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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, the rhetoric from our Conservative friends tends to focus on deficits. Nevertheless, it is a bit disturbing to note that many important and serious issues related to the crisis are not addressed in this budget.

For instance, during the break last week, I spoke with a number of seniors who are quite angry because the government has turned its back on seniors under 75.

There is also a housing crisis in Quebec right now. The budget does allocate a bit of money here and there, but the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was asking for a $7-billion reinvestment in a housing program.

On top of that, we are in the midst of a health crisis, and yet there have been no health transfers. The Quebec National Assembly and all the provincial premiers have unanimously called for a massive investment in health care, but it is not in the budget.

How would my colleague deal with this crisis?

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member raises very good points. I agree with him completely that the federal government has been absent on solving health care transfers, particularly. They have been an issue since the creation of universal health care.

The best way to deal with the situation is to elect a Conservative government that would clean up the mess the Liberals are perpetuating.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, 58% of young people have felt the negative impacts of the pandemic. That is why the NDP has called for the elimination of federal student debt: up to $20,000 per student.

Could the member tell us if he supports reducing federal student debt, or would he rather the federal government make a profit on the backs of young people?

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the loaded question.

It is another classic example, frankly, of where the federal government has made commitments to provinces for post-secondary education and never truly lived up to them. An investment in young people is wise but, again, the federal government interfering and not living up to its commitments to the provinces is where the real problem lies.

The best way to fix this, and it may not be all that flashy and it may not buy votes, is to fix the fiscal and structural imbalances that exist in our Confederation. That is the way to solve that problem and all the others.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to join all of my colleagues in the House, albeit virtually from my riding in Edmonton Strathcona.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-30 and the budget that the Liberal government has brought forward. I will begin by talking about the things that I support and was happy to see within the budget.

I was delighted to see that child care was included in the budget. The NDP has been calling for a national child care strategy for decades. It was wonderful to see that the Liberals have finally listened to us. They did not just listen to us: People within the Royal Bank, chambers of commerce across the country, child care advocates and representatives from provincial governments have called for a national child care plan. They recognized that if we did not have child care put in place, and if we did not deal with child care in a meaningful way there would be no recovery for so many working families across the country, and there would be a very stunted recovery, particularly impacting women, leading to what has been dubbed the “she-cession”. We were happy to see child care included.

Of course, I have concerns that this may be a promise and may not be something that is actually done. We have seen the government make promises before and not follow through with actions, so my colleagues within the NDP and I will be keeping a close eye on this to make sure that it is not just a campaign promise for the Liberal government but actually something it will implement.

I am also a little worried that the government has not done the work that needs to be done in terms of making sure that the provincial governments are going to take the need for child care seriously and implement it. As members know, I come from Alberta. In Alberta right now, Jason Kenney has already said that he has concerns about implementing a child care program. I know that women and working families in my province desperately need that support. This is something I will certainly be keeping my eye on as we go forward.

Obviously, we were also very happy to see the establishment of a federal minimum wage of $15 per hour. We heard, in 2015, Justin Trudeau openly criticize a proposal that the NDP had put forward, so it is good to see that this is a part of the budget, and we were very happy about that.

However, I will also talk a little about some of the shortcomings of Bill C-30 and the budget. I will focus my comments today on the impacts that Bill C-30 and the federal 2021 budget have had on my riding of Edmonton Strathcona.

As members may know, Edmonton Strathcona is an incredible riding. It is the heart of Edmonton. Downtown may be the brain of our city, but Edmonton Strathcona is the heart. It is the heart of the arts community, and is where so many of the small businesses and restaurants in Edmonton operate. It is home to all of the best festivals: the Edmonton Folk Music Festival, the Fringe Festival, Heritage Day and a number of other wonderful events. It is also where many of the post-secondary institutions in Alberta are located. The University of Alberta's Campus Saint-Jean, King's University and the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology Souch Campus are all located in my riding of Edmonton Strathcona.

When I look at this budget, I am looking at what some of it looks like for my constituents, and I will start with post-secondary education.

As I mentioned, Edmonton Strathcona is home to many post-secondary institutions, and many students, professors and parents live in the riding. They are very concerned that post-secondary education is becoming inaccessible. It is too expensive and becoming something that only the elite and wealthy can access.

I spoke with students from the University of Alberta Faculty of Law, Mia and Suzanne, who are deeply worried about post-secondary education in Alberta. They are worried about whether students will be able to afford to attend university and what it means when only the wealthy can attend. They are deeply concerned that students will graduate with mountains of debt that will impact their ability to buy a home, start a family or begin their career.

In November 2020, I brought forward a motion calling on the government to immediately implement a moratorium on student loan repayments. The House voted unanimously in support of that motion, yet nothing happened. There was no moratorium put in place. Students were still expected to pay back their student loans in the middle of the pandemic and in the middle of what we know has been a devastating time for young students and recent graduates.

We know that 58% of young people have felt the negative impacts of the pandemic on their fiscal situations. Instead of letting students fall into debt, we have called on the government to help by reducing their debt. We have called on the government to eliminate up to $20,000 per student. The Don't Forget Students group and the Canadian Federation of Students called on the government to do more for students. The fact that this budget has not done enough for post-secondary students and for recent post-secondary graduates is a big problem for me. It is a big problem for my constituency and for students across the country.

There is another thing that we really wanted to see within this bill and I am very disappointed that we do not see it, particularly as we are in the middle of a global pandemic. This bill does nothing to give us any of the supports that we need during a global pandemic. There is nothing here for pharmacare, dental care or additional support for mental health care.

Canadians have been waiting for pharmacare for over 60 years. It would make sure that the medications they need would be included in our health care system. Twenty-three years ago, the Liberals first promised Canadians a national pharmacare program. They have repeated that promise over and over again, yet we still have not seen it. In fact, recently the Liberal Party voted against the NDP's proposal for a pharmacare bill and, of course, there is nothing in this budget that makes us feel like it is coming.

We have had five public commissions on pharmacare. We have had study after study, including the Liberals' own Hoskins report in 2019, say that Canadians needed pharmacare, that pharmacare would save money and that we have that obligation, particularly during a global pandemic. Unfortunately, that is not part of what we saw in this bill.

While we were happy to see that there was a small increase in the amount of OAS for seniors over 75, it was deeply concerning that it would not help all seniors. It is a pittance, and not enough for seniors to get out of poverty and survive this pandemic. We saw massive amounts of money go to support for-profit long-term care centres. Instead of giving the money to our seniors to help them, we have seen the money go to the wealthy.

I said that I would be speaking about what the impacts have been on my riding of Edmonton Strathcona, but I want to very quickly talk about international development, humanitarian assistance and where this budget falls on that front.

A report prepared by Cooperation Canada, which is a leader in civil society work on international development, stated:

COVID-19 is not a fleeting crisis. It calls for political leadership and strategic investments to make up for the 25 years of human development progress lost in the first 25 weeks of the global pandemic.

It also says this budget missed that opportunity. Groups that provide humanitarian aid around the world asked for 1% within this budget, and they did not get that support.

Members may say that pharmacare, child care, support for seniors, artistic communities and our international communities all cost money, and wonder where is it going to come from. That is the biggest problem with this bill in my mind. We did not take the opportunity to make sure that the wealthy paid their fair share. We did not take the opportunity with this budget to make sure that the ultrarich would be contributing to our communities and our Canadian priorities. We have seen CEOs use the wage subsidy program to lock out their workers in my riding of Edmonton Strathcona. We have seen the ultrarich make $78 billion over the course of this pandemic, yet there is no wealth tax. There is nothing that will make the wealthy pay their share and help us as we go forward.

While I am happy to see that the Liberal government is finally taking some steps on a national child care program, and while I am happy to see minimum wage raised to $15 I am disappointed, once again, that the wealthy are given a free ticket while regular Canadians are expected to pick up the tab.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I go to questions and comments, I would like to remind the member that, earlier in her intervention, she mentioned the Prime Minister by name. I would ask her, when referring to the Prime Minister or other members of the House, that she refer to them by either their riding name or their ministerial name.

For questions and comments, we will go to 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, a couple of members have made reference to the issue of age 75 and what the government committed to. In the 2019 federal election, the leader of the Liberal Party, now Canada's Prime Minister, made a commitment to increase the benefit by 10% for all those who are age 75 and older. We are now fulfilling that commitment. We are fulfilling a promise that was made in the last federal election.

Am I now to assume that the NDP not only supports our commitment, but would also like to see that commitment of a 10% increase made to everyone who is over age 65, or possibly even younger than that? In Manitoba, for many years, seniors were recognized as 65-plus. What is the actual position of the NDP? If the member could provide a percentage, that would be helpful.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I have to apologize to you. I do seem to struggle to remember that the Prime Minister shall not be referred to by name.

The question that the member brought up today is problematic for me because it talks a lot about the commitments that the government has made. What about the commitments the government has not made? What about the commitments to supporting all seniors aged 65 years and older? What about students? What about the commitments that the government made for electoral reform? What about the commitments the government made to plant two billion trees, none of which have been seen?

To set a low bar and then jump over it does not seem all that ambitious. It does not seem all that motivated, to be perfectly honest.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals' national $10-a-day daycare is not income tested, which ensures we would be delivering huge benefits to high-income parents, as opposed to targeting those who need it most. Is the member disappointed that we are not looking to the needs of low-income working moms?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the best strategy for a national plan is that it be universally accessible. We saw our previous premier Rachel Notley put a plan in place in Alberta for $25-a-day daycare. It was a massive success, and it contributed to cutting child poverty in half in the province. When we make child care universal, and when we make child care available to all working families, it becomes something that lifts all. All boats rise.

It is important that we have a universal plan. I do not think we should only be targeting certain populations. We should be making sure that this is a national plan, and that children, whether they are in Quebec, Alberta or British Columbia, all have access to good, strong, quality child care.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by my colleague, who bragged about the merits of a very significant financial commitment the federal government has made for child care. However, I am quite surprised that she was not speaking out instead against this federal interference in an area of provincial jurisdiction.

We have had this type of program in Quebec for a long time, and if the federal government wants to copy our model, so much the better, but why does this program have to come from Ottawa and not the provinces?

I would like to hear what you have to say about the issue of workers, which you may not have had time to talk about. The government did not commit to permanently reforming the employment insurance system. It is just implementing temporary measures.

What do you think about that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would like to remind the hon. member to address her remarks to the Chair and not directly to members.

We have time for a brief answer from the member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, if I had had two or three hours, I certainly would have been able to address more within the budget. Time constraints limited me. I can tell members that I have many more notes I would have liked to have spoken to in terms of things we would have liked to have seen with EI and sick leave. There are a number of different things.

In terms of the member's first question on child care and provincial jurisdiction, she may know that, in my province of Alberta, our premier has not done a very good job during this pandemic. He has not done a strong job in ensuring we are well poised for recovery.

I feel the federal government needs to take a step and assist provinces when they are not being very positive in implementing things such as child care, when they have cut child care programs that we had in the past and when they are not implementing or putting in place new programs to help new families.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-30, the budget implementation act.

The problem with budget 2021 is that it is focused more on the political fortunes of the Liberal Party than on rebuilding the economy post-pandemic. That is not just me, the Conservative member for Langley—Aldergrove, speaking. The former clerk of the Privy Council Kevin Lynch is quoted as saying that budget 2021 is an “intergenerational transfer of debt and risk [that] is unprecedented.”

Mr. Lynch continues:

As a political statement, it should yield electoral dividends. As an economic statement, it favours short-term consumption over private-sector investment, sprinkles...[dividends] initiatives far and wide, adds heavily to the federal debt, and misses an urgent opportunity to rebuild our longer-term growth post-pandemic.

He is not happy with it, but look who is smiling. The left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is smiling. Its senior economist, David Macdonald, advised the Minister of Finance to ignore “ongoing and needless concern about federal interest payments.”

Those pesky debt servicing costs take all the fun out of the party. Let us all just agree the budget will balance itself. That it is modern monetary theory at work, and we should not be surprised this is coming from the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Modern monetary theory says the following: Debt and the deficit do not matter. Why do we even keep track of them because they do not matter? The only thing that matters is inflation, and as long as we keep inflation under control, everything is going to be good and fine. The proponents of modern monetary theory will tell us that inflation is under control, that it is more or less within the Bank of Canada's target range of 2%. Just recently it has gone up a bit, and I am happy to hear the member opposite acknowledging that at least there is a difference of opinion on whether inflation is just a blip or it is long-term and deeply embedded.

Let us hear what ordinary Canadians say about inflation. Talking to many small businesses in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove, I am hearing that they are having to compete to get good workers to come back to work. They are competing with each other, which of course is a good thing, but they feel they are also competing with the federal government. They are being told that maybe they need to pay their employees more if they want them to come back to work. That to them sounds like wage inflation.

I have talked to young families, and there are many of them in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove, who are struggling to buy a house. There is a housing affordability crisis going on. That is not unique to my riding of Langley—Aldergrove, although British Columbia's Lower Mainland seems to be ground zero for this housing affordability crisis.

I ask members to consider a hypothetical family that 15 months ago, at the start of the pandemic, decided it would take one more year to save up for a down payment to buy a first home. Today, that family is somewhere between $100,000 and $150,000 further behind. The goalposts have just been moved further. No matter how hard families kick the ball, and no matter how well they play the game, they are not keeping up. They are losing ground. If we tell them there is no inflation, they are not going to believe us.

I have talked to contractors who are working in construction in the housing industry. If we tell them there is no inflation, they will tell us about increased prices for lumber, plywood, steel, concrete and any products related to construction. The prices are going up. If we tell them there is no inflation, they are not going to believe us.

I believe there is one thing we can agree on with the Liberals, and with the other people in this House, and that is that the solution to fight inflation is to grow the economy and to make sure the economy is producing goods and services in sufficient quantities to meet the demand of the buying public. That is the solution. Unfortunately, this budget does not do that. It misses the mark.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has noted that a significant amount of the Liberal spending in this budget will not stimulate jobs. Nor will it create economic growth. This is a budget that focuses on redistribution of wealth, borrowing money and quantitative easing, but does not encourage private investment.

We have heard on numerous occasions from members opposite that even during the Harper years, Conservative governments engaged in deficit spending. Of course, in a time of crisis, that is exactly what a central government needs to do. It has tools available to it. Debt financing, quantitative easing, tax incentives to encourage further investment and even printing money are all tools available to and must be employed by a central government during a time of economic crisis to ensure there is liquidity in the marketplace. We all agree on that. Where we disagree is when the central government needs to step on the gas and when to ease up, when to pump liquidity into the marketplace and when to step aside to let private enterprise take over.

Do not forget that the Liberal government, even during good times, the first four years of its mandate, did not balance the budget. There was full employment, good government revenues and economic growth, yet there was one deficit budget after the other. I do not think Canadians have confidence in the government to see us through this crisis. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have a great track record of managing Canada's economy during a time of economic crisis, the most recent being the global financial crisis of 2008 and 2009 when Canada came out stronger than any other G7 country.

Today's Conservatives stand ready, willing and able to take the lead again to do the hard work to get our economy back on track. The Liberals focus on Ottawa-centric policies; we focus on private investment.

Talking about government-centred programs, I will focus briefly on the latest iteration of the $10-a-day universal child care proposal that has been put forward in the budget once again, as it has been put forward many times over many years. I will quote from a recent study report by Cardus, a think tank. This is what it says about the national child care proposal, “The norms of modern work, particularly that of modern working mothers, will be poorly addressed by a nation-wide system, rooted as it is in proposals that were first advanced in the 1970s.”

If there is one thing we learned about Canada and Canadians during this COVID crisis, it is that they are resilient, creative, inventive and engage in entrepreneurial problem-solving. A lot of Canadian families have taken the opportunity during this COVID crisis to move out of urban centres into more suburban centres to get a bigger house for the kids, a bigger home office, maybe two home offices, one for mom, one for dad and maybe even a third one for the kids if they do their school work from home. We should ask these families what they think about a centralized Ottawa-knows-best national child care policy. We should ask them what they want.

