.

There were other problems that may not have bothered people in the rest of Canada very much, but that certainly bothered people in Quebec. In the middle of the health crisis, when people were a bit worried and stressed out, we sometimes wondered if we would be able to get all the products we needed. Some products on the shelves were dangerous and came with no instructions. Some products had no information on them.

In times of crisis, governments show their true colours, and we certainly saw the Canadian government's true colours. As it turns out, French is a frill for the Canadian government. It is a cute little language that the government likes to trot out from time to time to placate francophones whenever we make a fuss, but when the rubber hits the road, French gets tossed aside. That is exactly what happened with product labelling during the crisis.

We also found out how the federal government was managing its medical equipment. When the emergency supply warehouses were opened up, it turned out that the masks were past their expiry date, and lots of the gear in the federal stockpile was no longer usable. Panic ensued, and the government scrambled to bring in equipment from all over the world.

A similar fate befell our vaccine production capacity. We realized it had become all but impossible to make vaccines here. It is possible, but our capacity is greatly diminished. Why? Because Canada has chosen to outsource everything over the years, often at the expense of our local industries.

As I mentioned earlier, some programs had some deficiencies, like the CERB, which created disincentives to work. Many people decided to stay at home instead of going to work, even though there was a need on the ground.

The government decided not to close the borders, even though it was well known that the virus was entering from other countries. It did not come from within Canada. Some people were getting cheques to quarantine after going on holiday, while others had no access to any assistance.

The government felt sorry for the airlines. Yes, they needed help, but ordinary people were not getting refunds for their plane tickets. Their rights were completely violated.

On top of that, the government has taken to lecturing Quebec on how it has handled the crisis. After everything I just pointed out, in my opinion, that is the worst. There is nothing worse than a government that comes along and tells Quebec what to do in its areas of jurisdiction, that gives lessons on how Quebec should manage its health care system when it is incapable of managing its own jurisdictions.

I will conclude there.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for raising concerns related to the gaps in the programs for small business.

I would like to ask him about something in respect to seniors. We have seen that many seniors were outraged that the government left out seniors aged 65 to 74 in its plan for a long overdue increase to old age security payments. We have seen seniors struggle through COVID-19.

As our colleague from Hamilton Mountain so eloquently articulated, the Liberals have now created junior seniors and senior seniors. It sounds absurd because it is absurd, but that is what we would have in our country if this government does not fix it in its budget bill. We would have a two-tiered senior system.

Does my colleague agree that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Seniors need to fix this, and do what is right, so we do not have a two-tiered system for seniors? Does he agree we need to give them the support they need so they are not using their savings? Seniors are getting by on very little, and they need this help right now.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague asked an excellent question.

The phone calls, emails and Facebook messages have been pouring in non-stop. For years, when I have been out speaking to people, both young and older retirees have been telling me that a 50¢ increase in their pension is ridiculous. They feel like they are being made fun of.

Seniors are very frustrated at being disrespected and mistreated by this federal government when they have contributed to society all their lives. It is insulting to receive a 50¢ increase as a result of indexing. That is a joke. What will 50¢ buy in 2021?

Every senior needs support, and the government should listen to them.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting speech.

He showed us the many differences between Quebec and the Canadian provinces.

I know that my colleague has taken a great interest in agriculture, in particular the next generation of farmers. There are very few supports in this budget for the agriculture sector, which is so important. In particular, there is nothing for the Quebec model, which is different from the other provinces' models.

Can my colleague make some suggestions about how the budget could have better supported our farmers?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She was not very specific, so I do not quite know how to answer. Unfortunately, it is difficult for me to answer at this point.

However, with regard to the agricultural model, I can say that, in the past, we were very disappointed to see the federal government sacrificing Quebec at every opportunity in matters involving international trade.

Quebec has an agricultural model that works. The COVID-19 crisis strengthened Quebec's resolve to promote local agriculture and family farms and to take another look at our vision of agriculture so that we can eat high-quality, locally produced food.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the issues that people in my province have been speaking a lot about is the need for reforms to equalization and to the fiscal stabilization program. Views may not be uniform across the country on that, but one thing on which there is agreement, and that all the premiers have called for, is lifting the cap on the fiscal stabilization program. Provinces agree that it is not reasonable to have a cap on the fiscal stabilization program in light of the nature and objectives of this program.

This is a call supported by premiers in the west and also by Premier Legault. I would like to hear if the Bloc supports this call from the premiers, including Premier Legault, to eliminate that cap as a basic fairness measure for the provinces.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his rather technical question. If I can provide him with a more general answer, I would say that some provinces are very frustrated and have a lot of demands related to the equalization problem, or equalization program, rather. Pardon my mistake.

These provinces would probably have fewer problems if they could raise taxes high enough to meet their financial needs. Often the problem results from the fact that a government makes tax cuts before realizing that it can no longer afford to pay for services. That might be the answer.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-30, the budget implementation act.

The Liberals, after failing to deliver a budget for two years, finally got around to delivering one a few months ago. I have to say that the budget delivers. The only problem is that it delivers in all the wrong ways. The Liberals have delivered a historic deficit of $354 billion, the largest deficit in Canadian history, and the Liberals have delivered a mountain of debt, with the national debt projected to reach $1.4 trillion by the end of this year.

To put that staggering figure in some context, the Liberals have managed to nearly double the national debt in the span of less than two years. This Liberal budget delivers yet another near historic deficit for this year of $154.7 billion, with deficit after deficit projected year after year, and no plan whatsoever to see a return to a balanced budget.

The members of the government say, as one of the excuses that they peddle for the massive deficits and massive debt, that it is all about COVID, and that COVID has necessitated all of the spending, except that simply is not true. Indeed, when one looks at program spending for 2021-22 of $475.6 billion, only a little more than 10% of that is attributable to COVID. Speaking of $475.6 billion in program spending, that represents a 40.5% increase in spending from 2019-20 levels. That is right. It is a 40.5% increase in spending in two years under these Liberals.

In the face of this massive, reckless spending, to paraphrase the great late former U.S. president Ronald Reagan, one could accuse the government of spending like drunken sailors. However, as President Reagan would say that at least the drunken sailors were spending their own money. The same cannot be said for the government. Whose money are the Liberals spending? It turns out that a lot of what they are doing is printing money.

In an unprecedented manner, the Bank of Canada is buying the government's debt. There was a $354-billion deficit last year. Of that, the Bank of Canada bought over $300 billion, or over 80%. We have seen, in terms of the supply of money, an increase of some 20% over this past year alone. That represents an increase in the supply of money that we have not seen in this country since 1974, nearly 50 years ago.

There is a price to be paid for all of this borrowing and all of the spending, and we hear the excuses from the government. The Liberals' justification is to say that now is a better time than ever to borrow and spend because interest rates are low.

Interest rates will not always be low, and it must be said that the government does not entirely have control of interest rates. Market forces also help determine what interest rates will be. Putting that aside, there is a cost being borne by everyday, middle-class Canadians in inflation.

Indeed, the consumer price index for April saw an increase of 3.4%. That was its highest recording since September 2011. It was a 10-year record in the consumer price index, and it was broken one month later when it rose by 3.6%. That has hit Canadians hard in the wallet.

We have seen the costs of just about everything go up. Homeowners' replacement costs increased 11.3% from last year, representing the largest annual increase since 1987. Housing prices have skyrocketed 42% in the span of one year. We have seen gasoline prices increase by about 50% from last year.

Regarding essentials such as groceries, the Canada Food Price Report projects that the average family of four will pay $695 more in groceries this year compared with last year. That represents the largest projected increase in the cost of groceries since the report was first published, more than 10 years ago.

I know that for our silver-spoon Prime Minister and other Liberal elites, $695 is chump change. It means nothing to them. For everyday Canadians, at a time when 53% of Canadians are $200 away from insolvency, $695 can make the difference between putting food on the table and being able to stay in their homes.

For this budget, we have heard the finance minister talk so much about stimulus. By the way, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said it was totally miscalibrated. For all the talk about recovery, I say where are the jobs? There were 200,000 jobs lost in April and 68,000 jobs lost in May. Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7, and the sixth-highest unemployment rate out of 37 countries in the OECD.

For a government that has spent so much, it has failed to deliver as Canadians fall farther and farther behind. This is a failed budget from a failed Liberal government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, let me thank the official opposition and their partners for allowing us to debate this particular bill. It is an important piece of legislation, so I appreciate the opportunity to speak to it and ask questions today.

To my friend across the way, does he not see the hypocrisy of some Conservative members saying we need to spend more money in certain areas, in particular on support packages that will cost additional hundreds of millions of dollars, when on the other hand the Conservative right is saying they do not want us spending as much money?

How does he balance what appears to many to be hypocrisy?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have a government that has spent a lot of money, but has not targeted the dollars to help Canadians. The member for Barrie—Innisfil posed a question earlier today about new businesses that have been completely shut out of the government's COVID supports. While small businesses and new businesses were struggling, however, the government had no trouble rewarding Liberal insiders like the Kielburger brothers and the WE organization. I reject the premise of the hon. member's question.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree that a lot of folks across the country are really worried about their futures. My concern is that during this time, Canada's richest folks, the ultrarich, have increased their wealth substantially. I am very concerned that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals seem to be interested in making sure that the richest Canadians pay their fair share. They do not need to pay more: just their fair share, because they are paying significantly less in taxes than everyday hard-working Canadians.