I have a few suggestions, three good ideas, that I hope the Liberals will accept. First, they should take the billions of dollars that they are planning to spend on national child care and give it directly to families and allow them to do what they feel is best. Second, let us create more housing by encouraging provincial governments and municipalities to increase supply. Rather than tinker with demand, let us increase supply. Finally, they should do something about rural broadband so we can all work efficiently from home.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could have had my screen off and still would have known that the individual speaking was a Conservative from his thought process.

I have to wonder what the Conservatives would have done for the thousands and thousands of people who would have ended up unemployed, or are unemployed, as a result of this pandemic. As for child care and women, we have a huge labour shortage in Canada and thousands of women would love to go to work, but do not have adequate child care.

What would my colleague propose if the Conservatives were in charge during this pandemic?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I pointed out in my earlier talking points that the Conservative Party agrees that a federal government needs to step in during a time of crisis with deficit spending, quantitative easing and pumping liquidity into the marketplace to keep the economy going and to support families, workers and businesses. We voted in favour of those programs when they were presented by the Liberal government. We worked on improving them. They are better because of the work we have done.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the pandemic has exposed the flaws in our health care system, whether it is in vaccine supply or quantity or the quality of our long-term care facilities. Health care workers and seniors particularly have suffered direct consequences of years of underfunding to health care services under consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments, yet the budget announces no increased health care transfers.

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

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party agrees that the federal government has a very important role to play in helping Canadian citizens who are most in need, such as seniors and people who are not benefiting from the wealth of the nation. We recognize and appreciate that. I would stand with her in criticizing the current government for not having done a sufficient job in that during this pandemic.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, last week, representatives of Restaurants Canada came to the Standing Committee on Finance. They mentioned that half of restaurants faced the risk of closure if subsidies were scaled back too soon. They are calling on the government to immediately introduce a sector-specific restaurant survival support package, with one of the things being an exemption from the scheduled scale back of the rent and wage subsidies for the food sector.

Could you tell me your thoughts are on this?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind the member to address all questions and comments through the Chair and not to the individual member.

The hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove has just a little under a minute to respond.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that what we should be looking at now at this stage of the economic recovery post-pandemic is sector-specific aid.

I talked about small businesses in my riding that were having trouble finding employees. These are generally construction companies, landscaping companies and agricultural businesses where it is safe to go back to work. They are having trouble getting workers. I recognize as well that restaurants in my colleague's riding are struggling. They continue to need help and I support that.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House today. It is always an honour to speak in the House, especially in a time where we remain virtual. It is much better to be in the House to speak.

I would like to thank my colleagues, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka and the member for Langley—Aldergrove, for their presentations today about what we believe is important when talking about the budget implementation bill.

Governments have historically had three sources of revenue: tax, borrow or print money. This process has been around for governments for a long time. The Egyptians, 3,000 years ago, had an extensive twice-yearly collection of grains that they could then distribute in less productive times, for government workers or lesser classes. The Incas has a similar system in the Americas.

Over time, forms of governments that have been ruling have taxed those they are in control of with some form of payment, be it commodity, currency or even servitude. The ruling authority would decide on the use of the collected tax. In my family history, going back to Scotland in 1207, there was a tax collector. He is part of my family history. The collection of taxes has been going on for thousands of years.

When it comes to taxes, people can pay, resist or be non-compliant. Penalties for non-compliance varied over time. Many of us remember the Boston Tea Party and how the American colonies resisted paying taxes.

Since 1867, in Canada, taxes have been based on trade. It was a trade-based type of tax. In 1916, there was a corporate tax. There was a world activity going on called World War I. In 1917, there was a temporary Income Tax War Act, combining corporate and a new individual tax to be reviewed after the war, after World War I.

After World War II, in 1948, the temporary act was replaced by the Income Tax Act, the basis for what we have today, which should be totally thrown out and redone, as it has only been tinkered with for the last 60 or 70 years.

Different levels of government in Canada have taxation. The federal and provincial governments can rack up debt, but municipalities cannot. We have huge debt in both federal and provincial governments, but the municipalities have figured out how to do it without creating that long-term debt.

Over two calendar years, we have had an economic snapshot, a fall economic update, but no budget. Finally, Canadians will be able to understand, maybe, for themselves what their tax dollars will pay for.

When phone books were still being printed some years ago, there were times they were used as substitute booster seats for children to reach the top of the table at dinnertime. Phone books are not printed too often these days, but at 724 pages, this budget could be a fitting substitute. There are 724 pages jammed with Liberal promises, promises that will add to the federal debt of more than $1.2 trillion. It is a great tactic to make certain Canadians never read it; it is so long and complicated.

In fact, we heard before that the current Prime Minister added more debt than all the other prime ministers before him combined. That is quite an infamous accomplishment. I have listened to Liberals extolling accomplishments, and it almost sounds like they are making acceptance speeches for an Oscar. It may not be the award that many of my constituents would like to give them for this budget, one with $100 billion, not million, unaccounted for. However, what is a few billion between friends.

This is taxpayer money. I often hear the Prime Minister say, “We will take this debt on our shoulders.” It is the taxpayer money and taxpayer debt, and it is their children and their grandchildren's debt. Is it printed money by the billions on a weekly basis on which the government has depended? This modern monetary theory is interesting: print all the money it wants and do not worry about the debt. That does not work at the municipal government level or at the personal level, so how can it work at the federal level.

This is not a new idea. Government spending based on a backed commodity, like the holding of gold, is many centuries old. However, it was disrupted a few times in those days, too, when there was an oversupply of gold at certain times.

Paper began to appear as a writ of value for governments to replace rare metals currency, but it was backed by rare metals—not now. When governments produce volumes of paper currency with no backing or faith in the currency, what happens?

Many of us have heard the stories of Germany in the 1920s. There was hyperinflation, spending rapidly as the value dropped. A wheelbarrow full of money could buy a loaf of bread one day, but not the next day. The Great Depression brought stock market paper with no value. More recently, there was the 2008 bank depression. Greece, Venezuela and other countries just printed bigger numbers on their bills and there was still no value.

What is the Liberal government doing with this budget? If the government continues this trajectory, by 2026 Canada will have spent $39 billion on debt interest payments alone. That is more than child care at $8.3 billion, more than EI benefits at $25.6 billion and more than the Canada child benefit at $27 billion, all of which are programs in this budget.

We must look introspectively and ask ourselves where this money is coming from. It is being generated as numbers on a screen and then printed on expensive paper, or plastic bills these days, which is another resource sector product. The government will be printing more money than it earns from Canadian taxpayers. Is this a recipe for disaster? I know what my constituents think, and it is not a pretty picture.

What is the government promising for Canadians? I have heard about many government programs, but what drives the economy despite this incredible spending on government programs and increase of government employees? Does the private sector not build the economy by producing services and products of value? It employs people to do this. The companies and the employees then pay taxes that support the needs of society.

Do government programs build the economy based on printed money? This has not worked in other countries or historically. Each person in Canada now owes an average of $33,000 in federal debt. Does the Liberal government want people to depend on it instead of gainful employment? I would hope not, but does this budget do that?

Canadians and future generations will be saddled with the burden of the government doubling the national debt, and for what? I cannot wait for members to ask me about government programs. What about the $100-billion recovery line in the budget? Is that more government jobs?

I speak with my constituents in mind. They are hard-working, no-nonsense, results-driven people. Do they want a budget with handouts? No, they do not. We have incredibly intelligent, innovative, hard-working people in my constituency and across this great country who are willing to invest in businesses and hire productive people to produce services or products that are valued. Is the government interested in doing that with this budget? My constituents question that. If the government was as focused on getting Canadians back to work as it is on marketing and slogans, my constituents would be better off.

In this House, parliamentarians must follow certain standards of House procedure and conduct. It would be impossible for me to accurately convey the feelings my constituents have, using the words they have spoken to me. I would be subject to reprimand and would certainly be compelled to retract my comments.

All parties agreed to temporary measures to address the difficulties in conducting House business going forward, but since then, even though we have adapted new methods of representing Canadians in this House, we have been more dysfunctional than ever. Though this new online method has been streamlined, it took many months of tedious technical tinkering. Nothing will be a viable substitute for the ability to look a colleague in the eye and have a conversation about our constituents.

The spending promises are at an all-time high and there is no plan to balance the budget in the future. Generations of Canadians will be paying for the Liberal government's promises. The snowball effect of this pandemic on every sector of the economy, on every moment of our lives going forward will not be easily forgotten. I remember the 20% interest rates on my mortgage, and that was a response to inflation in the 1970s. Can members imagine what that would do to my constituents' mortgages today?

Canada's future does not rest in a slogan, a campaign or even a single political party, but in the determination of our people to work, to innovate and to flourish.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. At one point, I noticed that, contrary to the standing order that allows members to wear flowers or small pins to recognize special days in our country, my colleague was wearing a button with a slogan on it.

I would like to know whether the Standing Orders of the House of Commons have changed because I, too, have some buttons that I could wear from time to time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I thank the member for his point of order.

The hon. member for Bow River is well aware, and it has been raised on a number of occasions, that buttons are not to be worn in the House of Commons. I would ask him to remove the button, so that we can proceed to questions and comments.

The hon. member wants to speak to the point of order.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, if there is a question, I would respond to the question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There was a point of order raised regarding the hon. member's button that he is wearing, which has a message on it. I am respectfully asking that member to remove the button, because, as he is well aware, that is against the protocols in the House. I would ask the hon. member to remove his button, and we will go to questions and comments.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, in response, would that apply to anything people might wear in the House that is not their—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

As the hon. member knows, there are exceptions for things that mark specific days in the House or specific events, such as the MS Society of Canada sending us flowers and everyone wearing those, but the hon. member's button does have a particular message to it that sends a very clear message that not everyone is supportive of.

Therefore, I would ask the hon. member, as he is very well aware that this is a matter that has been raised in the past, to remove the button, so that we can go to questions and comments.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a button that states what I personally—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, at this point, the member is using this opportunity, where we are addressing a procedural matter, to further advocate for the political position that is represented on that button he is wearing.

Either he is going to have to adhere to the rules that are set in this House and being enforced by you right now, or he is going to have to leave the chamber. I would encourage you not to allow him to continue to advocate on behalf of the position that he is trying to advocate for with that button.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do want to remind other members not to weigh in into the conversation, unless they wish to rise to do so. This is a matter that has been raised several times with other members as well, and with the hon. member himself, so I would just ask the member to please remove the button, so that we can continue on.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, do you mean the other one that I am wearing as well?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

No, just the one that has the very clear message regarding the positioning of the party.

I thank the member.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I heard the member talk a lot about inflation. I heard the previous Conservative member talk about Conservatives only running a deficit when it is necessary, because of the stimulus that is required from the government at the time. I find that very fascinating, given that between Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney, 14 out of 16 of their budgets ran deficits. That would only lead me to conclude that times were extremely tough and we were running constant recessions and economic hardship during the times of both Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney.

Would the member like to comment on why times were so tough just during the years of those two prime ministers?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague, whom I have worked with for many years on a committee in this particular House, on the environment committee, one of the challenges we have, and he refers to it, is that if we are here in person we are capable of doing a lot more things. In the opportunity that I had of working with him in committee, when we are there in person, we are able to do a lot more things and work on a lot more issues, so when he makes suggestions like that, we could have dealt with a lot more things if we had been here in person. This virtual set-up does not allow us to have a lot of good discussions, like those I have had with the member before.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, yesterday I had a conversation with an extremely bright young girl, my 10-year-old daughter Lily Rose. She asked me why some countries are poor and others are rich. She told me she thought that we here in Quebec and Canada are very lucky to have machines that print money when we do not have enough. I found that very sweet, but obviously, that was from a 10-year-old child. Sometimes I get the impression that the Liberal government is operating as though we actually had amazing money-printing machines, but we are adults, and we know that is unfortunately not the case.

Here is my question for my colleague from Bow River. At this point, we need to look to the future, invest wisely for the future, and make sure that my daughter, whom I just mentioned, does not have to bear the burden of the debt and deficit we are racking up because of the crisis.

Would my colleague agree that it is time we did as the Bloc Québécois suggests by investing in the sustainable, renewable energy sources of the future and engaging in a transition toward renewable energy rather than a spontaneous movement?

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

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, in this budget, that is one of the things we look for. We look for things for the future, things for our environment, things for our workforce, things for energy and what we can do. In the province of Alberta, I have seen some of the most phenomenal innovative projects to do with different forms of energy. There are fantastic ideas that are coming out of Alberta, coming out of the resource sector, for how they can develop and work with new technologies and do this, but I do not see that in the Liberal budget.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague on his very attractive tie.

I appreciate that his speech had a lot to do with fiscal responsibility, making sure that those dollars that are being spent are being spent wisely, and I agree with him on that.

One of the concerns I have is that some of the programs we have spent money for have had huge gaps in them. In my riding, we have an example where an employer is actually using the wage subsidy to pay for scab labour instead of negotiating in good faith with Boilermakers Lodge 146.

Could the member talk about whether he feels that it is reasonable for the wage subsidy to be used for employers who are not negotiating in good faith with their workers?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, of course, we have to have accountability, and one of the things we have lacked through the spending programs, through these programs that have been running out, is accountability. We need accountability for those tax dollars spent, and that has been lacking.

In the Liberal budget, going forward, when they talk about $100 billion unaccounted for and what they might spend it on, that is the lack of accountability we have with the current government.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be here in the House.

Of course, when I speak from home, in my riding, it is important, but when I am here, I find that my words have even more importance.

I would just like to take a moment and thank my constituent, Paddy Bossert, for the beautiful pin she gave me. She and Dale Bossert have been big supporters of Calgary Midnapore for some time. The pin is a quill and ink, and she says it is because I have such lovely handwriting. I believe my staff would beg to differ with her, but nonetheless, I thank Mrs. Bossert very much for this beautiful pin I am wearing in the House today.

I appeared on Alberta Primetime with the previous speaker, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, where I quoted two articles regarding the budget that I am going to mention here again today. The first one was an Andrew Coyne article. Andrew is of course seen as somewhat Conservative but also seen as, I believe, a very reasonable individual. His comment in his opinion piece was that this was “a budget about everything, except how [we are going] to pay for it”. Those words really resonated with me.

The other article I referred to was a Rosenberg article in The Globe and Mail. This article indicated something I thought was very interesting, which is that the budget used to be an economic document. It used to be a document about the economic future of Canada. In fact, this is how I was raised, which is that one's family brings in so much money a month, spends a certain amount and then a certain amount is left for savings. It was really an education for me to arrive in the public policy world and find that it is about spending priorities for the fiscal year, whatever they are. Rosenberg's other point was that this budget was not even an economic document, it was a social engineering document designed to vote-grab, which really puts a sad commentary on the government and this budget.

What makes me the most sad is that I really believe every Speech from the Throne and every budget is an opportunity to face the future with confidence and with possibility, especially at this time of coming out of a pandemic. Right now it is hard for Canadians to see the future and have hope. This document did not do that.

We have seen the terrible vaccine procurement and distribution throughout Canada resulting in the delay of a return to life as we once knew it. What we need to do is restart Canada. Our economy is crumbling. Never mind the debt and the deficit my colleagues talked about previously, as well as inflation and money supply. In the last question, it was said that someone's daughter actually thought Canada could print money.

There is just so much supply as a result of the government and a lack of goods. Trade is also failing under this economy. There is a container crisis affecting shippers, distributers and businesses. I actually had someone in my riding tell me that they paid $2,000 to ship a container from China prior to this pandemic and that the price has now gone up to $8,500 a container. This is a cost they are going to have to pass on to consumers.

Interest will start to go up. We will see it start with variable rates and it will increase and increase. With household debt, people are paying down their credit cards but now we are seeing them take on this debt with housing prices. As well, small and medium enterprises are struggling.

Mental health during this pandemic has been horrible. I was very proud to host a session with a psychologist in my riding last week on parenting teens in a pandemic, in an effort to help the next generation of Canadians who are looking for some hope in this pandemic, a way out of this pandemic, which this budget did not provide. I received so many sad notes from seniors, who told me they are completely depressed and even contemplating suicide. We need to restart Canada.

I have advocated tirelessly for the aviation sector within the House. The National Airlines Council of Canada put out a statement, which said that:

As vaccination rates continue to climb globally countries are announcing plans for the safe restart of their travel and tourism sectors, drawing on analysis provided by the European Centres for Disease Control and Prevention as well as the US Centres for Disease Control...“Yesterday the National Airlines Council joined with over 60 other industry organizations in writing to the Prime Minister on the urgent need for Canada to move forward with a restart plan for the overall economy and for the travel sector. Countries that successfully plan will not only safely restart aviation and their overall economy, they will take jobs and investment from countries that do not. We must get moving now on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians in every region of the country whose livelihoods depend on travel and tourism”....

It is not just here, but other jurisdictions are restarting. They have a restart plan. I will point out some examples brought forward to me by the Business Council of Canada, which said that:

Other jurisdictions have paved the route for us to follow. In February, the United Kingdom unveiled a four-stage “roadmap out of lockdown”, with clear guidelines to mark the journey back to a more normal life. For example, in “Step 3”, most businesses in all but the highest risk sectors are allowed to reopen while adhering to public health guidelines.

We need to restart Canada.

The U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention has issued guidance for those who are fully vaccinated and outlines which activities are now considered safe, including domestic travel without the need for testing or quarantine. Right here within Canada, here at home, Saskatchewan recently unveiled a three-step reopening road map that clearly links the lifting of restrictions to vaccination milestones. For example, once 70% of those 30 and older have received one dose, 150 people will be permitted to gather in public, indoor settings provided they adhere to physical distancing and mask guidelines. We need to restart Canada.

Further along that reopening plan for Saskatchewan, in phase 1, May 4 to June 1, we see reopening previously restricted medical services; phase 2, reopening retail and select personal service facilities; phase 3, reopening places of worship, increasing indoor, public and private gatherings of 15 people and outdoor gatherings to 30 people; and phase 4, reopening child and youth day camps, outdoor pools and spray parks as well as libraries, museums, galleries and it goes on and on. Canadians are waiting for this. We need to restart Canada.

However, we need to be smart about this restart. We need not only the government but Canadians to think about the restart. I want every Canadian to think about, when the pandemic is over and when their benefits run out, whether they will they have a job, and if not, why? Did their restaurant close? Did their retail store close? Why? If a person owns a business, is their business safe?

The next question I want Canadians to ask themselves is: What did they not get to do this winter or spring because of no vaccines as a result of this government with no vision and no restart plan? Did someone around them pass away? Was there a surgery that was denied? Did someone have to quit their job in an effort to home-school? Did they have to quit their beer league? Was it like my son who had to go without his hockey league, which gives him so much exercise and happiness?

More importantly, I want Canadians to ask themselves what they want their future to look like. Do they want to own a home? It is not going to happen under this government in the direction that we are going. Do they want to have a family? They might not be able to provide food for them because of inflation and the price of groceries and gas, which is at 127.9 cents a litre in my hometown of Calgary. Do they want to have a car? Why does it have to be an electric car? Why can it not be a car run on diesel? By the time this government makes any effort to get the infrastructure up for electric cars, we will have moved on to hydrogen.

We need to do this restart plan intelligently. However, Canadians' lives do not have to be how the government designed them. They have an opportunity for change. They have an opportunity for choice. This government had an opportunity and it failed. We need to restart Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her very passionate speech.

I find it quite ironic that the member talked about restarting Canada and referenced various provincial plans. Those provinces are the ones that shut down their economic activity and the various elements within their province as they saw necessary, and those are the same provinces that are now reopening it all. Ontario just did the same thing and released a three-stage plan, which shows certain milestones, just as the member indicated in her speech that it should be done.

These plans have been set up by the provinces. The provinces are reopening their economies and getting things moving as we hit certain milestones. How is it confusing to her that the provinces that shut things down are also now reopening them?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, the provinces have consistently had to react and respond to the shortcomings of the federal government since the very beginning of this pandemic. Since we saw the virus coming over the Pacific Ocean, we have been asking the government to respond. Its vaccine procurement and distribution has been the worst part.

The provincial governments have reacted and responded. The federal government can and should follow their lead in having a national restart plan.

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

Madam Speaker, we all share my colleague's desire to see a reopening soon. Of course, here in British Columbia, we are looking forward to news later this afternoon on what our province's plans will be.

A lot of workers have seen many of their benefits eliminated, either because they have seen their workplace hours reduced or they have lost their jobs altogether. Some of the biggest hits, of course, have been to workplace pharmacare plans. The cost of pharmacare could be a huge burden to the monthly budget of families. What is the member's position on establishing a national pharmacare plan, so that we can really relieve working families of those unexpected costs going forward, on something that is based on the existing Canada Health Act?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to commend my leader for doing incredible work with workers and unions since he was installed as the leader of this party. As Conservatives, we know that Canadians always make the best choices, whether it is about child care, dental care or preferred health care when they get the opportunity to choose for themselves. This is what we want. This is what the government has denied Canadians: the opportunity to have more choice.

I certainly stand in solidarity with my colleague from the NDP when it comes to supporting workers, unions and Canadian families, but as Conservatives we want to offer Canadians choice as well as the autonomy to make the choices that are best for them.

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

Madam Speaker, I spoke to a number of constituents over the weekend. One talked about how she is simply feeling hopeless during these times and even contemplated suicide because of the circumstances she finds herself in. Another constituent I spoke to had been denied funding, falling through the cracks because of the programs that the Liberal government has brought forward. Another constituent felt like she was not sure she could move on.

Certainly, Conservatives, I think, are realistic in asking for a plan to provide Canadians some hope. My colleague articulated that very well. Specifically, when it comes to the travel industry, I have spoken to some travel agents who said they have fallen through the cracks of the government's plan.

I wonder if my colleague could speak further to how there are sectors, including the travel industry, which have fallen through the cracks because of the Liberal government's mismanagement of the pandemic.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, to my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot, the sad reality is that the government will only ever act when it feels it can gain some votes and make some gains in the upcoming election, which it is planning for during this pandemic. Unfortunately, the aviation sector; travel and workers throughout—

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

The hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I am speaking to something very historic, which is the budget implementation act for the largest and most anticipated Liberal deficit budget in Canadian history. Usually when history is being made, there are those who will be remembered well and those who will not be.

Judging by this budget, it is clear that the current government will not be well thought of by future generations. These generations will be the ones tasked with the consequences of this massive Liberal deficit budget, one that will mean higher taxes than what we pay today, fewer services, higher inflation and bigger debt servicing costs. All of these factors will vary based on the policy choices made in the years to come, but as a whole, they represent a much higher likelihood that future generations will not be as well off as folks are today.

I know how hard my great-grandparents and grandparents worked to make this country as strong and prosperous as it is today. They sacrificed through two world wars and a depression, building their families while keeping our country's finances under control. I think of my parents' more recent generation, which sacrificed so much in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the last Liberal government drastically cut spending and services for Canadians while leaving their tax burden the highest in Canadian history to date. All of these sacrifices are at threat of being made in vain because of the lack of fiscal accountability and responsibility shown by the Liberal government over the past five and a half years, particularly in its new plan for future years.

We are facing unique challenges, and the Liberals have proven in this budget that they are not up to dealing with them. The fact is that we cannot count on the factors that previous generations counted on to make and keep our country prosperous. There is no postwar baby boom around the corner, and the steady flow of skilled immigrants to this country is likely to tail off in the near future, as the rest of the world wakes up to the demographic aging crisis and the implications of mass population decline. Fewer and fewer productive taxpayers will be around to service the ever-increasing annual deficits and debts.

Many of the commodities and goods that have made Canada an economic powerhouse are at risk of being phased out by the policies of the World Economic Forum and our own Liberal government. Goods such as oil, automobiles and minerals are at risk of facing drastic reductions in production because of demand destructive policies implemented by woke governments.

Even with the growth in electric vehicles, the scarcity of necessary raw materials such as copper, cobalt and lithium, among others, will make these transportation solutions less accessible for working families. With Liberal legislation like Bill C-69 in the previous Parliament, it is unlikely we will even get new mines permitted in time to benefit from any green commodity booms, making us beholden to foreign global competitors such as China, which will set prices for our consumers and control market supply.

The confluence of factors that made our country prosperous, such as a young population, high immigration, fiscal responsibility and increasing consumption of resources, has been inverted. Now we have an aging population, out-of-control debt, and soon-to-be-more-limited immigration prospects, and the resources that have made our country prosperous in the past are being phased out. Nowhere in this Liberal budget did I see a direct plan to address these challenges. It is a failure.

On the environment, which makes up a significant part of this Liberal budget, I see other key failures. The natural resources committee is studying low-carbon and renewable fuels. I agree with the consensus that we need to do more in this area in order to be competitive economically and lower carbon emissions. I was interested to learn that the Liberals have launched a new tax credit to promote carbon capture utilization and storage. There is a big catch, however. On page 168 of the budget, the Liberals make clear, “It is not intended that the investment tax credit be available for Enhanced Oil Recovery projects.”

This is a slap in the face to my constituency. It basically means that Alberta and Saskatchewan should not bother applying. It will significantly undermine investment in carbon capture, which is already effectively being used in my riding at the Sturgeon Refinery, which has sequestered over one megatonne of carbon dioxide in under a year. We could create tens of thousands of jobs and produce the lowest diesel emissions in the world, but the Liberals have essentially barred them from accessing this tax credit.

It is out of line with our trading competitors in the U.S., where under the 45Q policy, a more limited tax credit is available for enhanced oil recovery producers. Why are the Liberals turning their backs yet again on the energy industry of this country, especially when they are taking the important step of decarbonizing their operations with expensive investments in carbon capture?

Is the real reason that the Liberals cannot stand to see a successful, sustainable hydrocarbon industry in this country? That is the only reason I can see, and it is shameful. It is shameful because it exposes that the Liberals are not really interested in finding the most cost-effective solutions for carbon emissions. They are only interested in looking for solutions that come from groups that are not interested in working with our oil and gas sector.

The government claims it is not picking winners and losers in this industry, but its actions speak differently. I am proud that, under a Conservative government, we would support carbon capture across all industries, regardless of whether they are engaged in enhanced recovery or not. Under the Conservatives, our emissions would be significantly lower, while growing jobs in our oil and gas sector.

I am over halfway through my speech and I have not even mentioned the government's failure during the COVID-19 pandemic. We all recognize that Canada is going through a tough time. We have been in and out of lockdowns for over a year now, and it is taking a huge toll on families and small businesses. That is exactly why, over the past year, the Conservatives have supported the government by allowing it to pass massive income support measures on an expedited basis.

We trusted that the Liberals would take that goodwill and do the job right, or at least that, if they did the job wrong the first time, they would make it right as soon as possible. Unfortunately, they did the opposite. They have used this pandemic and the political logjam in this Parliament to govern as if they had a majority, threatening a snap election in a health crisis rather than working with opposition parties to do what is best for Canada.

We see it in question period on a daily basis. Our basic questions are met with disgust. Ministers do not even bother to listen to the questions and choose to throw around unparliamentary language accusing the opposition of lying or misleading Canadians. They have no interest in hearing constructive criticism or implementing our proposals for positive change.

For example, let us look at the Canada emergency wage subsidy. In theory, it is a great program aimed at protecting jobs and our economy, yet as I read through the company quarterly reports, I am shocked by how many profitable businesses have been using taxpayer dollars, delivered on a silver platter by the Liberals, to pad their bottom lines. Many of these companies took these benefits while laying off hundreds of workers, yet the Liberals put no strings attached. There is no accountability for these businesses.

I read in the budget that the Liberals have a big solution for this. They will claw back the wage subsidy for companies that raise executive pay. I thought it was a joke. These companies are spending billions on share buybacks and dividends, and the Liberals are saying that, if they raise executive compensation, they will claw it back. It is laughable. It is a feast for big business and government relations executives put on by the Prime Minister, and the taxpayer is footing the bill.

We need to chart a new course to maximizing growth in the years to come while returning to fiscal responsibility by setting a clear plan to get our country back to a balanced budget and address the rising debt load and face the challenges of tomorrow. We have faced them before, as in the 2008 financial crisis. Under Conservative leadership, this country came out stronger than ever, and we are ready to do the hard work to get our country back on track to secure our future.

In my short time to speak today, I have raised serious problems with the Liberals' economic mismanagement, whether it be their poorly designed programs, or their programs designed to outright exclude important industries and regions in this country. I have highlighted some deeply concerning trends, such as the threat of a reduced population, lower immigration and an aging population. These are challenges that would be difficult for governments to face even at the best of times.

What we have seen from the Liberal government is that it has a willingness to spend whatever it takes to get re-elected rather than spending to face the challenges of the future today. It is clear that only a Conservative government can get our country back on track and secure our future.

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

Madam Speaker, I was listening to my hon. colleague's speech, and he seemed to be telling us what the Conservative government would do if it were in power.

We are currently in a health crisis, but we are heading toward a social crisis.

Last week, I met with organizations that help the homeless in Montreal and in my riding, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. People are very worried. They are talking about the fallout from the crisis, including when it comes to housing, over the next five to 10 years.

Given that the Liberal government is doing nothing to address the serious housing crisis now, if a Conservative government came to power, which is not impossible, would it commit to dealing with this crisis?

Vacancy rates are very low. We are seeing homeless camps across Canada, not just in Quebec, but in Toronto and Vancouver too. There were some in Montreal recently, and this will just keep happening.

Can the Conservative government commit to dealing with this serious social crisis that we are facing?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. The pandemic may end, and the health crisis may end in the next few months, and I certainly hope it does, but the mental health crisis and the other consequences of this nearly 18-month pandemic will be felt for years, if not generations, to come.

When we look at the federal deficit picture, we have to take into account that, just because we get out of this pandemic, it does not mean that the economy is going to recover overnight. It is going to take strong leadership that will target economic support where it needs to be, and a lot of that economic support is going to be on important social initiatives, such as addressing homelessness.

I am very proud of our team, as Conservatives, talking about implementing a three-digit number to address mental health challenges. We passed a motion in this House months ago. What have the Liberals done? They have done absolutely nothing. Conservatives will get the job done.

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

Madam Speaker, that is fascinating because the member went on talking about how we were spending too much money and about the debt and deficits that have been piling on. Then, in response to the first question, his default answer was that we need to spend more money. Other Conservatives keep coming out here saying that we need more for a Canada emergency wage subsidy and that we need more for this or that. He even said himself, in response to the last question, that we need to spend money on social programs.

Rather than talking about where we do need to spend money, could the member please suggest, from this budget, where we need to remove money? That might be an easier way for the Conservatives to look at it. Where should we take money out of this budget?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will answer that with pleasure. For example, how about not giving billions of dollars in wage subsidies to profitable companies engaged in share buybacks and dividend increases? We could have saved a few billion dollars for Canadians there. How about the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been sole-sourced to Liberal insiders during this pandemic? We could have saved a few hundred million dollars there. There are lots of examples. I could do this all day.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, earlier this morning, I challenged a Bloc colleague on his concern about inflation that is being fuelled by this budget implementation measure. What are my hon. colleague's concerns regarding inflation? I know members across the way accuse us Conservatives of being concerned. I am guilty of that.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I too am worried. I am worried about inflation. If the spectre of inflation were not bad enough, what worries me more is the fact that the Liberal government does not seem to be concerned about inflation. The Liberals bring out a mixed bag of economists, and they say inflation is not a big deal.

I am 30 years old, and I have never really lived in an economy where we had inflation, but I can talk to my grandparents and my parents. It is the idea that the value of that money in a savings account in our bank is going down every day as the government continues to print money and overheat the economy. For example, there are seniors on fixed a income. The threat to our country is real. When is the government going to take concrete action?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking this morning about Bill C-30, budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1.