I am wondering this. Could the member explain why his party refuses to make sure that the richest pay their fair share?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the hon. member for North Island—Powell River, we on this side of the House have been fighting for everyday Canadians, unlike the Liberal government whose policies have benefited some of the very wealthiest Canadians.

What I entirely reject are the efforts on the part of the NDP to redistribute wealth, increase taxes massively and undermine Canada's competitiveness at a time when we are already lagging.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to reiterate that we need to help businesses that are starting up that needed help and did not get it. Lots of Canadians did not get help in this situation. However, we have also seen CEOs take advantage of this situation and shareholders have been paid huge bonuses.

Does the hon. member think it is fair that there is pandemic profiteering by the big banks and large corporations when so many small businesses and working people are struggling?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, no, I do not believe it is fair. We saw one example of that with Air Canada. We need to help Canadians get through this very difficult time, and the best way to do that right now is to move forward with a plan to reopen the economy so that Canadians can get working again and Canada can recover. That was entirely lacking in this budget.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is with joy that I enter the debate here on a Friday afternoon to talk about Bill C-30.

There is a lot in this more than 700-page budget that we could go over. One of the things we noticed in this 700-page budget document is that it does not include the words “balanced budget” once. Out of 700 pages, there is no plan to return to balance. There is no plan to actually stop stockpiling debt onto future generations of Canadians. That is where I want to start my presentation today, talking about the next generations of Canadians, what this budget would actually do and how it would set up their life.

There was a column, written by Franco Terrazzano, of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and Kris Rondolo, who is the executive director of Generation Screwed. That is how the next generation is starting to feel right now. In this column, they wrote, “Canadian babies born on federal budget day 2021 had more than $28,000 of debt the moment they opened their eyes.”

I saw today that my friend and colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot had his seven-day-old son, Winston, on the screen today. I am sorry to tell Winston that he already owes the government $28,000 as of today. What will that look like in a couple of years? By the time these little ones are blowing out the candles on their fifth birthday, Ottawa projects their share of the federal debt will be $35,000. That will be for every baby who was born on budget day this year.

That is something we really need to start considering when we talk about budgets and bills like Bill C-30, and what we are doing to the next generation of Canadians.

It is important to know why the debt is soaring. The pandemic caused government revenues to drop by 11% in 2020, but there is a bigger story. Ottawa's spending, and let us remember that revenue dropped by 11%, has increased 75%. Let us take that 75% increase in Ottawa's spending into consideration.

Even worse, the Prime Minister and finance minister are using the COVID-19 pandemic as a cover to increase government spending for the years to come. By 2026, the federal government is planning to permanently hike government spending by $100 billion more than pre-pandemic.

Where would we get the revenue from? I have often said to the people in Regina—Lewvan that the government does not make money, government only has the ability to take money, through taxes, from businesses and Canadians who have made it. That means that in 2026, the Government of Canada will be spending over $100 billion more than pre-pandemic levels. That money has to come from somewhere, and we all know where the government is looking to get some of that money.

It would be out Canadians' pockets, whether it be through a $170 carbon tax, income tax or a tax on permanent residents. We know the CMHC has been looking at that. We talked about in the 2019 campaign. Everyone said that is was ridiculous and that it would never happen. However, the Liberal government has spent a lot of money to look at how it could take money from Canadians.

Let us look at a few more numbers. On a year-to-year basis, the federal government spends $20 billion on debt interest charges each year. The provinces spend nearly $30 billion. By 2026, annual interest charges on the federal debt will nearly double to $39 billion. To put that in perspective, the finance minister's big announcement on a national child care program was that it was planning to spend $30 billion on day care over the next five years.

It would be $30 billion for a national child care program. How much would the federal government spend on debt payment in the next five years? It would be $153 billion in debt interest. The government is going to spend $30 billion on child care, and that was a big, trumpeted, top platform policy, something it was finally going to get done, yet over five years, it would be spending $30 billion on day care and $153 billion on the debt.

There is a lot of spending in this budget. It is 700 pages and there are programs that are going to have to be rolled out. We do not question the Liberal government's ability to spend money. I am sure the Prime Minister and the finance minister are very good at spending money. What we question is where their priorities lie for spending this money.

As my colleague before me asked, where is the job creation in this? When are people going back to work? Where is the plan for people to start earning paycheques instead of receiving government cheques? That is what we on this side are asking. Despite the size of this budget and the long wait, because we waited two years for it, there is still no plan for Canadians to return to normal life. That is what I have been hearing. I had time to do a lot of Zoom calls in my riding and I spoke with Tracy Fahlman of the Regina Hotel Association. She said that her stakeholder groups and the members of the association know they need help to get by, but they want to know when they will be able to welcome clients back through their doors and start making money again. They do not want to be on government programs for years to come; they want to start living their lives, earn their money, have their employees come back to work and get their businesses up and running again. That is what Canadians are looking for in this budget, but what is sorely missing is the lack of a plan to create jobs for Canadians.

Another thing we talked about in this budget is the ability to secure the future for the next generation. We are really looking forward to having this conversation, because I believe the government is really fired up to get ready for a campaign this fall, so we are looking forward to contrasting its lack of vision with our five-point plan to secure the future for Canadians and recover those million jobs that were lost. The member for Carleton brings that up often in question period. By the end of this month, in the government's detailed department plan, it is supposed to recover all jobs lost due to the pandemic. However, the members on that side do not want to answer if they will fulfill that promise they made to recover the million jobs lost due to COVID‑19. That is the question that Canadians want answered. It is in the detailed department plan of the Minister of Finance, so why can the Liberals not tell us if they are going to reach that goal? It is a simple question that requires a simple answer: yes or no. However, again today no one on that side wanted to answer that question in question period.

I have often stood in this House and talked about the independent travel agents who have really been forgotten by the government. I tabled a petition on behalf of travel agents across Regina—Lewvan who are asking why, if the government has enough money for big bailouts for Air Canada, which can give $10 million to its executives, there is no money being paid to the independent travel agents who have been without income and unable to collect revenues for almost a year. The government is failing average, everyday Canadians. They have been left behind by the government's plan and budget.

Another thing we looked for in the budget was support for pipelines. I do not think they are mentioned in this budget at all, not with respect to the oil and gas sector, so I have brought that up several times. They really need some support. We need to fight to make sure that Line 5 does not get shut down. The government gave up on Keystone XL, because we know the members on that side of the House do not like the energy sector. The Prime Minister himself said he wants to phase out the oil sector across western Canada. Ironically, that might be the only promise he ends up keeping for western Canadians, to continue to phase out the oil sector where the hard-working men and women in my riding and across western Canada go to work every day.

I am happy to put on the record that the people of Regina—Lewvan did not vote for a Liberal government and that is why I will not be supporting this budget.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We do not often agree, but it is a pleasure to work with him, especially in committee.

I really like the part of the Conservatives' discourse on effective spending and the need to target the right people. My colleague spoke of big companies that sought out financial aid, while small businesses, especially travel agencies, did not receive adequate support.

I would like to know my colleague's opinion on the Canada emergency wage subsidy. What does he think about the fact that political parties benefited from this support, while the small businesses it was originally intended for could not benefit from it? What does he think of the amounts his party received from the wage subsidy, and does he think that money should be paid back?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member is correct. I do enjoy working with him on the agriculture committee, and that is why I was very proud of our leader when he said that we would stop receiving the wage subsidy immediately when he became leader and that we would pay it back slowly.

That is what Conservatives believe in. We put our money where our mouth is. I am not sure if the Liberal Party is going to buck up and pay the money back that they got from the wage subsidy, but Conservatives believe that money should be paid back. That is why I was proud to support the member for Durham when he made that announcement during his leadership race.

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

Madam Speaker, the member in his intervention spoke quite a bit about debt and deficit, and this country's position with respect to that. If he is so incredibly passionate about ensuring the deficit is eliminated, can he explain to this House why his own party, in its platform, says that it is only committing to balancing the budget within 10 years? The Conservatives are saying it will take 10 years to balance it.

Why is that? If he is so committed to it—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Madam Speaker, obviously, they do not like me saying that, because I am getting a lot of heckles coming across the way, so maybe it is why the member should address this head-on. Why would it take 10 years, if he is so concerned about it?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I can tell this member is a little sheepish right now because he did not realize that, during the debate on Bill S-204, the Liberals were filibustering their own budget bill. If they actually had knowledge of the parliamentary process, they would have realized that passing that bill unanimously would have let us vote on their budget bill this afternoon, but they are so incompetent, they did not realize they were filibustering their own budget bill.

It is really unbelievable.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend and colleague for the shout-out and comment on how troubling the debt level is that exists for new Canadians. I am very happy to have celebrated the birth of my third son, Winston, so I appreciate that context for what we are debating here today.

However, I want to ask specifically about how troubling the rhetoric coming from the Liberal side is. We saw an example of that here just a moment ago. Somehow, Liberals are blaming Conservatives for their own unbelievable mismanagement of COVID, the economy and the legislative agenda. I wonder if the member for Regina—Lewvan has further comments on that.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is a very tough but fair comment.

I really think that everyone in this chamber is honourable, but the government may be angling for a fall election. They are going to try to say that we are uncooperative and that they cannot get their budget passed, which is their own fault because we could have voted on it this afternoon if they were really good at handling their legislative agenda. Sometimes we should not attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

It is now my turn to rise to speak to Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, 2021. This budget looks nothing like any other budget in Canadian history. Before I comment on Bill C‑30, I want to talk about an unacceptable situation in my riding that the government is responsible for.