My colleagues will recall that the Bloc Québécois voted against the budget because some of our important conditions were not included. However, we will be voting in favour of the budget implementation bill, which contains plenty of promising measures.

All the same, that does not mean that we will be giving up the fight, in particular with respect to health transfers. In my opinion, it is inconceivable that a government that is running a deficit of more than $350 billion this year still refuses to help the levels of government that have the responsibilities stipulated in the original agreement.

The federal government used to pay 50% of the costs, not 22%. At this rate, it will only be paying 20% five years from now. What the provinces and Quebec are unanimously asking for is 35%. That corresponds to $28 billion, which by purest coincidence is equal to the leeway that the government decided to subtract from its deficit. I certainly think the Liberals could afford this.

Our other major condition was a decent increase in old age pensions. I am not talking about the increase of about $1.75 given to those who received the largest increase. That will just about buy them one extra coffee a year. I am talking about a decent increase of $110 a month, which is not asking much.

It feels like we keep repeating the same things. Sometimes repetition is the only way to get a point across. At a time when the government wants to launch a recovery plan involving more than $100 billion in spending, how can it justify not giving seniors some breathing room by providing $110 a month?

It is a small amount. These people will not be putting it in the bank for later, they will be spending it. That is exactly what we need for our economy this year. We need a recovery, some breathing room, help for these people who were hit so hard by the pandemic.

Another concern we have about Bill C-30 is that it lays the foundation for a Canadian securities regulation regime. Historically, the Bloc Québécois has always been opposed to this, and we are not alone. The Quebec government and Quebec's business community are unanimous in rejecting the idea. The Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, Finance Montréal, the International Financial Center, Mouvement Desjardins, the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and most companies, including Air Transat, Transcontinental, Canam, Québecor, Metro, La Capitale, Cogeco and Molson, all agree.

Why are all of these economic stakeholders in Quebec saying that Quebec should not be losing more control to Ontario?

It is because this amounts to an attempt to move a strong financial centre to Toronto. I know that I am in the House, that I must remain calm and watch my language, but it is pretty darn hard to stay calm when faced with this constant financial expropriation. What the government wants to do is to make Quebeckers dependent, so that they think they need the rest of Canada and that they want to remain a part of it. That is the bottom line.

Why fix something that is not broken?

Quebec's securities commission is extremely effective, and it is important to have a strong economic centre. This is the institution that insisted on keeping the Montreal Stock Exchange in Montreal even after it was sold to the Toronto Stock Exchange. I will be so bold as to say that, if it had been up to Toronto, there would not be a stock exchange in Montreal anymore.

There are many jobs involved. The financial sector accounts for 150,000 jobs and contributes $20 billion to the GDP. Montreal is the 13th-largest financial centre in the world. The 578 head offices in Quebec account for 50,000 jobs. Since these are head offices, these jobs are not just ordinary jobs. They are 50,000 well-paying jobs that create more jobs. When a company's head office is located in Quebec, because that is where the financial centres are and where decisions are made, the company tends to hire within Quebec and to adapt its strategy accordingly.

That is what the federal government wants to eliminate. Well, I have news for the government: We will not allow it. We will work on it and propose amendments. I hope that the people in the government will see reason and defend Quebec's interests. I would remind them that there are elected officials from Quebec in their party.

Of course, Bill C-30 is massive and does not cover everything. We do applaud the extension of the special assistance programs, such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program, until September 25.

However, I think that the rates are dropping rapidly. Companies are not quite back on their feet yet; we need to make sure that we do not take this assistance away too soon, since companies need predictability. Last week, I received more calls from companies that have held on so far, but they are telling me that they may not be able to hold on for much longer. This is not the time to cut them off.

The creation of a hiring program is a good idea. Disallowing bonuses for senior executives of companies that received the wage subsidy is an excellent idea. I hope the rule will be applied to the letter.

Speaking of wage subsidies, I cannot help but make a brief interjection. It is a shame that I cannot refer to the presence of members in the House, because I would have definitely named someone. My Conservative colleague who spoke previously referred to the wage subsidy several times, bemoaning the fact that the government gave wage subsidies to companies that give bonuses, and yet the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP all received the wage subsidy. They have the gall to make accusations and feign outrage. It is crazy.

Sometimes I think I am dreaming. I hear a member say something and I wonder whether he really dared repeat it. Members ought to have a little decency. I am launching an appeal to the three political parties that misappropriated public funds. That is the polite way of saying what I think. I am asking them to give the money back, because it is Quebec and Canadian taxpayer money. They should not use public funds for campaign purposes, especially if they refuse to amend the laws governing the public financing of political parties. It is doubly sickening.

They announced measures in the budget to tackle tax avoidance. That is fine, but they seem pretty minor to me. More needs to be done. I know that they are sick and tired of hearing us talk about this because it is a really sore spot for them, but when are they going to do something about tax havens? If they had the courage to take action in this matter, we would have a budget surplus rather than a deficit. Let us get moving on this.

The argument that government members cannot vote in favour of Bill C-208, which aims to facilitate the transfer of SMEs, including farms, because this constitutes tax avoidance really raises my hackles. It is mind-boggling.

There are a few small positive measures on zero-emission vehicles. It is also an excellent idea to extend the tax deferral on patronage dividends for cooperatives. The industry has been asking for this for ages. However, I wonder why they have not made this measure permanent rather than extending it for another five years.

Would members like to know the real reason? The government wants to keep these people dependent and in line. In three and a half years, or four years, they will have to start begging their generous government to extend the measures again. People are more compliant in those situations. The government wants to keep us dependent, and so do the Canadian securities regulators.

The Bloc Québécois will be there to fight this.

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

Madam Speaker, it was very interesting to listen my colleague from the Bloc. When I read through the budget document and the BIA we are debating today, it seems there is a continuation of a trend, this Ottawa-knows-best mentality of the federal government trying to interfere with provincial jurisdiction by laying out specific frameworks that may or may not represent the best interests of different regions of the country.

Could my colleague from the Bloc comment further on whether he agrees with the government's Ottawa-knows-best strategy and the further stretch of Ottawa regulations into provincial jurisdiction?

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

Madam Speaker, I will begin my answer by warmly thanking my colleague for his easy question. It is true, the Bloc criticizes this every day. The federal government should not meddle in all sorts of areas the way it does, on the pretext that it controls the budget.

The problem with this Confederation is that half of Quebeckers’ taxes end up in Ottawa, but Ottawa does not take on half of the responsibilities. That creates dependency and forces people to toe the line, which I was saying earlier in my speech. The federal government is therefore forcing people to remain dependent. The government wants to impose standards for long-term care facilities.

I am not sure whether my colleague noticed that Quebec is held up as an example in the budget when it comes to its day care system. If Quebec is an example, so much the better. However, it is important to respect what it is doing and not impose other Canadian standards or conditions on funding. The government is launching a program and that is a good thing. However, it must give Quebec the money that it would have been paid under the program with no strings attached.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member. I know he understands that young people have been affected by this pandemic, particularly students with ongoing student debt.

Does the member support our proposal to eliminate up to $20,000 of student debt and stop interest on student debt, or does he think it is a good idea for Canada to continue to collect interest and make money on the tuition and debt obligations of students?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for St. John's East for his question. We are not against the initiative in principle. I myself spent many years paying back my student loans, so I would love to give this gift to young people.

I agree with the idea, but we cannot forget that this issue falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. As I always say, the government can do it, but it must transfer the equivalent amounts to Quebec in the name of tax fairness. I remind members that 50% of the money from Quebeckers goes to Ottawa.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague from Berthier-Maskinongé to comment on the issue of seniors. The Bloc is calling for the government to increase old age security by $110 a month. I would like to know why my colleague thinks that the government wants to give an increase only to seniors 75 and up.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I do not understand that. It makes absolutely no sense. Considering the $500 one-time payment promised to people 75 and over, and the fact that the government is creating two classes of seniors by offering a pension increase only to seniors in that age group and only starting in 2022, the only explanation that comes to mind is that an election must be near. As long as we are speculating, does the government by any chance want to hang on to that as an election promise? I cannot think of any other explanation, because it is insensitive, senseless and irresponsible not to increase the standard of living for all seniors.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an incredible honour to rise and speak on behalf of the people of Timmins—James Bay.

I think if anybody had said in the House last March that we would still be in COVID now, dealing with lockdowns and the crisis of this terrible pandemic, it would have been impossible for any of us to even imagine finding a way through.

We are getting through this pandemic, but it is really important to point out that there are still serious gaps and problems, and I think many lessons that should have been learned have not been learned.

I was reading an article this morning that talked about the political malpractice that has occurred in Canada at the provincial and federal levels, with leaders refusing to look at the crisis of the pandemic and recognize what we are dealing with. We remember Premier Kenney dismissed COVID as less harmful than influenza, yet we see the ICUs in Alberta being overrun and 25,000-plus deaths in this country. Premier Doug Ford promised to use an “iron ring” to protect seniors in long-term care. The only thing he did was put an iron ring around the investors to keep them from being charged for the horrific negligence that caused the deaths of our loved ones, parents, cousins and grandparents in long-term care facilities. There needs to be a day of reckoning over these issues.

I raise this because people in my region are very tired. They are dreaming of being able to sit on a patio and have a beer with their friends. They are counting the days. The people of Canada have carried their weight. They have done an incredible job of following the rules, being responsible, doing what was necessary and taking on incredible emotional, psychological and economic burdens. The longer we go without a way of saying we can truly put this behind us, the harder it is going to be, and I am very concerned that many businesses will not be coming back.

This past weekend there were 128 new cases of COVID in the region of Timmins. We have cases at the Monteith jail. We have cases now at the OPG centre in Cochrane. We have multiple cases at the Detour Lake mine site where contractors are going in and out. We have 17 new cases in the Fort Albany First Nation, and I understand there are now cases in Attawapiskat. This is deeply concerning, given that we have many communities on the James Bay coast where sometimes 15 or 18 people live in a house and there is no place to do proper self-isolation. When I see 17 new cases over the weekend in Fort Albany, big alarm bells go off. The City of Timmins is now under a state of emergency because of COVID. The community of Moosonee has 38 cases with a very small hospital. It is under a state of emergency.

I am asking the federal government to commit the resources necessary to help our communities get through this. We need the surge capacity that was promised to be on the ground now. We need to be able to put the supports in place for the health units, hospitals, doctors and front-line workers who are dealing with people in very marginalized situations and do not have proper places to stay. I think of the staff at Living Space in Timmins who work with the homeless. They are on the front lines of the medical catastrophe that is unfolding in our communities and we need to have supports for them. I am asking this of the federal government, and will be following up with the Minister of Health, because we need that support there now to keep people alive. All of us who have come through the three lockdowns and the 15-something months of this crisis with hope on the horizon agree that we cannot lose any more people to this.

I see the government pat itself on the back again and again on the vaccine rollout, but let us be realistic. Right now only about 2% of our population has had the second dose. Until a person has had the second dose they are not free of COVID, so this idea of a one-dose summer is ridiculous. We need to have enough people with two doses to ensure that we can safely go back to living the lives we have all been missing for so long and see the loved ones we have been unable to see.

It raises questions about the decisions that were made. I know those in government do not like to be accused of making a wrong decision in a time of crisis, but we have to look at the fundamental problems that happened with this pandemic. We were fundamentally unable, as rich a nation as we are, to make our own PPE. The government and our Prime Minister, who I believe is the last of the Davos defenders, believed the free market and big pharma would look after us.

We saw the United States and the U.K. invest heavily in their domestic vaccine production. We have some really wonderful vaccine companies trying to get off the ground now. The lesson we need to learn from this is that never again can we be in a situation where we are dependent on big pharma and other countries to try to meet this nation's needs.

With Connaught Labs, we had a world-class vaccine facility that served us for 100 years. Brian Mulroney got rid of that. I never hear the Conservatives talking about what a brilliant idea it was to sell off such a national treasure to their friends in private business. If we had Connaught Labs right now, I bet many more people would have their second dose. There are lessons to be learned from these issues.

In terms of Timmins—James Bay, some very positive steps have been taken, which are really important to recognize.

I want to say congratulations to the Franco-Ontarian community in Timmins on the construction of its new cultural centre, the Centre culturel La Ronde.

That organization plays a key role in developing the Franco-Ontarian community. I am very proud that the federal government has invested $2.5 million in the construction of this new building for the Centre culturel La Ronde.

In addition, the federal and provincial governments have invested $2 million to support the Fire Keeper Patrol in its efforts to combat the opioid crisis in our region, particularly in downtown Timmins.

There are many, many good things we have seen with investments. On FedNor, the Liberal government has finally agreed with the position the New Democrats have taken for years: We need FedNor as a stand-alone agency. FedNor is the only economic development agency that has been the poor cousin. It has been a project of the industry department. What we needed all along was a stand-alone agency, because the economy of northern Ontario is as different from the economy of southern Ontario as the economy of Alberta is from Toronto's. We are resource-based and need to have investments coming back.

I applaud this in the budget. People think I am just going to get up here and beat on the Liberal government. On any given day, that makes me get up in the morning, but we have to recognize that when we make good investments we should be talking about good investments. The investment in FedNor is really important. It has been a lifeline to many of our businesses. It has kept our communities going through this time.

I pushed and worked with the federal government on the fire keepers proposal. We are being hit by a massive opioid crisis, not just in Timmins but across the country. A great program came forward in the Fire Keeper Patrol, where indigenous people work on the streets 24/7 to deal with the homeless and the opioid crisis. That funding is essential right now. Marginal populations, such as those who are homeless, are a vector for COVID, so the fire keepers are on the ground doing this.

I would like to point out we received a record $2 million in funding for Canada summer jobs. That will hire over 526 students this year in communities from Attawapiskat in the far north to the farm belt down in Earlton. This is all important.

The Liberals always ask me why I was so angry about the Canada student service grant they signed off on with the WE brothers. We worked with the federal government. Every MP in the House worked with the federal government to put in place a plan to get students hired. We could have had those students hired last summer. Instead, the program went to the WE brothers, fell off the tracks and has been a disaster ever since.

I am glad to see these investments to hire our young people. I am glad to see the work going on with FedNor and the fight against the opioid crisis, but I am begging the government for help. We need help right now to deal with the crisis of COVID hitting our communities, working people, young people and indigenous people.

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

Madam Speaker, I definitely expect to hear Conservatives trumpet the line of one dose versus two doses. The recommendation to get as many single doses into arms as quickly as humanly possible came from medical experts. The chief medical officer of health in my own riding, Dr. Kieran Moore, has overseen one of the best implementations of dealing with this pandemic, in my humble yet biased opinion, and he also agrees this is the procedure we must take. We must get doses into arms as quickly as possible. That is for the betterment of society, if we are looking to take care of society as a whole and if we want to go through this all together as a whole.

Would the hon. member agree that listening to the experts, with respect to getting as many single doses into arms as possible, is the best approach?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I obviously support listening to our experts, but I feel like my hon. colleague is listening through Liberal ears and not to what they are actually saying. I did not hear the experts say that one dose was good enough. They have not said that. They said that we need two doses. The fact is the government does not have two doses. The experts are saying the next best thing is to get one dose into every arm until we get two doses. Yes, totally: Let us get one dose in. Until we have two doses, we do not get to reopen. We do not get to be safe.

Look at the United States. I have talked to people across the border who are going to events now because they have had two doses. They have had two doses for some months.

Again, it is due to the negligence of the government not delivering those two doses when they were needed that we are still having lockdowns and are still being held back.

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

Madam Speaker, I have pointed out quite a number of concerns around accountability. There are some issues in terms of the budget itself. As I read through this bill for the budget implementation act, I have further concerns about transparency, accountability and contracts, and a few related issues in that regard.

The member mentioned the issue of the WE scandal and getting dollars to students. I wonder if he would have further comments on some of the challenges the Liberal government seems to have in terms of leveraging a global crisis for its own political advantage, which saw the Liberals' friends and associated businesses benefit.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think what was so frustrating with the WE brothers scandal was that the government had asked every member of Parliament to work with it, in terms of getting jobs for students on the ground last spring. We had all done that work. It would have worked great, but instead we had over half a billion dollars diverted to the Kielburger brothers, who were not signed up to lobby. They could walk right into the then finance minister's office. We can see from the Ethics Commissioner's report that they would talk to staff in the then finance minister's office, calling and saying, “Hey, girl.” What kind of group gets that kind of insider access and then gets $500 million without a due diligence report? There was no proof that those guys could actually pull that scheme off.

We have gone through 5,000 pages of documents. We have not seen any due diligence reports. This damaged the Prime Minister dramatically. This program hurt students. There needs to be some accountability for how this thing went off the rails so badly.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on some comments that my hon. colleague made, in terms of provincial and federal mismanagement. I have mentioned before years of consecutive Liberal and Conservative cuts to health care. In Manitoba, we are in a crisis. In fact, our ICUs are so full that patients are now being sent to Ontario: five to Thunder Bay, two to Ottawa, two to Sault Ste. Marie, two to North Bay, two to Windsor and one to London. The number keeps growing.

A CBC article came out today. The headline states, “Patients suffering, dying while waiting for care as Manitoba hospitals overwhelmed by COVID-19, doctors say”. This is because of mismanagement by Premier Brian Pallister.

How has that failure resulted in the current level of the crisis, from failure to have a good vaccine rollout to failure to provide proper funding and management of health care?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is entirely correct. We should not have people getting sick and dying this far into the pandemic. This is the result of the negligence of premiers such as Pallister, Jason Kenney and Doug Ford, who have completely ignored their obligations. They were not working without a road map. We knew what the problem was. We needed to fix it. Instead, they have left people at risk, particularly in far north indigenous communities.

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

Madam Speaker, we have before us the government's budget implementation act, a disastrous piece of legislation that runs counter to the Canadian spirit and threatens our way of life now and in the future.

Canada, as I see it, is a great frontier nation, a nation characterized also by a great frontier spirit. To be Canadian is to set out into the unknown in pursuit of a better life.

Indigenous peoples who survived in these vast and beautiful but harsh lands since time immemorial were living and surviving on a frontier. The first European settlers who came here for resources, space and greater freedom pursued opportunity on a new frontier where the outcomes were highly uncertain. Loyalists who left their communities came north because of a commitment to ideals that had been betrayed by the American revolution. Former slaves also came north, risking brutal reprisals to find freedom in the land they had never seen. Pioneers risked starvation by moving west for more land. Successive generations of immigrants still today come to this new frontier to discover new things and new opportunities, leaving the familiar behind.

This is the Canadian story, one of sacrifice and boldly setting out for adventure, opportunity, security and justice.

Today, when the comforts of indoors are available to most of us, many still pride themselves on keeping this frontier spirit alive by encountering nature in all its elements at all times of the year: skiing, hiking up mountains, sleeping in tents when we do not have to, going for long walks in the middle of the woods through rough terrain even when no one is chasing us and ignoring the stove and microwave to cook food outside. We have braved the elements to get here and survive here, and now we venture out into the cold, the rain and bear country purely for the fun of it. Consciously or not, this is because we are proud of an identity and heritage that connects us with the grubby struggle of the outdoors. We are still a frontier people.

In the first instance, when people chose to leave the ease and comfort of a country or region of origin and when they chose to set out into a place that seemed inhospitable, they were clearly not just acting for themselves. For so many, the sacrifices of the present are consciously made to give something better to the next generation. Those who first venture onto a frontier are laying the groundwork for their children and grandchildren who will grow up on the frontier with the benefit of a new wealth in land and resources, and with the benefit of the security created by the hard work of their forebears.

This, too, is essential to the Canadian story. These national virtues are of hard work, courage and sacrifice in service of the next generation in the hope we can always say to our children that they will have joys, comforts and opportunities that we did not see.

Part of living on a frontier and living a frontier spirit is recognizing that we have to work for everything we have and we will be able to keep the things we built. With a bounty of natural resources in front of us, we can combine our labour with those things and so establish a future for ourselves and our families through dogged and relentless effort. The character of indigenous peoples and of those who immigrated here as well as the circumstances of the country itself made this possible and created communities of relative equality where opportunity was available to all.

This was very different from many old-world countries where resources were often more scarce and where domestic or foreign aristocracies often lived in idleness, benefiting through exploitation. These kinds of societies, where opportunities were not available to most people, have been understandably ripe for political doctrines emphasizing violent redistribution. It is an interesting feature of the history of European colonialism in general that less naturally hospitable areas like Canada ultimately have done better economically than many parts of the world where it is easier to survive.

History shows that early colonizers of warmer regions were more likely to be privileged people seeking wealth through the exploitation of indigenous peoples and slaves and the expropriation of existing wealth. Our country, on the other hand, was colonized by a greater proportion of less privileged European migrants who were prepared to work hard to survive instead of import slave labour. The circumstances of harsher environments such as Canada's also compelled a greater degree of initial co-operation between newcomers and indigenous peoples.

The history of European colonization is therefore one of richer regions becoming poorer and poorer regions becoming richer. This contrast shows the uniqueness of our national experience and the particular impact of the frontier spirit that relatively poorer newcomers to Canada brought with them.

Of course, inequality and exploitation have been and are in certain respects present in Canada today, and they are present any time governments seek to impose unmanageable burdens on workers and on families. However, those who fight back against exploitation do so from a commitment to cultivating and maintaining our national frontier spirit, where anyone can build and where those who choose to build new things can benefit from them. To maintain abundant opportunity and the benefits of this frontier spirit, we must continue to be willing to use our natural resources and to make them available to those who work on and develop them.

The opportunities of the new frontier are not gone. Still today, the option has always been available to go west or north and earn a living through hard work. This is why socialism has never taken root here, because for most of our history, we have been able to provide opportunity and access to resources for those who are willing to move to the frontier and pursue them.

In addition to providing opportunity for all who seek it, our frontiers have supplied the rest of the nation with wealth and resources unimaginable in other countries. We do not have to live on a frontier to benefit from living in a frontier nation.

However, sadly, there are those in our politics who do not believe in this frontier spirit, who have been suspicious of our resource development sectors past and present, who have preferred the comfortable status quo to the challenge of growth and who have tempted us to put the comforts of the present ahead of the opportunities of the future. The extent to which the government represents such an attack on the frontier spirit of our nation has been an unfolding reality.

The government initially promised small deficits for the short term and a balanced approach to spending in resource development. However, now it has bet big on something more radical. This budget unveils a plan to run massive, historic deficits in perpetuity, financed by borrowing and outstripping the borrowing of any previous national crisis. This is a budget that seeks a decisive break with our history. While there are claims about growth coming from undefined jobs in the future and dreams of greater workforce participation facilitated by state-run day care, the only actual articulated policy in this budget is more spending financed by the printing of money and the continuing, unprecedented assault on those resource and manufacturing sectors of our economy that have driven our frontier spirit and have been the mainstay of our prosperity.

Simultaneously, the government is proposing less production and more spending. The national resource sector is being undermined at every turn, including even projects with net-zero equipment built in, even projects that will demonstrably lead to reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions by displacing dirtier foreign sources. It should be obvious that increasing the availability of child care is only going to increase workforce participation if there are actually jobs available to work in.

Any student of history can figure out where this is all leading. This is the path of hyperinflation and a national debt crisis. This, in turn, will create radical inequality between everyday people and well-connected insiders. This is how we undermine trust in public institutions and exacerbate social divisions. This is how we impoverish a once great nation.

There are those who say that this cannot happen in Canada, that our nation is immune to these things, that our national success has been the product of particular characteristics, choices and circumstances. In particular, it has been our frontier spirit, the fact that we are the kind of people who look at a naturally occurring pile of asphalt and say, “How can I squeeze the oil out of that?” We are the kind of people who understand that prosperity comes from hard work, not from printing money. This is Canada. However, if our leaders continue to seek a different course, then there is no reason to believe that our historic success will continue.

Canada's current government is the most left wing of any government in this nation's history. Other governments have sought to develop our resources and redistribute the surplus, but the current government is blocking growth and development at every turn, while actively seeking to redistribute that which has not been created. It will tell us “Don't worry, your efforts are not required because we are going to take care of things. We are going to take care of you whatever it takes.” However, whatever it takes it not going to work if we are not putting anything in the tank. We can only run on empty for so long.

The government will say that its spending will create growth, but its approach to growth emphasizes central planning and the alleged wisdom of bureaucratic predictions about industries of the future. Central planning of economic development has never worked in the past and has always increased inequality and social resentment. Nations that have relied on government planning instead of on the spontaneous genuis of people have never prospered except temporarily and by imitation and expropriation.

It is time that Canada's leaders turn their attention to the need to secure our future. Securing our future requires an all-hands-on-deck approach to the economy, one that leverages the hard work, ingenuity and sacrifice of all people from all backgrounds, in all sectors and in all regions of our national economy. Securing the future means innovating in the way that we deliver public services instead of re-promising the unkept promises of the 1960s. Securing our future means restoring our commitment to paying for the things we buy today rather than passing the bill on to the next generation.

The source of our prosperity is not the printing of currency, central planning or the distribution of government largesse. It is the ingenuity and courage of the Canadian people. Securing our future is about celebrating our frontier spirit as survivors, as immigrants, as builders and as innovators. I am proud to be opposing this budget.

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

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague's speech certainly touches on some of the real, existential challenges Canada is facing, many of which were brought on by the Liberal government and its failed response to COVID-19.

I specifically want to give the member an opportunity to respond to some of the concerns I have heard from people in my constituency about this Ottawa-knows-best approach to child care and a national child care strategy that has been outlined within the Liberals' most recent budget, contrary to the minister's mandate letter. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on this Ottawa-knows-best approach to child care.

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

Madam Speaker, we already have seen child care providers speak out against the government's plan. The Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care is speaking out against it, saying that it does not provide it with clarity or certainty, and it raises big concerns about how co-operatives, not-for-profit child care centres and others would be pushed out by a centralized government-controlled plan that lacks the flexibility for which parents are looking.

The nature of work is changing. People are looking for greater flexibility. They are working different hours. They are more likely to work from home. They are looking for flexible child care arrangements that accord with the particulars of their circumstances.

We do not need the re-promising of a promise from 50 years ago that was not kept and that has not kept up with the emerging reality. What child care providers as well as parents are looking for is more support to be offered to parents to allow them to make child care choices to reflect the needs of their families. There is a broad range of other measures that could be considered as well, such as partnering with employers, looking at resources for not-for-profits, but we need to maintain—

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

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I noticed how the default reaction to that last question was to talk about the child care providers, not the parents who are looking for child care.

Nonetheless, we do not have to look too far to see the success of child care at a very reasonable cost. We do not even have to look outside the country. We can look to Quebec and the success it has had and what it has meant for its economy, how it has been able to get more women into the workforce as a result of having an aggressive and progressive child care plan, one that looks toward ensuring everybody can see his or her fullest economic potential.

Knowing that Quebec can do it, is the member against child care that costs $10 a day? Is that what he is saying?

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

Madam Speaker, since the member did not listen to my last response, I am pessimistic about whether he will listen to this response.

Parents strongly oppose the government's direction on child care as do child care providers, and I have spoken about it extensively in the House and just now. People who work in this area as well as parents are saying that the government's inflexible approach is simply not working.

As a parent, parents in our country are looking for flexibility. His party's plan does nothing for the single mom who works an overnight shift. Is the member telling me that these government-run child care centres are going to be available 24 hrs a day? I doubt it. The flexibility that we need—

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

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have met with many people who have asked for child care, whether it be parents, child care providers, advocates for child care or the business community. I find some of the member's comments a bit curious.

The question I have today is on the extreme wealth some of Canada's billionaires have accrued during this pandemic. When we talk about being fiscally responsible and when we talk about what needs to be done to balance the books, does the member not agree that a wealth tax would be a very smart way to make the wealthiest, those who have profited greatly during this pandemic, contribute to things like child care, pharmacare, dental care and mental care for people in Edmonton and in Alberta?

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

Madam Speaker, on child care, I support engagement with child care but not a government-controlled, government-knows-best approach. Policies that provide direct support to parents who are looking for that are a much better alternative.

On the issue of a wealth tax—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak today to the budget implementation act. It is a budget I would name after the Rick Moranis film Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, but I am going to call it “Honey, I Sunk the Kids”. I would have used a different word for “sunk”, but that would have been unparliamentary language.

Why would I call it that? It is because of the massive intergenerational debt that we are passing on with very little thought or oversight of what it is going to do to our children and our grandchildren. How bad is it? It is $500 billion added in just two years and $700 billion of debt added over the next five years.

By the time I am done my 10-minute speech and five-minute question and answer period, $7.3 million will be added to the debt that Canadians will owe. People my age will remember Lee Majors as Steve Austin in The Six Million Dollar Man. That would be just about 13 minutes of today's time with the government's spending to rebuild him better.

In the budget, one of the big problems I have, as someone from Edmonton, Alberta, is that there is almost nothing for Albertans. There are well over 700 pages in the budget, yet next to nothing for the province. It has been described in our province as a slap in the face for Albertans.

Going through the budget, I saw it mentions pipelines several times. Hurray, but it mentions a talent pipeline; a vaccine pipeline, and we see how the government has failed on that; a genomics talent pipeline; an innovation pipeline; and a pipeline of PPE. We are going to see tomorrow in the Auditor General's report on PPE how the government has funnelled taxpayer money to people connected with the Liberal Party and other insiders, but it mentions a pipeline of PPE in the budget. What about a pipeline of oil and gas? Guess what, there is no mention of that.

We have seen what is going on in Michigan right now with Line 5. If Michigan shuts down Line 5, it will cost tens of thousands of jobs in Sarnia, Ontario, and other places, and it will probably double the price of gas, yet there is nothing in the budget to address that issue.

There is also no mention of the fact that Alberta's oil and gas industry is the largest employer for indigenous workers. At the operations committee we did a study on government procurement for the indigenous and every single witness from the indigenous community stated that the only one doing its job was the oil and gas industry. It was not the federal government. It was failing, but the oil and gas industry was providing wealth and prosperity for the indigenous communities. In this budget, we have nothing.

We have heard repeatedly in my riding that small businesses that opened just before or during the pandemic were left out of all the support, including the wage support and the rent support, through no fault of their own. I used to be in the hotel business, and it takes a year, two years, or even longer now with all the regulations, to build a hotel. If people had the misfortune of deciding to invest before COVID started, they were cut out from the support of the government.

We have asked repeatedly, in the House and at committee, for the government to address that. Each time, Liberals stand, hand over heart, and say small businesses are the backbone of the economy, but they are not going to do anything. There is nothing in the budget to address that.

A friend of mine in the riding, Rick Bronson, has a comedy club in West Edmonton Mall called The Comic Strip. He employs almost 100 people. He opened a new one in British Columbia just before COVID happened. It is no fault of his own, but he is shut out from the government program. Again, we have asked repeatedly to help small businesses, but there is nothing for them.

In Alberta, we had two main asks in the budget, one was money for carbon capture research. The premier shot for the moon asking for billions, so I was expecting maybe a billion less. No, we ended up with a plan with carbon capture tax incentives, but only if it is not used for enhanced oil recovery. We have spoken to all the big players and the junior players in oil and gas and they have all said the same thing. There is no economic way forward for carbon capture without it being available for enhanced oil recovery.

On the one hand, the Liberals put out a carrot, and on the next hand, they hit people with a stick. In the budget there is some money for carbon capture research, with $20 million next year to $220 million over the next five years.

Let us think about it. Oil and gas, even at reduced prices, is still our number one export. It absolutely dwarfs the automobile industry, and it dwarfs aerospace, yet we get a pittance toward tech research for it. To put it in perspective, the government has given wealthy Tesla owners $100 million in subsidies to buy Tesla cars, half as much as it has given to the entire oil and gas industry for carbon capture. It shows very clearly the current government does not care about Alberta and that it really does not care, when push comes to shove, for the environment.