For years, the federal and provincial governments benefited greatly from the asbestos mines in the Appalaches RCM. Then the Liberal government shut down mining operations in the area. We can live with that. It was bound to happen. We can live with the mine tailings left by more than 100 years of mining operations. We can live with that, because we have turned things around. We have diversified our economy. I am very proud of my constituents' entrepreneurial spirit. They have transformed our mining town into a burgeoning town filled with robust small businesses. We can live with the fact that asbestos is still all around us. Asbestos is a natural fibre found in the ground, and closing the mines did not change the local geology. The asbestos was there long before us, and it will be there long after we are gone.

What I refuse to accept is Environment Canada's latest fearmongering campaign. Environment Canada put an ad in our local paper that says, “If you are using mining residues containing asbestos in your landscaping you could be putting yourself, your family and your neighbours at risk.” The hook reads, “DID YOU KNOW THAT breathing in asbestos fibres can cause life-threatening diseases?”

The answer to that question is yes. Used improperly, as was the case for years, asbestos can cause life-threatening diseases. It is ridiculous to tell people to be careful, because the fact is, their environment is dangerous. The government cannot just tell our people that their lives are in danger and then proceed to do nothing.

In 2018, I asked the Prime Minister to help our people rehabilitate mine lands and fix 100 years' worth of mining mistakes. The only answer I got was that my request had been forwarded to the Minister of Natural Resources. I have heard nothing more since, nothing at all. Then this inappropriate, inexcusable and unacceptable ad was printed in the local paper.

The people of our RCM are being asked to assume the full costs of the environmental clean-up needed after 100 years of asbestos mining, and to do so quickly. They are being told that if this is not done, their lives will be at risk.

What is in the budget to help the people in my region? What is in the budget to help maintain economic diversification in my region? What is in the budget to protect people in regions that produce asbestos? There is nothing, other than an advertising budget, which Environment Canada is using to scare people without providing any real solutions.

It may not look all that exciting, but this is a small town in Quebec that is doing its best to emerge from the asbestos producing era and has diversified its economy. Its people are proud to live there.

The government is not offering any solutions. Time is running out. I wrote to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Environment and to several offices last week. I did not even receive an acknowledgement of receipt.

Governments are responsible for those 100 years of asbestos mining in my region. I expect the Liberal government to take responsibility and provide the means to ensure the safety and prosperity of our people.

Thetford Mines is like a town in a mine, it is like an oasis in the desert. The government cannot turn a blind eye to this reality and it must immediately end the fear campaign initiated by Environment Canada. It must grant my request to create a rehabilitation fund, and it must assume and accept its responsibilities for the 100 years of asbestos mining in Thetford Mines, in Asbestos and in every mining town in the country where there was asbestos.

Unfortunately for us, it seems that the government is completely disconnected from reality, the reality of regions like mine and the reality of the majority of Canadians.

This budget is historic, but for all the wrong reasons.

This week, we saw one of the negative effects of the Liberals' budget. The inflation rate hit 3.6%, the highest level in a decade.

Statistics Canada reported that costs are rising in all areas: housing, vehicles, food, energy, consumer goods and others. Housing costs increased by 4.2% by May, the fastest increase since 2008. The cost of gas increased 43%, the cost of vehicles rose by 5%. Prices rose by 3.2% in just a few months. Everything is going up, including furniture and accommodation costs. However, Canadians do not have more money.

The leader of the official opposition, the member for Durham, summed up the situation quite well in a speech earlier this week, and I quote:

Today's inflation numbers show the damage [the Prime Minister's] risky deficits and trillion-dollar debt are causing Canadians.

...

From housing to post-secondary education, transportation, and groceries, [the Prime Minister] has made life more expensive for average Canadians who are exhausted and want life to return to normal.

It is clear that this government's spending habits will only make life more difficult and more expensive for Canadians.

What does that debt look like? All told, the Liberals increased Canada's spending from $363 billion before the pandemic to about $500 billion for this year alone, and the deficit from $155 billion to a staggering $354 billion. After all of this government's spending promises, our national debt is going to hit the $1.5-trillion mark, a number that we are going to be hearing more and more in the House, a number that we never used before but that will now become a regular part of our vocabulary.

Canadians, my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will be paying off this debt for generations. The risk of a rise in inflation is currently weighing heavily on people's shoulders because interest rates are going to go up. That means that this budget will be a real problem for all generations of Canadians.

Before I wrap things up, I want to stress that there are two absolutely unacceptable things in this budget.

The first is the government's decision to divide seniors into two categories: younger seniors aged 65 to 74 and older seniors 75 and up. There is absolutely nothing in this budget for younger seniors. In contrast, older seniors, those who will be 75 before July of next year, will be getting a $500 cheque a few weeks before a possible election call this fall.

The government has a lot of nerve if it thinks it is okay to give money to one group of seniors and completely ignore other seniors who, because of inflation, will have to pay higher prices for gas, food and all the other things I mentioned before. The government projects this image of being such a hero for seniors, yet it thinks this is okay. What a crock.

The second item I wanted to highlight is increasing EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks. The House wanted these payments to go up to at least 50 weeks. For its part, our party is asking for 52 weeks. However, the government is not listening and will only increase the payment period to 26 weeks, and only as of next year.

What will happen to all the cancer cases diagnosed between now and then? What will happen to all the people who become sick before the date the change comes into effect and who will not be able to receive benefits because the government decided that the change should only come into effect next year?

It makes no sense. The government is completely out of touch. I am asking that it put both feet back on the ground. Therefore, it will come as no surprise that I should vote against such a budget, which divides and which will put generations upon generations of Canadians into debt, while doing absolutely nothing to protect our future or create jobs.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, who I have great respect for, for his speech today. One of the things that has not come up with Bill C-30 is the fact that it is an omnibus bill and it makes consequential changes to other acts including the Judges Act, the Elections Act and many other changes as well. This is coming from a government that ran in 2015, on the premise and the promise to Canadians that the Liberals were not going to impose omnibus bills.

Could the member comment on that and the other pattern of deceit on the part of the government?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. This is not the first time that the government has deceived us. Saying something and not following through seems to be the Liberals' governing style now.

I was first elected in 2015, and I have a vivid memory of the Prime Minister telling us that interest rates were low and that they were going to run teeny-tiny deficits. The $10 billion was supposed to decrease until the budget was balanced.

It did not take long to go from teeny-tiny deficits in one budget to massive ones in the next, and this was even before the pandemic. The deficits are even bigger now, as our national debt is going to hit $1.5 trillion.

No, I do not believe a single word this government has to say about projections and budgets.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, you are doing an excellent job as always.

The member always speaks very well. I have to correct the last intervention though. The budget implementation act is an exception. It is always an omnibus bill because it always deals with a whole bunch of departments.

It was interesting how parts of the member's speech asked for all sorts of expenditures and then the other half complained about all the expenditures. I wonder if he could tell us what significant amounts of money to reduce the debt he is talking about and the expenditures he is complaining about.

The second item I would like to ask him is about the recovery benefit, the wage benefit and the rent subsidy all running out in 12 days. A lot of businesses in Quebec are going to be hurt. Will he vote for the budget to support them?

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

Madam Speaker, we have asked this government repeatedly to take action for small businesses in the tourism industry and others that have been completely overlooked. It has not done so. This government is now claiming that we are opposing measures that should have been implemented a long time ago.

The Liberals are in charge of their own legislative calendar, yet almost two years after the election, here we are at the eleventh hour, being asked to pass this government's first budget since the election. It is totally unacceptable. The Liberals are incapable of managing finances, and they are incapable of managing the House.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable. Both of our ridings cover part of the Eastern Townships.

My colleague began his speech by talking about natural resources. Is he aware of the new Goldboro project that would cut through part of the Eastern Townships?

Does he believe that we should be building a new pipeline now, in 2021, or should we be looking for green alternatives for a green recovery? Does he think this project is a good idea?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford.

I would like to remind her that she is directing a question like that to the member who represents the people of Lac‑Mégantic, who witnessed a terrible tragedy in their community resulting from the transportation of heavy oil by rail, costing the lives of 47 people.

In response to the question about whether we should use safer alternatives to transport hazardous materials and oil, I would say yes. What is more, I will support any initiative that phases out the transportation of oil and hazardous materials by rail and uses pipelines instead.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, if people are tired of working hard and getting nowhere, while watching others who contribute next to nothing get fabulously wealthy, then they should stop whatever they are doing. I am about to tell them five easy tricks that will allow them to get fabulously rich in today's Liberal economy, while contributing less than everyone else.

I know people are skeptical. In today's modern, progressive, altruistic, state-controlled era there is no such thing as greed and profit anymore. Let me quote Liberal luminary Mark Carney, who recently said:

The state embodies collective ideals such as equality of opportunity, liberty, fairness, solidarity and sustainability.

In this collective state, of course, there is no greed and, of course, no one wants to get rich and no one can, except for using these five tricks, so tune in and listen carefully.

Quick trick number one: Apply for a grant claiming it will be used to pay workers, when in fact it will be used to fund CEO bonuses, dividends and share buybacks. Air Canada, for example, used this trick to pay $10 million to its executives.

I can quote The Globe and Mail about the wage subsidy. Remember how the wage subsidy was supposed to be for companies that were so poor they could not pay their workers' wages? Here is what The Globe and Mail said about that:

In some cases, companies have yet to lay off workers, increase shareholder dividends and distribute bonuses despite collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in government money. In the wealth management industry, The Globe found that at least 80 asset managers, including some of the top performing hedge funds of 2020, received the grant.