The Liberals also did not fix the unfair cap on the fiscal stabilization program that punishes Alberta because resources are included in that. They changed it to benefit Quebec and Ontario, but they continue to discriminate against Alberta by adding a ceiling if oil and gas resource revenue is put in there. Since 2014, Albertans have been net contributors of over $110 billion to the federal purse. What we get back is a slap in the face.

Going back to carbon capture, there is $20 million next year for carbon capture research. Also in this budget is $22 million for a recognition program for atomic workers from the 1950s, during the Korean War era. It is wonderful that we are recognizing the work of people done 70 years ago, but there is as much money for a recognition program for the 1950s as there is for vital carbon capture research. It again shows the priorities of the current government are not working people and certainly not those in Alberta.

Of the 739 pages total in this budget, pipelines are only mentioned five times. The word “supports” shows up 1,000 times, and the word “benefits” shows up 1,300 times. “Productivity”, though, only appears 39 times and “competitiveness” appears just 13 times.

What do we get for $700 billion of added debt over the next five years? The government predicts in its own budget that the growth rate will slow every single year starting in 2022, all the way down to 1.7% growth in 2025. Let us think about that. There is $700 billion in added debt and all we get is a mediocre 1.7% growth.

Robert Asselin, the former policy and budget director to Bill Morneau and a policy adviser to the Prime Minister, stated about this budget, “it is hard to find a coherent growth plan...spending close to $1 trillion, [and] not moving the needle on...growth would be the worst possible legacy of this budget.”

Dave Dodge, former Bank of Canada governor, stated that it does not focus on growth and that it is not a reasonably prudent plan.

The budget's title, though, states it is a recovery plan for growth, but we know what is growing. It is not the economy. Taxes are growing. In this budget, taxes received by the current government are projected to grow 28% from 2019-2020 to the end of 2025.

Also scheduled for growth is the interest that we are paying to Bay Street and Wall Street bankers for this debt the Liberals are piling up. Forty billion dollars of interest is what we are going to be paying per year in five years. Let us think of what we could do with that $40 billion. We could buy off, 40 times, the amount for the WE scandal and keep the Prime Minister's friends in business for a while. More important, think of the health care that we could invest in with that $40 billion. Every single premier asked for an increase in the health care transfers. They got nothing, but we have $40 billion for wealthy bankers.

We could be investing in the aging population and in the military. There is $51 million in this budget for NATO participation. There is the rise of China with its aggression and there is Russia, and we put in $51 million, which is barely double what we are putting into a recognition program for atomic workers from 70 years ago.

It is clear that this budget is not meant for growth of the economy. It is not meant for the people of Edmonton West, and it is certainly not meant for Albertans. It is not meant for our future generations. This budget is a failure, and it is a disgrace. That is why I will not be supporting it.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for evoking some childhood memories of mine by talking about Steve Austin from The Six Million Dollar Man. To my generation Steve Austin is the Six Million Dollar Man, but to another generation Steve Austin is the real name of the professional wrestler Stone Cold. I have to admit that it was the Six Million Dollar Man's female counterpart who occupied the evenings of my youth. Jaime Sommers, the Bionic Woman, was quite captivating.

To come back to the subject at hand, my question is on what my colleague said at the end of his speech. Every provincial premier and Quebec have been calling for health transfers, but they are once again absent from the government's intentions. I also want to come back to improving life for our seniors and the lack of consideration for those 65 to 74.

These days we keep hearing the Conservatives say that they will win the next election and will do all sorts of things. Could my colleague tell me whether a future Conservative government would increase health transfers and ensure that seniors are treated fairly and that their pension is increased at age 65?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments about Jaime Sommers. I had forgotten about her, so I thank him.

The member brought up some good points about priorities. The government seems to be prioritizing wage subsidies for hedge fund billionaires and companies that are growing exponentially. They do not need the money. At the same time, it is ignoring the provinces. I agree 100% with my colleague that the focus needs to be on health care, not paying off the connected friends of the Liberal Party.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going to stay with the $6-million theme in my questioning. Am I understanding correctly that only 43 minutes of the next year in this budget has been dedicated to our carbon capture storage? If $6 million is spent in 13 minutes, that means about $20 million is spent in 43 minutes.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have not got my calculator in front of me, so I will trust my colleague's numbers.

Yes, it shows a hypocrisy. The government talks so much about the environment. The number one job creator in Canada, which led us out of the 2008-09 recession and which will lead us to grow out of this difficult time, is the energy industry. Alberta and the energy industry have done an amazing job reducing carbon already, but another way for us to further help the environment is through carbon capture research. However, the government is more focused on giving millions and millions of dollars to wealthy owners of Tesla cars, rather than the industry and the environment. It is clear that the government has its priorities wrong. We hope it will change that and focus on what is better for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the big challenges I have is comparing this BIA and the budget with the Liberals' dismal record on accountability. We have pointed out the $100-billion, so-called green slush fund. We only need to look back on the pandemic to see some of the challenges associated with WE Charity and other scandals with the contracts given to Liberal insiders.

Does my colleague have more comments on the lack of accountability that exists within this budgetary framework?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a great comment from my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot. We talked about accountability. It has been in the papers a lot concerning the Canadian emergency wage subsidy. It is the largest support program of the COVID crisis and totals $100 billion. We have heard money has gone to wealthy hedge fund managers and to multinational corporations. We even heard we were giving taxpayers' money to a Chinese state-owned company.

When we asked the president of the Treasury Board what oversight he provided for the $100 billion and if it went through the Treasury Board process as required, his comment was that he did not know. His job is to oversee the spending and he did not even know whether it went through the process. It did not, and the results are showing.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to budget 2021, the first budget from the government in two years.

Canadians have been patient. While they were asked for two weeks to flatten the curve, they have given 14 months. What they have been waiting for is a plan, a plan to safely reopen our economy and get Canadians back to work, a plan to provide future generations with the hope and confidence they so desperately need right now that they do, indeed have a future. However, this budget is a massive letdown.

Unemployed Canadians hoping to see a plan to create new jobs and economic opportunities for their families are going to feel let down. Workers who have had their wages cut and hours slashed hoping to see a plan to reopen the economy are going to feel let down. Families that cannot afford more taxes and are struggling to save money for their children's education or to buy a home are going to feel let down. Saskatchewanians looking for a plan to support important sectors in our province are going to feel let down.

A government focused on economic recovery would support all sectors of the economy, especially sectors that have been reliable sources of economic stability for Canadians in the past. In this budget, the Liberals have decided to throw caution to the wind and ignore these sectors. For instance, the oil and gas industry in Canada has long been a sector that has fostered economic growth and prosperity for thousands of hard-working Canadians, with revenues supporting social programs and infrastructure like schools and hospitals. Yet as we look to return to normalcy, this important sector has been left behind once again. Workers in this sector have been hit hard during this pandemic through lost wages and jobs, yet there are no supports for them.

Another sector left behind is the agricultural sector, specifically farmers, ranchers and producers. They have worked continuously to support Canada throughout this pandemic, yet these two immensely important sectors, which have consistently offered economic growth and stability, have been shunned in this budget, with workers who are so crucial to getting Canada through the pandemic being ignored by the government, all in favour of partisan spending. This is unacceptable.

What is included in this budget is an expensive Ottawa-knows-best proposal for a national child care system. This Ottawa-centric approach should come as no surprise to Canadians familiar with the Liberals' disregard for provincial jurisdiction. In a Liberal politician's mind, a one-size-fits-all policy makes sense, but this does not work in the real world. For example, the circumstances and needs of parents in urban versus rural Canadians are very different. While parents do need support, they should ultimately be the ones to make the decision on how to care for their children, not bureaucrats in Ottawa. While Conservatives supported and put forward changes to the wage subsidy and the rent relief programs, extensions to these programs would more than likely not be necessary if the federal government had done a better job in managing the pandemic and procuring vaccines for Canadians.

As it is now, we are in the middle of a third wave sweeping across our country, causing provincial governments to impose more restrictions and lockdowns of their respective economies. Conservatives have been supportive of measures that support Canadians and Canadian businesses. We are supportive of spending that will make real change for struggling Canadians who have been heavily affected by the pandemic, but what we are seeing in this budget is an avalanche of spending that increases the size and role of government in the Canadian economy. We are emerging from a pandemic. Small and medium-sized businesses, entrepreneurs and individuals need financial support to recover from the devastation this pandemic has wrought.

When so many are in dire need of assistance, it is unacceptable that the Liberals would set aside $100 billion for what amounts to electioneering expenditures. Unfortunately, unbridled spending on pet projects is par for the course with the government. It has always run deficits, not once trying to control the national debt or rein in spending. Prudent financial planning would have had the federal government running surpluses prior to the pandemic, saving in the good years so that there is a buffer against the bad.

Instead, the failures of the government before the pandemic, and now during it, have caused Canada's debt to shoot to over $1 trillion for the first time in our history. This debt will be paid back by future generations.

This budget does not set up Canadians for future prosperity; instead, it has set up Canada for long-term post-pandemic failure.

The Liberals have made numerous missteps in their spending during the pandemic, like the spectacular over-expenditure on ventilators. Even more egregious was the secretive awarding of billions of dollars of contracts to Chinese firms for PPE supplies without much, if any, regard for our domestic ability to ramp up production here in Canada.

Finally, I want to talk about the infrastructure file, on which the government has completely fallen far short.

The Prime Minister's Canada Infrastructure Bank has woefully underperformed. In the past four years it has spent billions of dollars and completed zero projects. A new report from the PBO revealed that it is losing money and will miss the government's set targets by over 50%. Instead of stimulating the economy, it has been a complete waste of taxpayer money.

The spring 2021 edition of We Build, Saskatchewan's construction magazine, notes:

Almost $900 million in federal spending has been earmarked to be spent in Saskatchewan, and yet 64 per cent of this amount...remains unallocated. Of the 36 per cent that has been “allocated”, more than half of this is still “under review” — meaning that of the $887.26 million in federal money targeted for Saskatchewan, only $152.01 million has actually been invested. This is a travesty, and it is almost entirely because of federal bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Further, the infrastructure gap between indigenous communities and the rest of Canada will not be addressed by the money pledged in this budget. Many first nations communities have already stated that they need more assistance in closing the infrastructure gap, yet the current government continues to fail them both in this budget and through the Canada Infrastructure Bank. There are still many communities without clean water. Now it is even clearer how badly the government has failed them. The Canada Infrastructure Bank, which had a specific mandate that included improving infrastructure for indigenous communities, has fallen far short of the mark, just as the government has continuously fallen far short of the mark.

Canadians need thoughtful, focused and effective spending by the government, even more so in times of a crisis. The spending in this budget should have focused on recovering and creating jobs for Canadians, not partisan priorities.

In conclusion, this budget has been a massive letdown. It is a budget that has truly missed the mark. It is a budget that is adding nearly half a trillion dollars in new debt that will only be paid back by raising taxes on hard-working Canadian families, all while placing a massive burden of debt on future generations.

In this budget we find a complete lack of thought regarding the priorities of Canadians, a failure to address their needs and an ignoring of vital sectors in need of stimulus. The government needs to rethink its priorities as we move toward reopening the economy. Canadians need a real plan for the future. They need a budget that puts Canadians first.

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

Madam Speaker, yesterday was National Patriots Day in Quebec. I salute all Quebeckers who took the time to commemorate these proud freedom fighters.

The rest of Canada celebrated Queen Victoria. It is interesting to note that one of Queen Victoria's first orders when she assumed the throne was the order to execute these freedom fighters, the patriotes of Lower Canada. While in Quebec we paid tribute to the people who were hanged, the rest of Canada celebrated the hangman. That is another sign of our distinct society.

Now to my question. Two of the groups hardest hit by the crisis are seniors and young people. We have been talking a lot about mental health issues. I have a 17-year-old daughter in CEGEP. I heard about what was going on with university students, and mental health is really a crucial issue. University students are one of the groups hardest hit by the crisis, along with seniors. The two sectors we should be investing in are health and seniors, but there is nothing for them in this budget.

If the Conservatives come to power, and considering the mental health problems we see, can we hope that health transfers will be increased and that seniors under the age of 75 will receive help?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would start off by saying the member should actually direct questions about the level of health transfers that are included in this budget to members of the governing party.

The Liberals' failure to deliver a plan to reopen the economy and their massive deficit spending jeopardize the long-term viability of important social programs, like education and health care. Their unsustainable debt will lead to higher taxes, penalizing those who can afford it the least. Provincial governments only have to look back to the 1990s to remember what the previous Liberal government had to do to deal with its debt and deficits.

Conservatives are committed to improving the well-being and financial security of Canada's seniors. We have also committed to addressing the mental health of Canadians should we form government.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, one in five people in Canada do not take the medication they have been prescribed, because they cannot afford it. However, the Conservatives voted to continue protecting the profits of big pharma.

The Liberals have been promising a pharmacare program for 23 years. Can the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek explain why this bill continues to put pharmaceutical profits ahead of the needs of Canadian families, and why her party continues to vote against a pharmacare program?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member is correct, this budget does not address the topic that the member has raised.

I believe we need to be focusing on ways to help Canadians who do not have or cannot afford drug coverage, rather than upending a system that works for the vast majority of Canadians. No one should have to go without the medications they need. During the pandemic, we have seen many Canadians endure prescription drug shortages.

Conservatives believe that it is key for the federal government to work with the provinces to help strengthen our domestic pharmaceutical drug supply.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the speech given by my colleague from just across the border in Saskatchewan.

One of the challenges we have seen throughout the last six years of Liberal governments is emphasized in the budget, the growing divide between urban and rural Canadians. Certainly a lot of the promises made in this budget seem to just outright ignore rural and remote Canada, whether that be rural areas like those that the hon. member and I represent or more remote areas like in Canada's north.

I am wondering if the member would comment on some of the ways that this budget fails to address the challenges faced by rural and remote Canada.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, quite simply, I would say to my hon. colleague that over the past six years what we have seen is a government that practises policies of division, whether it is pitting the east against the west or pitting rural Canadians—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, after waiting two long years for the Liberals to table a budget, they have instead presented a massive new debt burden for Canadians rather than a hopeful plan for a path forward post-pandemic—in a word, failure.

Unemployed Canadians wanted to see a plan to create new jobs. Workers who had their wages cut and their hours slashed had hoped to see a plan to reopen the economy. Families that simply cannot afford more taxes were looking for relief. Instead, this costly plan will add over $100 billion in new spending and will increase Canada's debt to a whopping $1.2 trillion. Yes, that is trillion with a “t", for the very first time in Canadian history.

It is a staggering amount that most Canadians cannot even begin to comprehend: $1.2 trillion. It is equivalent to every single Canadian being responsible for $33,000 of federal debt. Canadians and their children, their children's children and their children's children's children and on and on will be forced to pay off this massive debt of the government.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently released a report saying that this budget even underestimates the size of the federal deficits by about $5.6 billion per year. To quote the PBO, it “puts Ottawa on a long-term path of higher debt”.

What about fiscal anchors? No, there are none of those in there. There is only a vague mention on page 53, which says, “The government is committed to unwinding COVID-related deficits and reducing the federal debt as a share of the economy over the medium-term.” That sure sounds reassuring, does it not?

Canadians are right to be concerned about this Liberal spending. They will be footing the bill of $40 billion in taxes every year to pay the interest expenses on that debt alone. This is all predicated on a very risky assumption that interest rates and inflation will continue to remain low.

With all this spending and fiscal risk, one would expect some actual substance, but many Canadians are being simply left behind or ignored in this budget. How about a plan to unleash the prosperity-producing, economy-boosting Alberta energy? No, that one is definitely not in the budget. The government has been abundantly clear on its plan to landlock Canadian oil with Bill C-48 and Bill C-69 in the previous Parliament and the Prime Minister's comment that the oil sands need to be phased out.