The rich are always very good at getting money. In fact, remember all of those cash payments that were supposed to be for families in need? The top fifth of households got, on average, $6,700. The poorest households got $4,000, so the rich got almost two-thirds more than the poor, even though the poor are the ones who lost their jobs. People should be rich and apply for government money, then use their connections, consultants and accountants to maximize their take. That is trick number one.

Trick number two: Offer the Prime Minister's cabinet and family fees, expenses and luxurious trips. For example, the Kielburger brothers gave vacations, expenses and fees to the Prime Minister's team worth about half a million dollars. For that they got a half-a-billion-dollar grant. Then the Aga Khan gave the Prime Minister a quarter-of-a-million-dollar vacation, and he got a $15-million grant. These kinds of returns on investment would make Warren Buffett blush. A pro tip: People must have connections in the RCMP because, of course, much of this is illegal and even criminal, and they might get charged without having friends in law enforcement.

Get-rich-quick trick number three: When central banks are throwing money out the window, stand next to the window. That is what the financial institutions have been doing. The Bank of Canada has created $3 billion and has used it to buy government debt. This is debt that the government sells to the banks on a Monday, and the Bank of Canada buys it back on a Tuesday, only at a higher price and at a profit to the financial institution. The trick here is also to own a mansion, gold, land, stocks or bonds, all of which will be inflated in value, increasing people's net worth. This trick worked for Canada's 20 wealthiest Canadians who, in the first six months of this money-printing scheme saw their net worth rise by a staggering 32%, while our waitresses, airline stewardesses and small businesses got clobbered and $100 billion vanished from our economy. Somehow, the very rich with all of their assets managed to get richer still. The lesson is the next time the government is printing money, start off by being rich, because then people can be richer still. When the Bank of Canada is printing money and throwing it out the window, stand next to the window.

Get-rich-quick trick number four: Get into one of the fastest-growing industries in Canada. Yes, the economy is collapsing, but there are two industries that are on fire. The first is to become a consultant for the government. Since this Prime Minister took office, the federal government consulting budget has grown from $8 billion to $16 billion. For those Liberals over there who are missing their calculators, that is a 100% increase. People can get in on some of that cash.

These are the kinds of jobs people can do these days, working from their living room, in their pyjamas, on Zoom: consulting; writing, for example, presentations that nobody ever sees; making up buzzwords that nobody even understands; doing PowerPoint presentations that no one will ever look at. It is 100% growth, and they can get in on some of that $16 billion too.

Get-rich-quick trick number five is the fastest-growing industry in Canada, in fact, faster than the consultants. This industry is lobbying. Under the previous Harper government, there were 9,300 lobbying interactions in 2015. Last year, there were 28,000, a 200% increase in paid lobbying interactions.

What is a lobbyist? People have heard of stockbrokers, real estate brokers and insurance brokers. A lobbyist is a power broker. For the most part, it is someone whom people can hire. They can pay them and turn their money into power and that power into even more money. If people want a loan, a grant, a handout, a regulatory protection or some other political favour to get rich, they hire a lobbyist.

This industry is on fire for a very specific reason. Why? Because it is a product of government. The bigger a government gets, the more lobbyists it needs. Therefore, as government has almost doubled in size over the last five years, so too has the lobbying industry grown. Why? Because businesses want a return on investment. If there is money in software, they invest in technology; money in copper, they invest in mining; money in government, they invest in lobbying. The correlation between lobbying and government spending is almost a perfect match, not just here but also in the United States. As the government in Washington grosses a share of the GDP, so too does the amount corporations spend on lobbying that government.

They go where the money is, and you should too, Madam Speaker. That is why I am letting you in on these five secret tricks. I am not asking for anything in return, except from time to time you might let me speak a bit more than otherwise would be allowed. That is a small price to pay for the kind of big money you are going to be making with these five easy tricks that I am sharing here and now.

How does any of this make sense? We were told by Mark Carney that greed would be gone. We just needed to replace that nasty free market economy, which is motivated only by self-interest, with the altruistic power of the state. What, in fact, is the state? The state is just legalized force. It is the only entity that can apply force. Would they not think that someone who is greedy and self-interested would be less greedy and self-interested if they were acting through a creature that operates by power and force? It means that socialists have been trying to teach us for all these years that if we expand the power of the state, all of a sudden we will bring out altruism, that the weak and the poor will be advantaged. In what relationship of force have the weak and poor ever been advantaged? Of course, the weak and poor are disadvantaged and the powerful and strong get ahead when force is applied.

We know that the same base instincts will exist when the state gets big. As Macaulay wrote:

Where'er ye shed the honey, the buzzing flies will crowd;
Where'er ye fling the carrion, the raven's croak is loud;
Where'er down Tiber garbage floats, the greedy pike ye see;
And wheresoe'er such lord is found, such client still will be.

I notice how he used flies and honey, not bees and honey. Why? Because flies do not make honey. They consume it without producing it. They are the same parasitical creatures that those who get rich off the state are. They do not produce anything. They do not contribute anything. They take without making. If they were bees, they would be contributing. A free market economy is sort of like bees. They cross-pollinate, an aspect of trade and exchange that we see between a customer and a small business, between a worker and an employer, between an investor and an entrepreneur.

That voluntary exchange is coming back, and that is why my five tricks are a limited-time offer. Soon, this state-run economy will be eliminated and replaced with a free enterprise system where everyone will go back to getting ahead by helping others and by improving their country by engaging the voluntary exchange of work for wages, product for payment and investment for interest, a system that makes everybody better off; a system where people have to be truly empathetic because, as entrepreneurs, they cannot improve their own lot unless they sell something to somebody that they want to buy, in other words, unless they make someone else's life better off.

That is the way people will get rich in the future, but for the time being, they have my five quick tricks for getting rich.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely shameful that the member would accuse the RCMP of partaking in criminal activities. The member should apologize right now to the RCMP.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did not accuse the RCMP of criminal activity; I accused the Prime Minister of criminal activity. It is a criminal offence to accept a gift or benefit from any person with whom one is doing government business. It is right there in the Criminal Code.

In fact, we complained to the RCMP about this, and the RCMP did not say that the Prime Minister was innocent of the crime; it said that it could not “productively pursue” the investigation. We still do not know what that means, but at some point perhaps the commissioner of the RCMP will explain why it is that she could not “productively pursue” an investigation into the Prime Minister for taking a quarter-million-dollar vacation from someone who was seeking and was given a federal government grant.

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

Madam Speaker, the member heard my colleague for Windsor West speak earlier today about a proposal for an inclusive, safe border task force to find solutions and to give stakeholders and the public confidence to open up the border, but we heard the government today extend that closure until July 21.

Now, many businesses that cater to international tourism, especially indigenous businesses in the north, have been asking for the wage subsidy and the rent assistance program to be extended into next spring. However, we have not heard the Conservatives call for this support, which is critical to the tourism sector and the hospitality industry.

Do the Conservatives support those small businesses that are going to have another summer go by when they are not going to have international visitors and will end up closing up their doors permanently if they do not get these critical supports extended? Do the Conservatives support extending those programs and providing them the support they need to get through the next year?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, of course we support small business. We have fought for small business from the very beginning of this crisis, and we will continue to fight for small business, but I would add that the solution is to accelerate the safe reopening of our economy so that those businesses can get their customers back. What they want is customer sales, not permanent dependence on government. They know the government cannot pay the bills forever. What they need is their customers back, and for that to happen, we need to safely reopen the economy as quickly as possible.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Carleton for all his optimism and his five points.

I come from Oshawa, which has a big manufacturing background, and I have been hearing about the Liberals shutting down our manufacturing sector, our softwood lumber sector and our mining sector. The member knows, of course, that Mr. Carney wants to promote Russian pipelines and block Canadian pipelines.

Could the member please explain to Canadian youth who are looking for a good future how modern monetary theory is going to help them get those jobs of the future and how, by 2030, when they own nothing, they will be really happy?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a great question.

First of all, MMT, as they call modern monetary theory, can also stand for “more money today” or “magic money tree”. It is this new theory where governments will simply print cash. The central bank creates the cash, sends it over in a Brink's truck every day to the Prime Minister's Office, and he just starts throwing the money around.

What we have now is a bit different. To start with, we do not have a direct sale of debt to the bank. It first gets funnelled through the financial sector in Canada so that it can take a cut and get even richer before that newly printed cash trickles down to the people at the bottom. However, the bottom line is that what we have today is very similar to MMT. It is printing mass sums of cash, which inflates the assets of the rich and raises the consumer prices of the poor. It is a massive new inflation tax that will only help big government, big business and the super-rich at the expense of the working class. That is why we are speaking out against it.

As for Mr. Carney, the member is right. He is part of the World Economic Forum, which the finance minister joins, which says that in 2030, only nine years from now, we will own nothing and we will love it. That is the agenda of these people. Maybe that is why, over the last year, they have done everything in their power to make housing completely unaffordable so that nobody can afford it except them, a small group of landed aristocrats, while the common people are out in the field doing the work. We on this side want to democratize property ownership and make it available to everybody.

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

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to have these two minutes and 30 seconds to close out this week's debates in the House.

To speak to Bill C-30 would take several hours. In the short time I have today, I will focus on the implementation of the budget. Will this budget meet the needs of individuals, people who are sick, seniors and workers? Will it meet the needs of our most vulnerable? Unfortunately, I have to say no.

The Bloc Québécois opposed the budget from the moment it was presented. There were two elements that we saw as essential in a budget that we had been waiting for for two years and that followed a health crisis and major pandemic. If there was one response that Quebec and the provinces needed, it was to be given the necessary resources to properly care for people, by increasing federal health transfers to 35% of total health spending.

As spokesperson for workers, I must tell the government that, by not doing what was expected, it is abandoning the workers who supported the health care system and treated people. What health care workers need is the knowledge that the federal government is not ignoring them and that it will stop politicizing the issue of health care at their expense.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have eight minutes to continue her speech the next time Bill C‑30 is debated in the House.

It being 4:30 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, June 14, the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 4:30 p.m.)

The House resumed from June 18 consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 2.

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

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to continue the speech I started on Friday.

Does Bill C-30, budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1, provide adequate guarantees to protect workers, to protect the unemployed, to protect sick workers and to treat seniors and their care workers with dignity? As I was saying, the answer is maybe or no.

I would like to use the five minutes I have remaining to talk about sick workers, who were counting on the government to take action after 50 years to extend special EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks once and for all.

There is no reason for the government to pass up this opportunity, to ignore the testimony and to abandon 150,000 people who benefit every day from sickness benefits, which expire after 15 weeks.

The government decided to take a half step by increasing the benefits to 26 weeks starting in 2022. In the short term, sick workers will have no more than 15 weeks of benefits. We are making a heartfelt plea for the bill to be passed. We heard the evidence; the House of Commons adopted a motion; the bill sponsored by my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît was adopted by a majority; the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, of which I am the deputy chair, did a clause-by-clause study of the bill on June 17. All that is needed is one last push. We must act, and the government can do so by seeking royal assent. It must do so now.

Unemployed workers had very high expectations. I remind members that, in 2015, the Liberal government promised to overhaul the EI system, which leaves behind 60% of workers. They cannot access it because it discriminates against women, part-time workers, and workers who are ineligible and abandoned by the system.

It took the pandemic to force the government to implement temporary measures. Once again, all the budget offers is a single, 420-hour eligibility requirement for a period of one year. This is urgent. Where is the government? This is not enough. Once again, the government has everything it needs.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities conducted a big study on modernizing employment insurance. The committee's report was tabled in the House last week. The government has everything it needs, it has the solutions and has access to all of the analyses on the flaws of the program. However, according to Bill C‑30, there will be another two years of consultations.

I read an article from Radio-Canada in which the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion was saying that the computer system was in need of updates, that modernization could not happen all at once and that we might actually have to wait another seven years. That is preposterous.

It is unbelievable that the government is going to negate all of the efforts that have been made for so long and invest in consultations. The time for consultation is over. We need to sit down at the drawing board and take action. All of the solutions are in place. We need to do this for women, youth and self-employed workers.

Some might think that the crisis is over because there is a glimmer of hope. However, some sectors of the industry are still heavily impacted and still do not have any answers for their workers. They cannot provide any answers in the short term unless the government changes course and takes immediate action to undertake a reform.

We cannot wait any longer. I think that the government has everything it needs. Although some aspects might technically be more difficult because it is a complex system, the government needs to make them more politically desirable and implement a real employment insurance system. Workers are calling for it, as are groups representing unemployed workers and women.

We cannot continue with a system that discriminates against so many workers. I am thinking in particular about the many regions of Quebec and Canada that rely on seasonal industries. These workers experience gaps and become impoverished between their two employment periods. If we want to revitalize our regional economies, then we need to recognize the unique situation of seasonal economies and adapt the EI system accordingly so that workers in these industries are not penalized by default.

I would like to quote a witness who appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and send a message to the government. The witness said, “Just do it.” It is time to act.

From what columnists are saying, we have probably reached the end of this Parliament. The government could very well trigger an unnecessary election campaign. It will no doubt brag about everything it has done for workers, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the government has not taken any structured, concrete action, even though it has had the means to do so for quite some time now. It has made only empty promises, without any commitments.

Nothing will change as of tomorrow morning for workers who are sick. They will still be entitled to only 15 weeks of benefits, or possibly 26 weeks in 2022. We in the Bloc Québécois are calling on the government to increase sickness benefits to 50 weeks right now, but the government is still asking the unemployed to wait.

The government's Bill C‑30 has many other shortcomings, including the fact that it discriminates against seniors. We asked that a study be done and evidence provided to justify discriminating against seniors between the ages of 65 and 74. Very little information was forthcoming. It is ridiculous—

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

Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member.

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

I am hopeful the government will rise in the House today to take concrete steps for all workers—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, June 21 is National Indigenous Peoples Day, a day we can all reflect on the 215 children who matter, children who really do matter, and murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. It is very important for all of us to work toward reconciliation.

The budget implementation bill is a continuation of support programs that have been there to help Canadians get through this pandemic, whether one is a senior, a worker or a youth. These support programs were there to ensure that we would be in a better position to be able to recover in the pandemic, while at the same time providing disposable income for Canadians at a time in which they need it most.

Could the member provide her thoughts as to why it is important we actually pass this legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, in terms of the length of debate on the bill, that is up to us.

With regard to all the measures, the Bloc Québécois said it would support Bill C‑30. Indeed, this bill does have measures that people need and that we need to implement.

However, I must remind the government that, whether it be the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the Canada emergency rent subsidy, EI, sickness benefits or measures for seniors, all these measures are temporary and will come to an end. The bill does not include any meaningful measures nor any vision.

We have been saying for a long time that, in order to find a way out of this crisis, we need a vision to help us look forward and propose real, concrete and meaningful measures that will be lasting, not just temporary.

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

Madam Speaker, I had the chance to listen to both the first part and second part of the hon. member's speech.

I have not heard very much about a part of the bill that proposes an amendment to the Canada Elections Act, which specifically would make it unlawful to knowingly mislead electors during an election campaign. I find it interesting that this is in an omnibus budget bill. Has she had a chance to look into the proposed amendment to the Canada Elections Act and does she have any comments on it?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question, even though I cannot answer it entirely.

The entire election issue has us scratching our heads. Why make changes with respect to elections when everyone here is saying that there will not be an election during the pandemic and we are still in a pandemic?

I even wonder why there needs to be an election and why we should make changes. I hate the fact that we in the House are unable to reach a consensus on the conditions to put in place to hold an election. It is up to parliamentarians. This should not be done through a regulation in a bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the speech by my colleague from Thérèse‑De Blainville.

She talked about employment insurance and the fact that the current system is flawed. Many workers have suffered the consequences. She also talked about sick leave and the fact that the bill provides for only half the period that everyone considers necessary. People suffering from diseases such as cancer need sick leave for up to a year.

There are also cuts to the Canada emergency response benefit. Since the budget was tabled in House, we have been calling for an adjustment to allow people to continue to receive $500 a week. It is important, especially during a pandemic.

According to my colleague, why is the government refusing to make these important changes?

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

The hon. member for Thérèse‑De Blainville only has a few seconds to reply to the question.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. A very brief answer would be that the government has abandoned the idea that these programs are part of the social safety net. The government views them as an insurance policy. The time has come for the government to reconsider—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to join in the debate, once again, in the House.

However, from what I am hearing in the media, and the rumours around Ottawa, we very well may be facing an election in the coming months. As this may be my last speech prior to that election, I want to share some brief words of thanks to the constituents of Battle River—Crowfoot for the honour to be their voice in Canada's Parliament over the last year and a half or so.

As we have faced an unprecedented time on so many fronts and the need for collaboration and to hold the government to account as a member of the opposition, it has been a true honour. I look forward to life getting back to normal. Alberta plans to open for the summer, with the vast majority of COVID restrictions being lifted on July 1. It is an exciting prospect for Albertans as we look forward to getting back to normal.

Even though Parliament is scheduled to rise in a few days, I look forward to continuing to fight in every way possible for the good people of east central Alberta and Battle River—Crowfoot for whom I have the honour and privilege of serving.

I am rising on debate on the Liberal's budget, an omnibus budget bill, Bill C-30, which the Liberals promised to never do. When a Liberal parliamentary secretary was asked that very question on Friday, he said in effect that this was different because it was a budget bill. I have asked a number of questions and on this and, quite frankly, I have not received much response to them. This bill covers a wide swath of things that, yes, were promised in the much-delayed budget that was introduced a number of months ago, but it also includes some other aspects, such as an amendment to the Canada Elections Act, a change to the gas tax fund and a few other things, which I will dive into in more detail.

However, I would like to address one concern I increasingly hear from constituents, and that is the attitude to which this current Liberal government has approached the legislative agenda and the way it has governed the country. I had a constituent give me a very apt description that I would like to share with members about the rhetoric that has been coming out of the Liberal benches as of late, and it is simply this.

The government is quick to blame the opposition for all its failures, which I think we have been very effective at articulating how absurd that is. Had it not been for the opposition, Canada would be in a much worse spot when it comes to COVID relief programs. The third time is the charm with respect to legislation that has had to be repaired several times. The fact is that the opposition has been exposing many of the areas of mismanagement and very troubling trends related to the approach that the Liberals have taken to government accountability and ethics.

These last couple of weeks, in particular, the government House leader, other Liberal members and the Prime Minister in his press conferences, who would never say this in the House of Commons because he would be held to account on it, have effectively said that it is the Conservatives who have been obstructionists, that it somehow is the opposition's fault that the government cannot get anything accomplished.