The Liberal government already stood by idly while the U.S. administration cancelled Keystone XL, and of course it itself caused the cancellation of things like northern gateway and energy east. With Enbridge's Line 5, of course we know about the jeopardy it is in, and it is responsible for supplying half of the oil needs of Ontario and Quebec. The closure of that pipeline would literally create an energy crisis here in Canada, and then of course we would see more of Alberta's oil stranded, when Alberta's economy is already suffering. Instead, that biases it toward oil from places with far less environmentally friendly records elsewhere in the world.

All of that is due to the Liberals strangling Alberta oil in favour of that less environmentally friendly oil from other countries, which certainly do not share our commitment to environmental protection or to human rights. Again, the budget is completely silent on Alberta energy.

Despite this deafening silence by the Liberals, Conservatives will always continue to advocate for pipelines and projects that end our dependence on foreign oil and that will unleash our energy sector. Energy- and job-killing legislation from the Liberals has only decreased Canada's ability to produce and trade environmentally sustainable energy resources and to create more jobs.

Alberta's energy sector could be the key to economic growth and to success post-pandemic in Canada, but the Liberals have chosen instead to denigrate and ignore it. Its absence is glaringly obvious and Albertans will not forget it. Instead, this budget proposes a reimagined Canadian economy that dabbles in risky economic ideas that will leave the Canadian economy in a very precarious position.

However, so much more is also missed in the budget. For start-up businesses that are in desperate positions and do not meet the government's narrow rules of assistance programs, there is nothing either. For small businesses, there are major gaps and issues with federal programming that the Liberals continue to ignore. The CFIB said of the budget that “the government did not deliver on many of the major program gaps affecting thousands of small businesses facing restrictions, closures and huge amounts of COVID-related debt.”

Many of those small businesses are tourism businesses, and tourism businesses are desperate to have the government table a safe plan with metrics and targets to be able to open their businesses for the key summer season. I am sorry; there is nothing for them in the budget, either.

In my beautiful riding of Banff—Airdrie, tourism is a key economic driver that has been devastated by the pandemic. Lockdowns and border restrictions have stifled businesses. Many have been forced to lay off employees and in some cases, unfortunately, have closed down altogether.

This is happening everywhere, right across Canada. Tourism and travel-related businesses lost approximately $19.4 billion in revenue last year from the absence of international visitors. However, the government just extended, once again, the U.S.-Canada border closure well into the key summer tourist season without any kind of plan or any metrics on how or when it might be willing to safely reopen that border. Now, tourism businesses are looking at losing another key summer, and the budget is completely silent on a safe plan for reopening and for a safe way forward.

The government has unfortunately chosen winners and losers in this budget and unfortunately left many people out to dry. The Liberal government loves to tout the saying “We are all in this together,” but recently I heard another metaphor about the pandemic, which I thought was very apt to the chosen winners and losers in this debt-heavy Canadian Liberal budget. It is this: We are all in the same storm, but some are in yachts and others are in leaky rowboats. The Liberal government should not be waving to Canadians struggling in the pandemic storm in leaky rowboats while the Liberals are drinking champagne from the deck of their taxpayer debt-paid yacht. Spending without a proper plan is failure.

To the government, I say this: Fix this budget and give Canadians a hopeful path forward for economic recovery post-pandemic, not a lifetime of taxes and debt. That is what we see with this budget. We see a lot of money being spent, but a lot of people still being left behind, and what we then see is people being burdened. Canadians, their children, their grandchildren and their great-great-great-grandchildren will be seeing that burden of debt to pay for all of this spending.

That is the thing I think the Prime Minister and the Liberal government fail to understand. Money does not grow on trees. The government does not just manufacture the ability to spend money. That money comes from hard-working Canadian taxpayers who have earned that money, and it takes away from their ability to meet the needs of their families, to meet their own needs, to keep their businesses running and to keep their employees with jobs. That is not just now, but it is well into the future, to pay for the kind of debt burden that we have seen put on by the government.

It is just staggering to imagine the amount of money being spent and how there are still so many people being left behind. I talked about our oil and gas industry in Alberta. I talked about our important tourism industry across this country, about the small business owners, about the many people who have started new businesses and are left out of many of the government programs. The Liberals have been able to spend a lot of money, but they have not been able to help so many of the people who actually need it, and those are the same people who are going to have to pay for the burden being left by the government and all of its massive spending.

I say to the government that it has to try to do things to make sure it is not leaving people behind and that it is creating a hopeful and optimistic future, instead of burdening people with massive amounts of debt that will do the exact opposite.

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

Madam Speaker, we are talking about debt and debt-related concerns. However, beyond debt and the economy, I am also concerned about something else, namely social issues.

I am thinking about future generations, workers, the environment and investment. What does my colleague think about investing in a better environment and in a transition to forms of energy other than oil, as well as enabling workers to succeed and be part of that transition?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would say that we have a multitude of different energy means to serve the energy needs of this country and the world. We are fortunate in Canada to have the opportunity to provide for that in a variety of ways. Frankly, we have a very strong environmental plan that does include moving forward with things like new types of energy, but it also has to include our very environmentally friendly oil and gas in this country, which takes away the ability from other countries to fill that need in a way that is far less environmentally friendly, far less human rights-conscious and far less good for our Canadian economy. Our oil and gas need to be a big part of that picture going forward, because it is good for the environment and for the future of our country economically.

That is how I would respond to the member. We can have new forms of energy, but oil and gas are a key part of that going forward and will be for many years to come yet.

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

Madam Speaker, I will follow up on the previous question that was asked of my colleague.

Last week, we saw the news that Ford has introduced the F-150 Lightning, which is very significant, because the F-150 is hands-down the best-selling pickup truck for the last number of decades. Ford sells 900,000 F-150s every single year, so that is a game-changer of an announcement.

When Ford is making such a huge leap into electric vehicles and when, indeed, the rest of the world and corporations around the world are making an active attempt to reduce their use of fossil fuels, how can my colleague say that an increased investment in more pipelines is a smart way to go, when the rest of the world is actively trying to head in the opposite direction?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I think that the idea of seeing other forms of energy being used is a wonderful thing. It is great, but I have to make it very clear that oil and gas are going to be a big part of the future for many years to come. If we are going to have oil and gas be a part of that future, why does the member think that it should come from places like Saudi Arabia or other countries with far less environmentally friendly records and human rights records? I would much rather see that oil and gas come from Canada, where we can create Canadian jobs, ensure that we have the highest environmental standards of just about anywhere in the entire world, and ensure that human rights abuses are not occurring.

The oil and gas here in Canada stand up to anything else in the world in terms of our environmental record. The member should encourage that the oil and gas being used here is from Canada rather than places with far less environmentally—

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

The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, a question to my hon. colleague. You mentioned interest rates in your speech, and we are hearing a lot of talk—

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

I would remind the member to speak to her colleague through the Speaker. When the member was asking her question, she was saying “you”. I did not mention anything about those things, but the hon. member did.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I actually addressed you and then I said “a question to my hon. colleague”. I am sorry if you did not like my phrasing. I will try again.

My colleague mentioned the interest rates, and we are hearing a lot of talk now about potential raises in interest rates, which makes debt servicing a real problem. I am interested in what the hon. member might have to say about how an increase in debt servicing will affect services generally for Canadians.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, even if interest rates were not to rise, by 2025, we would be looking at about a $40-billion per year cost to the taxpayer just to cover the interest on all this new debt. Imagine what would happen if those interest rates—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kenora will have about three minutes to start his speech.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be back physically in the chamber. It is great to be back after participating virtually for quite some time. I think all my colleagues would agree that we hope this becomes to norm once again in the not too distant future.

With the limited time I have before question period, I would like to emphasize, as many of my colleagues have raised already today, that I cannot support the implementation of this budget for a number of reasons. Personally, the greatest reason is that there is no plan back to balance. There is simply a plan from the government to spend into oblivion. We know that will hurt future generations in a number of ways and have many negative fiscal and social consequences going into the future. I will touch on that in much more detail when I resume after the votes later today.

I wanted to make note of something interesting in the budget. It pertains to food security across the north. If I am not mistaken, the government has allocated $163 million over three years to expand the nutrition north Canada funding. In the face of this, there are no concerns with that. Having increased funding to support northerners who are struggling with food insecurity is a positive.

However, I will note that the Liberal government has raised funding for nutrition north Canada each year, however, the rates of food insecurity across the north have also increased year after year. The government is continuing to spend more money and is getting a worse result for northerners.

The government likes to pat itself on the back. It likes to talk about all the money it is spending and the great job it is doing. However, on this side of the House, we measure success not based on dollars spent, but on results for northerners. It is very clear that the government's approach to addressing food insecurity in the north is not getting the job done.

I look forward to resuming my speech after question period.

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

The hon. member will have seven and a half minutes left after Oral Questions.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 28 minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kenora has seven minutes and 30 seconds remaining in his time.

The hon. member for Kenora.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to resume my remarks.

Before question period, I was talking about some of the ways the government has been spending a lot more money and getting worse results for Canadians. I used the incidence of food insecurity in the north and the government's approach with nutrition north as a good example of that. I will go into more detail about some of the concerns I have with the budget, but I am in a good mood today, and I want to mention something in the budget that I am cautiously optimistic about, something that I was happy to see in the budget.

I was happy to see sector-specific support for tourism. I believe it is $500 million under the tourism relief fund. I know many colleagues on my side of the House are happy to see this funding. We have been calling for this funding for quite some time, because we know that tourist outfitters and industries have been hit very hard as a result of the pandemic. We know that all too well in northwestern Ontario. Many camps have not been able to open and have been losing revenue for the past year. A number of outfitters have told me that if they lose this summer or most of this summer, they likely will not be able to operate and will have to close their doors for good.

I say I am “cautiously optimistic” about this funding, because we know the government has brought forward a number of measures that were supposed to support small businesses last year and, with rigid criteria for accessing the programs, many operations, particularly the seasonal operations, were not able to access that, and many of those that were able to access the supports found they was not strong enough to cover what they needed for the year. I will be watching to see where those funds end up. I am, as I say, optimistic, but cautious, and hopeful those funds will get where they need to get to.

Again, as I alluded to, the government has been spending a lot of money. This is a big spending budget, and the Liberals like to pat themselves on the back for that, I am concerned about this budget for a couple of reasons. One of them is that there is a clear lack of direction in the budget. The stimulus programs we need to get our economy going again should be focused and time-limited. They should be focused on creating jobs in all sectors and in all regions, and that includes supporting natural resources, forestry and mining that create so many good, well-paying union jobs across northern Ontario and are major drivers of our economy as well.

Of course, as I mentioned before question period, my most pressing concern with the budget is that there is no plan to get back to balance, and I am concerned about that for a number of reasons. Before I get into that, I will maybe get ahead of some of the members across the way here, and I will note that Conservatives have supported many of the necessary stimulus programs every step of the way. We believe in supporting Canadians and getting them through this crisis. There is no question about it. Regardless of what members on the other side will say, the voting records show that we have stood with Canadians and in many ways. We were able to pass things unanimously. We were able to bring forward a number of suggestions to fix some of these programs and make them better for Canadians. In some cases the government took our advice, and that was great.

However, we know that we cannot continue to spend into oblivion, as the Liberals have set us up to do. We believe the stimulus must be targeted, but it must be phased out responsibly, so that we can preserve public services for future generations. These are critical public services that future generations are going to be relying on, and we know that every dollar we spend on servicing our debt is a dollar that is being diverted away from Canadians; it is a dollar that is not going toward these critical services, and of course young people are going to bear the burden of that.

If the Liberals continue their high spending plan, we know we will receive either major cuts to services or higher taxes, or some terrible combination of both of them. That is why Canada's Conservatives have been advocating instead for a responsible, measured approach to phase out many of these targeted stimulus programs to get us back to balance, to get our economy going again and to ensure that we are protecting those critical services.

I want to make one more point about this. We often hear from the Liberals and other parties that the Conservatives are only focused on dollars and cents and we just want to balance the budget to say, “Check: We can balance a budget for fiscal reasons.” However, that is certainly not the case. A balanced budget is not an end in itself. It is a means to preserve these public services for future generations. It is a means to leave the next generation and those afterward with better lives than we had. I believe that is a goal that we all share, and it is why we cannot continue down this path and burden young people with this debt.

Young people are concerned about going to school. They are concerned about getting jobs after school. They are concerned about being able to afford homes. They are concerned about climate change. They are concerned about so many things, and the Liberal government has just given them another thing to be concerned about: They need to worry about what sorts of public services they will have in the future. Again, if we continue down this path, it will not look great for them.

Overall, that is primarily why I cannot support the implementation of this budget and why I will be voting against this piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, like my hon. colleague from Kenora, I have tremendous concerns for the tourism sector. Unlike him, I do not think that the $500 million announced comes close to what is needed for the sector. There was a further billion dollars announced for Destination Canada to advertise Canadian tourism, which normally I would cheer. I have had owners of very substantial tourism operations in my own riding express sad concern that the promotion from Destination Canada, the $1 billion, will be for places that no longer exist.

How can we move to do more to assist the tourism sector as we move forward through a very tough year for it?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. That is why I noted that I was cautiously optimistic about the funding that has been allocated in this budget. I am happy to see it, but we know that tourism operators are really hurting and they need a lot of support.

To the member's question, what I have been hearing across my riding is that there is only so far that these programs are going to go. There is only so much these programs will be able to do to keep these businesses afloat. At the end of the day, what they need is a plan for a safe and gradual reopening so that they can get back to operating and have the capacity that will allow them to make the profits that they need. That is especially true in northwestern Ontario, as many tourists come primarily from the United States. It is very important.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We have just finished a study about rural women and how they have been impacted by COVID, but they also face a lot of other challenges. The committee talked about lack of access to services, housing, violence against women and the services and supports that are there.

One of the key things is transportation. I know that Ontario Northland has been gone for far too long, but now the disappearance of Greyhound is extremely concerning, considering the access that women have to services that are typically more urban-centred. Could the member talk about the impact on his constituents, and what his party would like to see in terms of access to transportation services for women in the north?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in seeing the report and the work the member's committee has done.

It is a very good point. I could probably talk for 10 minutes about that, which I am not allowed to, but the point the member made about the difference in services between urban and rural I could not have said better myself, to be quite honest. The government needs to do a lot more to support rural communities and rural women and to ensure they have all the services they need, whether it is transportation or health care in northern Ontario.

I could go on for quite some time, but I agree with the member that there needs to be a greater focus on these services in rural northern Ontario.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like him to share his thoughts on the budget's green recovery funding, which is around $17 billion. That sounds like a heck of a lot of money, but it is actually exactly what the government will have spent on the Trans Mountain pipeline.

This budget continues to underwrite rising greenhouse gas emissions by continuing to invest in the oil and gas industry even though it is still so bad for the environment. I would like to know if my colleague thinks Canada can actually reach its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets if the government continues to invest so heavily in this industry.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, my friend from the Bloc and I disagree on this issue quite a bit. I and many members of my party believe that we need to be working with our oil and gas and natural resource industries to ensure we are helping them be a part of getting to net zero and reaching our climate goals, not demonizing and attacking them in the way the Liberal government has.

I respect the question from the member, but I respectfully disagree with the assumption.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the budget and the implementation bill we are debating today will put a stamp on federal politics for many years. That is why it is crucial that we, as parliamentarians, take the time to analyze this bill and to ask the difficult questions that must be put to the government. It goes without saying that this is not a small bill. That is understandable given the context.

Given the little time at my disposal, my comments will focus on measures contained in divisions 1, 5, 6, 9, 24 and 32.

I hope the government will answer our written questions, as it is in the interest of all Quebeckers and all Canadians for each question to be answered. It is the government's role to obtain the support of the House for its budget and its bill, and it is our role to question it.

Some measures in Bill C-30 are good, such as extending until September 25 critical support programs like the wage subsidy and rent relief. I would remind the House, however, that the Bloc Québécois voted against the budget since the government ignored our two key demands, namely to provide adequate and recurring health funding, which was and still is a demand of Quebec and the other provinces and territories, as well as to increase the old age security pension for seniors 65 and up.