A constituent shared with me an analogy that I will share with members. It is a bit like students, after having received the syllabus for the school year, coming upon the night before the deadline for a major assignment at the end of the course and all of a sudden realizing they had lot of work to do but did very little or nothing and now they have a choice: They can either admit their failures or they can blame, pivot and make excuses. The Liberals have chosen to do the latter by blaming the Conservatives for obstruction, rather than acknowledging that they are the ones in charge and that they have utterly failed in their legislative management. If this is any indication of how the Liberals have managed government over the last six years, no wonder our country is facing some major challenges.

Bill C-30 is a large bill and it addresses many aspects of COVID response program changes to other aspects of the functioning of government. I am going to get into those specific things.

However, I want to touch on a couple of things that have not received a lot of airtime, so to speak, one of which is the proposed amendment to the Canada Elections Act. The part of the Elections Act that talks about misleading statements during an election was struck down by a court ruling. The government has inserted in the bill, somewhat innocuously, an amendment to the act that would include the words “knowingly mislead” during an election.

There should be a lot of discussion on the “knowingly mislead” part, especially when we see the failures of the current government to uphold elections commitments, its pivoting away from promises made and, certainly, the astounding level of mistrust that is faced across political discourse these days. I find it troubling that this has not been debated extensively. It calls into question some of the purposes associated with why that would be inserted into the back of a budget implementation bill.

The second thing, and this is typically Liberal, is that in the budget implementation bill, the government plans to rename the gas tax fund. This is the Liberal agenda at its best. It takes something, renames it, shines it up a bit, gives it a little spit and polish, and then suggests they have done Canadians a great service with this new program with its fancy new name. That appears to be what Liberals have done with the gas tax fund, which will be called the Canada community building fund going forward.

The new name certainly has a ring to it, and most Canadians might say that it is a great idea, with grant applications and funds going to municipalities. However, it is very important to highlight that it is simply a change in name of a program, which has some of the challenges associated with government accountability and the increased costs. Then I expect to hear a flurry of election spending announcements, promoted by the infrastructure of government, as we saw prior to the 2019 election. We are already seeing cabinet ministers jet-setting across the country, using the tools they have at their disposal to make a myriad of promises prior to the election.

We are going to see a whole bunch of promises related to this new fund, but the Liberals probably will not call it a new fund. However, under a new name, the Liberals will certainly claim credit for the work, even though it was not the Liberals who brought forward that fund, and how it has benefited many municipalities, including some in Battle River—Crowfoot.

I am glad to have had the opportunity to put that on the record so Canadians know that simply renaming something does not give the government of the day credit.

There are extensions to many aspects of COVID programming and there are some concerns related to not being able to address some of the folks who have fallen through the cracks. There are further changes to health transfers, some of which are very needed. I would suggest the dollars are a little too late when it comes to vaccinations, which speaks to the Liberal strategy. If we had been on time with vaccines, we would not have had a third wave. This was the Prime Minister's third wave, when it comes to the delays we face.

As I have come to the end of my speech, I will simply say this. Parliament is an institution that represents Canadians, and to hear that the government is trying to circumvent, at every cost, the need for this place to carefully and thoughtfully debate and discuss legislation, including something as significant as the bill before us, Bill C-30, is very troubling. It is very troubling to hear the Liberals try to circumvent and dismiss the need for what should be of absolute importance to every single one of us.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, like my colleague, I took the time to read and analyze the budget. When taking notes, I use a red pen to indicate interference in Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions. There was a lot of red ink.

What does my colleague think of this aspect of the budget and jurisdictional meddling?

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

Madam Speaker, it has become standard practice for successive Liberal governments, whether through direct legislative means, as we see in this bill, or through the myriad of other regulatory or political mechanisms, to blur the lines between the different levels of government.

Our federation works because there has to be respect between the different levels of government, and unfortunately we have seen a significant erosion of that over the last six years. It has led to an increased level of alienation in various regions of the country. Certainly it is being felt in western Canada. A lot of that points back to a Liberal government that refuses to stay within the lines of what our country was intended to be and how the federation was intended to operate.

It is incredibly troubling that time and time again we see an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction by the federal government. It is the Ottawa-knows-best mentality. That may make for great press conferences and great spending announcements, but it is not how leadership works. Leadership needs to be working with provincial partners and—

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

I have to allow time for other questions.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member to expand on his comment that the federal government is going into jurisdiction that is provincial territory. The only thing I can think of offhand in this regard is the fight over the price on pollution, which the Supreme Court said was within the federal government's jurisdiction.

Can the member elaborate on where the federal government seems to be going into territory that it should not be?

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

Madam Speaker, the member emphasizes the problem. Time and time again, he refuses to acknowledge that there are regions of the country that demand respect in our federation. The Liberal government has refused to do this too, even in various pieces of legislation. I think about Bill C-48, Bill C-69 and even the debate around carbon pricing. The federal government has the ability to impose its will on provinces, but the question that should be asked is whether or not it should. The problem is that we have a Liberal government that refuses to respect anyone who disagrees with any aspect of the way it approaches politics, the legislation it puts forward—

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

The hon. member for Vancouver East has the floor.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know that during the pandemic inequalities have increased. The ultrarich are becoming richer than ever and those who need help are still struggling to get by. However, we do not see a wealth tax or a pandemic profiteering tax in this budget bill, Bill C-30. In fact, the government has opted to do more consultation in tackling the problem of tax havens.

Does the member think that this is the right approach, or does he think the NDP's proposal to bring forward a wealth tax and a profiteering tax at this time is the right way to go?

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

Madam Speaker, the member asks a question that strikes at the heart of the way the Liberals have pulled the wool over the eyes of Canadians. They are trying to outflank the NDP on the left regarding policy measures, and when it comes to actual implementation to deal with the things they promised to deal with, they end up simply saying that they will consult going forward or they back away from their commitments entirely. That is a further troubling trend we see, and the government is not being honest with Canadians. With a lot of the COVID programming, we have seen that, increasingly, it is the elites who are benefiting from the billions of dollars that were meant to—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to underscore today the importance of National Indigenous Peoples Day in Canada. We have much to reflect upon and much to do in terms of the justice that is required for true and meaningful national reconciliation.

From the very beginning of the pandemic, the member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus have been pushing for supports that can really make a difference in people's lives. In the beginning, the Prime Minister proposed initial supports for the pandemic that were barely $1,000 a month. That is far below the poverty line, and it was the serious proposal by the Prime Minister. Members will recall that the member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus pushed very hard to get that amount above poverty levels, above dire levels. We understood the magnitude of the pandemic and the impacts that were being felt in people's lives, so we pushed for an adequate level of support and ultimately they got $2,000 a month through the CERB, which became the CRB.

It is to our utmost dismay that we are now debating a bill that takes us back to where the Prime Minister originally wanted to go, with barely over $1,000 a month for people struggling to make ends meet during the pandemic who are unable to work because their businesses have closed. Whole sectors, including the tourism sector, have repeatedly raised concerns about the fact that the pandemic is not over yet and that there is no place for a victory lap. Indeed, the variants we are seeing are indicating, in some countries and regions, a disturbing number of new cases. In fact, we are seeing this even in the case of individuals who have been vaccinated with two doses.

People are subject to these variants, which are disturbingly starting to creep up in various parts of our planet and in some parts of our country, yet the government has persisted from the very beginning, with a budget announcement and now with Bill C-30, in slashing the benefits that Canadians so vitally depend on. They need those benefits to put food on the table, to keep a roof over their heads and often to pay for medication because the government broke its promise to put in place public universal pharmacare. However, we still have the situation where the government continues to insist that slashing benefits to below the poverty line is somehow in the best interests of Canadians. This is something the New Democrats have raised from the very beginning and continue to raise as a broad concern. As the variants disturbingly start to make progress across the country, this should be a concern for the Prime Minister and the government.

There are other aspects of this bill that the NDP has raised broad concerns about. One is seniors, who often live below the poverty line. They will not be given an OAS increase unless they are 75 and over, even though we know the poverty rate among seniors who are 65 to 75. That is another measure that makes no sense at all. We raised this at committee and offered amendments, but the government continues to refuse to do the right thing and put in place a broad level of OAS support that lifts seniors up, regardless of their age, and does not create two classes of seniors.

Broadly, our biggest concern with Bill C-30 has been the lack of vision in how we get through the pandemic and rebuild afterward. As my colleague, the member for Vancouver East, has pointed out, there is no wealth tax, there is no pandemic profits tax and there are no concrete measures against tax havens. Despite the plethora of documentation showing that Canadians and profitable corporations are taking their profits overseas, which is well documented in the Panama papers, the Paradise papers, the Bahamas papers and the Isle of Man scam, the government has not, after six years, brought a single charge against any of the Canadians or profitable Canadian companies guilty of tax evasion. Despite the fact that the information is freely available to the public, not a single time has it said that this is wrong and we should do something about it.

It strikes me as incredibly hypocritical for the government to say that it restored some of the cuts to the CRA and that is all it needs to do, when we have databases with the names of thousands of Canadians and profitable Canadian corporations and the government has refused to do a single thing about this issue. It has not charged a single Canadian. It has not charged a single profitable Canadian corporation.

As members know, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has indicated how serious this is. It is something that costs Canadians, in terms of tax dollars, an astounding $25 billion a year. Addressing the lack of a wealth tax, the lack of a pandemic profits tax and the refusal to take action against tax havens would make such a profound difference in our quality of life. We are talking about $25 billion to $40 billion annually that would be available to provide supports for seniors, for students and for people with disabilities, and to broaden our education system. We could lock in place public universal pharmacare. We could put in place dental care, which my colleague from St. John's East proposed and the Liberals voted against just a few days ago.

Today, on National Indigenous Peoples Day, we are talking about the fact that there are dozens and dozens of Canadian indigenous communities that do not even have safe drinking water, yet the government continues to say that it cannot do anything about the issue because it would cost too much. The reality, as members know, is quite different. The reality is that the government seems to rely on providing supports to the ultrarich. It does it with impunity and does it regularly, and it does not take care of the rest of Canadians, who have real, meaningful needs that have not been addressed by this bill, nor by government action over the last six years.

I can tell members about the heart of the housing affordability crisis in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and in my riding. In that context, in the two communities I proudly represent, New Westminster and Burnaby, housing costs have spiralled out of control. However, the government has done very little about this. It makes noise about having contributed in some way to building housing units, but the B.C. government has built more new housing units than the rest of the country put together. The federal government made a small contribution to that, but it has tried to take credit for a program that was put in place by the B.C. government. This is another measures that could make a substantial difference in the quality of life of Canadians, yet the government refuses to implement it.

The member of Parliament for Nunavut did a housing tour showing, in vivid and appalling detail, the housing crisis in Nunavut and in the north, yet the government has not acted. It has refused to take the actions that would make a difference in the quality of life of indigenous communities and throughout northern Canada. It is perplexing to say the least that a government that could have put in place the tools to make a difference in people's lives has chosen not to do that. The government could have made substantial investments in this budget and with this budget implementation act, but it has refused to do it.

To add to that, I will come back, in a circular way, to my initial argument. The Liberals are cutting the emergency response benefit at the most critical time. Canadians who have tried to get through the last 15 months and have managed to survive thanks to the member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus, which pushed for a CERB that was above the poverty line, are now seeing, looming on the horizon, a government that wants to lower the emergency response benefit to below the poverty line. That is unacceptable, and we will continue to push the government to do the right thing and not cut the emergency response benefit.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a finance question.

Two great economic historians from Harvard University, Reinhart and Rogoff, have listed five precursors to a debt crisis: asset price inflation, particularly housing price inflation; long-term current account deficits, that is to say buying from the world more than we sell to the world; a drop in output, as we experienced last year with the $100-billion drop in GDP; rising household leverage, and we have the highest household-debt-to-income ratio in the G7; and an increase in overall indebtedness. We now have $8.6 trillion of household, corporate and governmental debt combined, which is four dollars of debt for every one dollar of GDP.

If interest rates rise before these incredible debt ratios decline, does the member believe we could face a debt crisis in Canada of which I have warned in the past and am warning in the present? Does he share that concern, and what would he do to avoid it?

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Carleton and I disagree on many things. We sometimes agree as well, but I always enjoy working with him at the finance committee.

He has raised something that the NDP identified years ago. The household debt crisis is a crisis that was enacted under both the former Conservative government and the current Liberal government by a refusal to put in place a fair tax system. When we force Canadian families to go massively into debt for post-secondary education, to go into debt to pay for medication that their family depends on and to go into debt for housing because there is no affordable housing available, that creates a household debt crisis. What we have seen under former Conservative government and the current Liberal government is a refusal to force the ultrarich to pay their fair share. The household debt crisis is intrinsically linked to the crisis that we have with a lack of a fair tax system that I mentioned in my speech.

There is $25 billion a year going into overseas tax havens, no wealth tax, no pandemic profits tax and a refusal to make the ultrarich pay their fair share.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. He accurately pointed out which sectors of the economy have been hardest hit during the pandemic and discussed seniors, people with disabilities and the housing crisis. In Quebec alone, 40,000 people are waiting for social housing, for low-income housing, and 450,000 people have urgent housing needs. It is a big deal.

During the pandemic, the government rolled out its big Canada emergency wage subsidy to help people working for struggling businesses. The Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party all claimed the subsidy, which I find scandalous. The Liberals and the NDP have not said anything about reimbursing the money. We will be campaigning in two months, and the NDP is going to use government money, which was supposed to go to struggling workers, to pay for lawn signs. Is my colleague not the least bit embarrassed by that?

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

Madam Speaker, we fought for non-profits to be eligible for the wage subsidy to ensure that organizations would not have to choose between laying off employees or keeping them on staff.

As the member just said, the member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus pushed the hardest for this initiative which, as the member knows, already existed in other European countries, for example. This was important for Canada. The government initially refused, but the NDP continued to push for it, as we normally do, being the workers' party. We want people to stay employed.

We were successful, as everyone knows. The subsidy allowed for workers, including Quebec workers, to remain employed.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today and speak to the government's budget. I have been spending a lot of time talking to people in my constituency about where they think this country should go coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic. What does the future look like? What are the things we need to be focusing on as we move forward as a country?

There are three big priorities that I am hearing from my constituents in terms of their concerns of the direction of the government. Their concerns are around rising government debt. Their concerns are around the failure to support the energy sector and the role that the energy sector will play in our economy going forward. The third concern I hear a great deal about in my riding right now is freedom of speech and attacks on freedom of speech that we hear from the government.

With respect to Bill C-30, the government's budget bill, let us zero in on the first of those two points: government debt and the energy sector. As we come out of the COVID-19 pandemic, people are looking to see what kinds of plans are in place to allow our economy to grow and prosper and be firing on all cylinders again. In order to do, that we need strong public finances. In order to do, that we need to have support for our key natural resource and other sectors that really drive prosperity.

We have to have sound public finance and we have to have revenue coming in to government coffers as a result of jobs being created, opportunities being created in our key sectors. There is a great deal of concern about the public debt that has been run up over the course of this pandemic, but it did not start with the pandemic. Let us remember, when the Prime Minister took office, we had a balanced budget. Canada had been through the global financial crisis. We ran deficits during those years, but Canada was back in a balanced budget position in 2015.

In fact, over the course of the tenure of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio had gone down. We had been through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Over the course of the tenure of that prime minister, through those incredibly difficult circumstances, the debt-to-GDP ratio had gone down.

We had a prime minister coming in and saying, “the good times will last forever, do not worry about it, the budget will balance itself, so we can run modest deficits”. Recall that 2015 election campaign, three $10-billion deficits followed by a balanced budget in year four: that was the promise made by the Prime Minister. Teeny, tiny deficits, $10-billion deficits for three years followed by a balanced budget.

What happened? In the first year under finance minister Bill Morneau, the government had a deficit that essentially ate up its promised deficit allotment for the three years all in one year. The Prime Minister had not foreseen perhaps, or maybe he did and just did not tell us, that when opening the floodgates with money for everything, money for this and money for that and we do not have to worry about raising the revenue for it, that can become a bottomless pit. We have seen over time this bottomless pit of willingness to go into debt get deeper and deeper. Instead of three years of $10-billion deficits and then a balanced budget, we had four years in the order of about $30-billion deficits. During relatively good years, the government ran up another $100 billion worth of debt.

Part of the reason we need to have strong public finances is to preserve that capacity during challenging circumstances to run deficits. In the midst of a global financial crisis as we faced in 2008-09, in the face of the pandemic as we dealt with in this Parliament, it is very often necessary to have some degree of deficit spending. However, if we are running deficits already prior to that period and then go further into deficit, we increase our risk of a long-term debt crisis. Certainly we run up massive amounts of more debt that have to be paid off at some point.

The government's long-term fiscal plan coming out of this pandemic involves very large deficits in perpetuity. There is no plan for us to ever get back at any point, even to the $10-billion figure that the Liberals talked about when they ran in 2015. The long-term plan is to spend more that we have every single year.

We have different parties in the House with different approaches to spending. Conservatives believe that it is important for us to move toward a balanced budget—

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

I remind the member that he should not have any devices that make sounds near him.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thought it was my children calling, worried about the debt they are going to have to pay off in a few years as a result of the profligate spending of the current government.

As I was saying, Conservatives emphasize the importance of moving toward a balanced budget. I do not agree with them, but I give the New Democrats credit for saying we should be spending more and increasing taxes. That is not an approach that is going to lead to long-term prosperity, but at least they sort of have understood at certain times that if they are going to spend more they have to pay for it somehow.

The Liberal government, uniquely in this place, takes the position that we could consistently spend more than we have: that, during good years, we can run what were historically considered large deficits of $30 billion; and then, during challenging circumstances, we can run astronomical deficits of 10 times that. Notably, this one Prime Minister has accumulated more debt during his time in office than all of the previous prime ministers had up until 2015. This is the great debt Prime Minister. That is his legacy to our children.

It is understandable that people in my riding are coming to me, asking, “What is the plan here, where is all this money coming from, and how are we ever going to get out from under this?” I tell them the reality is that the money we spend today, we are going to have to pay off. It is going to lead to higher taxes, lower social spending or both, in the future, or maybe the government's way of getting out of it is simply printing more money and leaving it to inflation. That too is a form of taxation. It is a form of the government reaching into people's pockets and, through inflation, reducing the value of the money they have. Therefore, yes, we should be very concerned about debt.

The way we can move forward as an economy is going to also require strong job growth and a reoriented, rational economic policy that gets our debt under control. However, also part of balancing the budget is promoting growth. We need to have support for what have always been the engines of economic development in this country, and those are the natural resources and manufacturing sectors.

Conservatives have said very clearly that we want to support economic growth in all sectors of the economy. We want to support in all sectors and in all regions. For energy workers in Alberta, for forestry workers in B.C., for forestry workers and manufacturing workers in Quebec, for people working on the assembly line in Ontario, from coast to coast, Conservatives are supportive of those vital sectors. That is where we differ from the government. The government is disdainful of our energy and manufacturing sectors. The government is imposing additional burdens on those sectors. The Liberals have this notion that the sectors that have driven our success for all of our history could somehow be shut out of economic recovery and, instead, government could pick winners and losers and be subsidizing what it thinks are going to be the technology and the jobs of the future.

If we are going to put the focus on jobs and opportunity for Canadians, then we need to come back to those tried-and-true sectors that have delivered prosperity in the past. That means removing barriers from our oil and gas sector. That means supporting private-sector-driven stimulus, the development of pipelines, energy projects that employ so many Canadians, not just in my riding, not just in Alberta but people from other parts of the country who invest in or come to Alberta or who create component products that are then used in energy-related manufacturing as well as extraction.

We have this opportunity, going forward. We have an opportunity to secure our future; that is, to get our debt under control, to work toward a balanced budget over time, and to do so by controlling spending but also by supporting growth.

On the other hand, we have a government across the way who says we can shut down our traditional sectors and at the same time we could spend more money than we have. The Liberals are cutting the knees out of our revenue sources and they are continuing to insist on spending more and more. It is not going to work to undermine the sources of job growth and opportunity growth and government revenue and, on the other hand, to just keep insisting on spending more and more money. That is a recipe for economic disaster. The government is just bullishly moving forward in this direction that will be disastrous for our long-term economic well-being. We need a change. We need a government that is committed to securing our future.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his great speech on this important topic. He spoke a bit about cutting the knees out of our economy. Perhaps he was talking about the lack of pipelines getting built in this country. I wonder if he can talk a little more about that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, what we saw from the current government, immediately upon taking office, was killing the northern gateway pipeline and imposing all kinds of conditions on the possibility of an east-to-west pipeline that would connect Canadian energy with Canadian consumers. It has killed pipeline project after pipeline project, and that is obviously undermining investor confidence. At the beginning of this Parliament, there was the Teck Frontier project, a project that had been through all the hoops. Members of the government caucus openly lobbied to kill that project, which actually had a net-zero target built into it. We see project after project that go through all the steps, good projects that create jobs and take triple bottom line—

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

We have a lot of interesting questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to job creation. It is important to recognize that even pre-pandemic, this government had the lowest historic unemployment rates. In fact, in the first four to five years of governance, we created well over one million jobs, which is far superior to Stephen Harper's record.

When it comes to the deficit, even the Conservatives have been unanimously supporting the expenditure of billions of dollars through the wage subsidy and CERB programs. Is the Conservative Party now saying we should not have brought forward the wage subsidy and CERB programs? Is that—

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

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member is quite correct that we sought to work with the government during the very challenging circumstances of COVID, but that does not mean we were not critical of some aspects of the implementation. There were many problems with the way these programs rolled out. We said there were ways they could have been constructed better. For instance, we talked about having a back-to-work bonus to make it easier for people receiving CERB to get back to work part time without losing all of their benefits. If the government had implemented some of our suggestions, we would have been able to be there for Canadians and also take into consideration the fiscal circumstances. We can do both at the same time; we can take both under consideration, but the government failed to do so.

Much of the spending is far beyond these benefit programs. There are the benefit programs, but we were in a seriously dangerous deficit situation even before the pandemic.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked a lot about the recovery, but we are still in the middle of the pandemic. We hear constantly about the tourism sector and the hospitality industry, many of whose members have not survived. They need and want and are crying out for a continuation of the rent and wage subsidies for a while so they can survive long enough to recover. Do the hon. member and his party support that continuation so these businesses can survive long enough to enjoy a recovery and keep people employed?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it has been a pleasure working with this colleague. I wish him well in his planned retirement.

There are different things happening in different parts of the country. My province has announced a complete reopening starting at the beginning of July. There are different circumstances in different places and different trajectories. Hopefully, over time we are expecting the country as a whole to be on its way out of the pandemic as a result of various factors, including the availability of vaccines.

I would say to the member's question that a targeted approach is important. There are certain sectors that have been hurt more than others, and there are certain sectors for which the impacts will be there much longer. Therefore, it is important to look at the changes in the circumstances and how some sectors are continuing to be affected while others are coming out of it. Certainly, we would provide the tools and incentives for returning to a situation of growth as quickly as possible, and that does require a bit of sensitivity with respect to the different circumstances.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see you in the chair today, giving me this opportunity, I guess, to speak until the end of the programming motion that has been forced upon us because the government and the House leadership on its side seem to really want to do their homework at the very last minute. As a constant procrastinator in my youth, I appreciate that, but with old age we get wiser. I have come around to not doing that in my personal life and making sure that I am on top of my work before the clock strikes the eleventh hour.

What I am going to talk about today with regard to this piece of legislation, the budget bill, the first BIA, is what Albertans and constituents in my riding have cared about for the last 20 years, which is equalization, equalization and equalization. That is some of the biggest unfairness in our Confederation, and I think every Albertan would say so.

Typically in the BIA, the budget implementation act, we would see modifications made to the formula that governs equalization. I remember being on the finance committee when this was indeed the case. I actually missed it at the time, but the government simply rolled over the same formula and then accused the Conservatives at the time of having supported this formula back in 2014. The Liberals said it was not a big deal because it was the same thing.

Here is the deal. Over the last two years, the provincial government in Alberta has run a $24-billion deficit, if COVID spending is excluded. Once COVID spending is included, it will approach a $40-billion deficit over two fiscal years in the province of Alberta, my home province, the province I call home, the place that adopted me. It is patently unfair that Albertans are continuing to see major contributions to federal coffers because, after all, it is not a cheque cut from Edmonton to Ottawa; it is the totality of federal income taxes levied on workers in Alberta, and then the redistribution is based on a formula and the fiscal capacity of the average of the 10 provinces combined together. Now, there are a lot of different revenues included. There are different calculations being made.

At the Fraser Institute, Ben Eisen and another analyst made a calculation that demonstrated that in Canada, equalization and the fiscal capacity of the provinces are actually converging. Over the last five and a half years, my province has gotten poorer because of Liberal policies out of Ottawa. My province is now so poor that Albertans are only 20% above the median income of the people in Ontario, whereas before we were in the range of 80% to 90% above. That is a significant decrease in the common prosperity of the people of my province. It is directly related to policies that the Liberal government has introduced. It has stymied the growth of the oil and gas sector. I have not seen a single major oil and gas project be proposed and built since the Liberals took power. Actually, every single project that was completed had been started under the previous Conservative government.

Equalization by 2025-26 fiscal year is expected to be $25 billion. That is according to the government's own figures. The total number is actually growing over time. It is not shrinking over time, and it should be shrinking because our fiscal capacity is actually converging. The provinces are actually becoming much closer together to the average. One would think that over time there would be less money to redistribute because the provinces are more even, but that is not what is going on.

I want to recognize a member of the New Democratic Party, the member for St. John's East, who has stated several times how unfair equalization is to his home province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I had the distinct privilege of being able to travel with different parliamentary committees to the province as well, and I have read the Greene report. Lady Greene provided a report on the state of the finances in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an eye-opening read. It is not just unfair for Alberta. It is not just unfair for Saskatchewan and other “have” provinces contributing to our shared prosperity in this country; it is also unfair to Newfoundland and Labrador, which is seeing an immense drop in its provincial revenues and barely any finances being made up in the fiscal stabilization program, the FSP, the so-called equalization rebate.

Let it not be said that we Conservatives and I have not done something about it. I have tabled Bill C-263, the equalization and transfers fairness act, which would have eliminated that cap, but in this budget, in the BIA, all the Liberal government is committing to do is simply increase the cap to another random number.

The Liberals have tripled the cap now to a number that I do not think is defensible. If the cap had been eliminated entirely, my home province of Alberta would have been eligible for a $3-billion refund because of the significant loss in revenues. It is not as if the federal government does not have increasing revenues. I was just looking at the numbers. The income taxes that the federal government is forecasted to raise will go up by $46 billion over five years. That is $46 billion of additional revenue coming in, and it still cannot balance the budget within a five-year timetable.

To conclude, I want to be clear that if Albertans want to know more, if members across the country want to know more, I encourage them to follow Fairness Alberta and Dr. Bill Bewick's work, which gives an eye-opening account by the numbers, not rhetoric, just by the numbers, of the hardship my province is being asked to bear in order to pay for the finances of the federal government, and we cannot afford it. We cannot afford this government. We cannot afford another five years of nothing being done on equalization. The formula needs to be changed, and there needs to be greater fairness for the people of Alberta.

I will finish with a Yiddish proverb, because I know members know how much I appreciate them: “Let your mouth not speak what the eyes do not see.” Albertans have been seeing deep unfairness over the last five and a half years. We have suffered one of the greatest—

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

It being 1:11 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, June 14, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 2.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

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

[Chair read text of motion to House]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would ask them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

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

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

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

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until later this day at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 2.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 4:35 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-30.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #159

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion defeated.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

moved:

That Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a recorded division.

The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #160

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried. When shall the bill be read a third time?

At the next sitting of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 25 minutes.