As I was saying, obviously some measures in the budget are good, but when it comes to those two things, the government ignored common sense by offering one-time cosmetic solutions to problems that are much more serious and well documented.

Worse than that, the House of Commons adopted a motion that goes with our demand. I can understand that the government does not want to cave to the Bloc Québécois, but I should remind it that it has to at least consider the will of the people represented by those elected to the House.

I will read a few very clear lines from the motion.

That the House:

...(c) highlight the work of Quebec and the provinces in responding to the health crisis and note the direct impact on their respective budgets; and

(d) call on the government to significantly and sustainably increase Canada health transfers...

Again, the government must significantly and sustainably increase Canada health transfers.

The government needs to get the message we have sent over and over. Health transfers need to go up from 22% to 35%. Unfortunately, Bill C-30 includes just a one-time health transfer increase, which is downright unambitious. As fate would have it, the 2021 budget deficit is precisely $28 billion lower than expected, which is pretty ironic seeing as that is exactly how much Quebec and the provinces are asking for. The government would have us believe its political choice, which will compromise everyone's health, is actually a budget choice.

The government's handling of old age security is also more politically motivated than anything else. The Liberals are creating two classes of seniors: those they can buy and those they cannot.

Let me be clear: I will not object to some seniors receiving the help they need, as outlined in Bill C-30. However, I do object to the Liberals thinking that financial insecurity starts at a specific age, when in fact it is much more the result of retiring and leaving the workforce. Furthermore, what the Liberals are proposing to give is clearly insufficient for vulnerable people, regardless of their age. Sixty-three dollars a month is not even enough to buy a few days' worth of groceries. If the Liberals thought they could change the world with that, they are mistaken.

Also, this measure is a campaign promise that was made two years ago and was clearly thought up before the price increases caused by COVID-19. When it comes into effect, people between the ages of 65 and 74, or half the current recipients, will be very eager to reach their 75th birthday. Unfortunately, they will realize that pensions will not be much more generous than they have been.

In addition, in spite of what the Liberals might say, some of them have tried to deny the truth. One minister said, and I quote:

…contrary to what the Bloc Québécois is suggesting, we chose to give more to the most vulnerable seniors, instead of giving less to a greater number of people.

I am not the best at math, but $63 is less than $110. I want everyone to know and take note that the Bloc Québécois is more generous toward seniors than the Liberals, and it will continue to call for a substantial increase of $110 a month for all seniors, as it has over the past few years.

Another point on which we disagree with the Liberals is about how Bill C-30 lays the foundation for a Canadian securities regulation regime. I do not need to paint a picture. The Bloc Québécois and Quebec are, of course, strongly opposed to that.

It is very simple. Division of Bill C-30 is the realization of a very dear dream of Toronto's financial elite, the dream of stripping Quebec of its financial sector. That would be done at the expense of Quebec and Canadian taxpayers, who would have to hand over hundreds of millions of dollars to fund Bay Street's supremacy in a jurisdiction that has been repeatedly confirmed as provincial.

Everyone in Quebec is against it and is speaking with one voice, which is something that is seldom seen: political parties, business communities, the financial sector, labour-sponsored funds and unions. In addition to the Government of Quebec and the Quebec National Assembly, there is also 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, Fonds de solidarité FTQ, Air Transat, Transcontinental, Canam, Québecor, Metro, La Capitale, Cogeco, Molson, and the list goes on.

A strong Autorité des marchés financiers in Quebec means thousands of jobs in North America's only French-speaking metropolis. Nearly 150,000 jobs in Quebec depend on it, and $20 billion is generated. This plan would inevitably result in a shift of regulation activities outside Quebec and is an attack on our ability to keep our head offices and preserve our businesses. One would have to be blind and deaf not to see it. Quebeckers can count on the Bloc, for we will do everything in our power to block this bill.

On another note, as many people know, I am the Bloc Québécois critic for international co-operation and the vice-chair of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Accordingly, it is understandable that I am very concerned about division 6 of Bill C-30 dealing with the Sergei Magnitsky Law. Section 7 of that act, which requires banks, insurance companies and loan companies to disclose certain information on a monthly basis, will be amended by Bill C-30 to make that requirement quarterly, which I simply do not understand. I see this as reducing the obligations of financial institutions and a setback for human rights. It does nothing to ensure enforcement or to strengthen monitoring activities, when it is well known that these reports are of paramount importance to the legislation's effectiveness. I hope my hon. colleagues will have some answers on this matter.

I must say that I am quite baffled to see that division 9 of Bill C-30 removes the requirement that the superintendent of financial institutions approve changes to multi-employer pension plans in which the employer's contributions are set out in an agreement with employees. I will refrain from pointing out that the former finance minister probably wishes he had thought of this himself. Jokes aside, what is the reason for lowering the requirements for this specific type of pension plan? Do pension plans of big companies have funding issues? Is the stock market in such bad shape that pension plans are having solvency issues that warrant relaxing the laws? To me, this division of the bill sounds like the government is eliminating an important safeguard that ensures pension plans remain solvent. The government will have to explain this sooner or later.

I am running out of time, but I would be remiss if I did not speak about division 24 of Bill C-30. I commend the fact that the government wishes to give more leave to parents whose child has died or disappeared so they can reorganize their lives and deal with the tragic reality of the death of a child. However, I am disappointed that the government is agreeing to double benefits for these circumstances, but refusing to double EI sickness benefits, a subject that I had the opportunity to speak about two weeks ago.

I cannot oppose extending eligibility of this benefit to parents of a child under the age of 25 who is deceased or has disappeared, and I cannot oppose increasing the maximum length of leave from 52 to 108 weeks. One question remains and it is important that the government clarify it. If parents are separated, are both entitled to these benefits or is it custody that determines eligibility? It is important to know this because parents are separated in a growing number of Quebec and Canadian families.

In closing, the budget mentions and praises the Quebec child care system several times, claiming to be inspired by it. The reference to an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec is a positive sign, but only if this agreement comes with full and unconditional compensation for the total cost of the program's measures. That money could be used to help with the economic recovery or with the health care system, which is still underfunded because of the federal government's laxness. This Canada-wide child care program is another attempt at federal interference and cannot be seen otherwise.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, works very hard for his region.

He spoke quite a bit about seniors and the hardships they are facing, which is something I have been hearing a lot about in my riding as well. I gave a statement about this in the House earlier today.

I could not agree more with the member on the fact that the Liberal government has not done enough to support seniors and give those who built our country and their communities the supports they deserve.

Has the member heard any specific concerns from those in his riding when it comes to the lack of supports for seniors?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that question. I appreciate it, and I know that we are on the same page on this file.

Like him, I have gotten a lot of calls to my office from people who are angry about the federal Liberal government's new measure. It is not just people who are 75 and under and who will not receive the increase who are angry. It is also those who are aged 75 and up who will receive the increase but who have a brother, sister, cousin or friend who will not be entitled to it. These people feel bad and are wondering why they are entitled to the increase while others they know are not.

My hon. colleague reminded us that these people built Quebec and Canada. We need to stop looking at seniors the way the Liberals do, as though they are a burden. Instead, we need to change the paradigm and ask ourselves what we owe these people who built our country. We owe them everything.

The government it not doing its job right now.

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

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

This budget makes it clear that the Liberals prefer flashy announcements about big things and national programs that seem really great, like child care, to investing in areas that really need support.

We already have programs through Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions and Transport Canada that help small regions revitalize themselves and renovate old buildings. Those programs never get enough funding.

For example, there is an aquatics complex in Matane, in my riding, that will not get the funding it needs. The same goes for the Mont-Joli airport. I am sure there are projects in my colleague's riding that will never get the money they need because the government does not allocate enough funds to those programs.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Does he think the government should help regions like ours by investing in things that seem a little less sexy rather than spend money on big, shiny programs?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

Yes, once again, the federal government looked at what the provinces were doing and decided to do the same thing, even though it is outside its jurisdiction, instead of minding its own business and taking action where it has the right to act. For instance, the Canada summer jobs program should be expanded much more, because many applications and people are being rejected. This year, in my riding alone, the Canada summer jobs program was short $1.9 million.

Instead of sticking its nose into an area of provincial jurisdiction and spending on programs that will never see the light of day, like the plan to plant two billion trees that was announced with great fanfare during the 2019 election campaign and for which the money never materialized, the government should, as my colleague just said, invest in programs like Canada summer jobs, new horizons for seniors and CED. Then the federal government could do its job properly.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to join the debate this afternoon on Bill C-30, which is the government's first budget implementation act from this year's budget.

When I approach legislation that comes before the House of Commons, my first priority is always to look to see how this impacts people, families, communities and the businesses located within my riding of Perth—Wellington. What I also look for when I review these pieces of legislation is what might be missing, what important aspects might be missing from legislation and how that would impact the people of Perth—Wellington and by extension, people of the region and of the country.

There is no question that COVID-19 has had a significant and ongoing impact on our communities, on individuals, on their health and on their lives. Sadly, more than 25,000 Canadians have died due to COVID-19, countless others have fallen sick and some are continuing to experience the long-term health impacts of COVID-19.

From an economic standpoint, the ongoing lockdowns have created challenges for businesses. They have created stress, anxiety and feelings of loneliness. Many Canadians are feeling isolated because of this ongoing challenge. Coast to coast to coast businesses have had to shut down, have had to lay off their employees and, in some cases, have gone out of business altogether.

A country without a strong and vibrant small business sector is not really much of a country at all. We rely on small businesses as the lifeblood of our communities and the employer of so many Canadians.

As the official opposition, there is a duty on our part to not only review legislation, but many times to encourage and promote improvements. We have done this countless times throughout this pandemic.

I reflect back to early in the pandemic when our opposition members criticized but also encouraged the government to come to the table with a more generous wage subsidy. When the government initially announced 10%, it was us as the opposition who encouraged Liberals to come to the table with a more meaningful option.

The same goes for the back-to-work bonus that we proposed throughout the summer, encouraging that incentive that when jobs came available, people were able to take them without losing their entire CERB payments.

Unfortunately, though, when it comes to this budget and this budget implementation act, it looks more like a pre-election plan rather than a meaningful plan forward for recovery.

I draw the House's attention to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's May 5 report in which he writes:

The Government did not make a clear link between the measures in Budget 2021 and its $70-to-$100 billion stimulus plan announced in the Fall Economic Statement. Rather, Budget 2021 combines $36.8 billion in additional COVID-19 spending along with other new spending...

Once again, we see the Liberal government using the guise of COVID-19 for other non-related funding and spending.

This week is Tourism Week and the riding of Perth—Wellington is certainly proud to host so many amazing tourism attractions, some that I highlighted earlier today in Statements by Members. I think of the Stratford Festival, the Stratford Summer Music, SpringWorks, the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum and, of course, Drayton Entertainment.

You will know Drayton Entertainment, Mr. Speaker, because one of the theatres is also located in your riding. Originally, the first theatre, the Drayton Festival Theatre, was in Drayton and is now in the township of Mapleton. Drayton Entertainment is one of those amazing theatres with an amazing offering each year across its seven theatres.

One unique thing about Drayton Entertainment is that it has not in the past received operational funding from the government. Instead, it has been self-sufficient, and relied on donors' funds and box office revenues to make its impact in the community. Unfortunately, this success has also hindered it throughout this COVID-19 pandemic. Last spring, when the government announced the emergency support fund for cultural, heritage and sport organizations, organizations like Drayton Entertainment were not eligible because it had not received past funding through the Canada Council for the Arts.

I raised this issue in the House early in the pandemic in the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sadly, that issue has not yet been addressed.

Going forward in this budget, we saw another commitment to the recovery fund for arts, culture and sports sectors. This might be a positive sign, but I worry, and I know that many arts and cultural organizations worry, that the same criteria will once again be used for this funding and thereby wonderful artistic and cultural organizations, such as Drayton Entertainment, will be unable to access these important funds. I will call on the government very clearly to ensure that this funding envelope is directed to all arts and cultural organizations as they look for recovery.

Another concern that we have had with the government spending on COVID-19 relief is the impact on new businesses. I hear from far too many constituents in my riding who signed a lease just before the pandemic hit, or who took over a business just before the pandemic hit or the week the pandemic hit. I heard of one constituent who literally signed their lease on March 13, 2020, and because of the pandemic's impact on their business, they have never been able to really get off the ground. Since day one, the government relief packages have not addressed new businesses. Not only did these business owners have the misfortune of starting their businesses during a worldwide global pandemic, they are also fighting with their own government to get the support they are in dire need of.

We called on this before. We have raised this in question period. We have raised this in debate. We have raised this at committees. I am imploring government members to please ensure that, going forward, government support programs for businesses are targeted and are able to be accessed by new business owners who only had the misfortune of starting during a global pandemic.

I want to talk a little about division 37 of the budget implementation act. Those Canadians paying attention may find it strange that within an omnibus budget implementation act the government also proposes to amend the Canada Elections Act. Colleagues may know that within the corridors of this very building, many are referring to division 37 as the John Nater vindication act, because it fixes the clause that I made an amendment on in the Procedures and House Affairs Committee during the previous Parliament. I was adding back the word “knowingly” in the rule about publishing false statements that affect election results.

Sadly, the government did not adopt that small but meaningful amendment. What happened? The government was taken to court, where the court ruled that this aspect of the Canada Elections Act was unconstitutional. Instead of relying on the advice of the official opposition in the previous Parliament, the government instead went with its misinformed approach. The result was a finding that it was unconstitutional. In a scathing decision, Justice Davies wrote about the advice that came from the Privy Council Office which is, in fact, the Prime Minister's own department. Justice Davies wrote, “More importantly, the advice given to the standing committee by Mr. Morin,” a senior policy adviser, “that the inclusion of the word knowingly in section 91.1 was unnecessary, redundant and confusing was, for several reasons, incorrect and potentially misleading.” At paragraph 58 he went on to state, “To the extent that Mr. Morin testified about the import of removing knowingly from section 91.1, his comments were inaccurate and cannot be taken as reflecting Parliament's true intention.”

In the other place, Senator Batters tried to take the president of the privy council to task on this matter, but he refused to take responsibility and he refused to hold his own department accountable for the misinformation that its public servants provided and that resulted in an unconstitutional finding by the courts.

I want to say this very clearly. I will not be supporting this budget implementation act because it does not address the meaningful concerns of people in Perth—Wellington, who are just trying to get ahead.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech with a great deal of interest. I know that tourism and the performing arts play a big role in his riding, as they do in mine.

We are coming up on July, when CERB benefits will be cut by 40%. In my riding I am finding lots of people who work in the performing arts, hospitality and tourism do not have their jobs back yet.

Does the member support the government's proposal in this bill to cut the CERB benefit by 40% on July 1? If people do not need the CERB because they are working, that is great, but why the arbitrary cut in the benefit for those who are not back to work yet?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member reflects on the hospitality industry, the tourism industry and all the industries that have not recovered yet from the global pandemic and likely will not recover until some time in the distant future. They are likely considered to be the last to respond.

The member talked about a specific aspect of this bill, in terms of the CERB reductions. I do not support this bill, including that part of it. We need to ensure there is a targeted approach to the tourism industry and those industries that will take the longest time to recover from this global pandemic.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Perth—Wellington for his presentation. He talked a lot about cultural and tourism businesses, which have been affected by the pandemic.

What caught my attention when I read this bill was the fact that small charitable businesses are excluded from the definition of “small business”. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this exclusion.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. I really appreciated her comments about the arts and culture industries.

In the charitable sector, the fact that non-profits do not have access to certain programs is a big issue. In Perth—Wellington, I have heard from non-profit businesses that applied for certain government programs but did not qualify. The government needs to fix this to help non-profit businesses.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the tourism sector, which hires a lot of young people. That is what my comment is about.

He is probably aware of the Brock study in 2018, before the pandemic, that found that 65% of software engineer graduates leave Canada, and around 30% of other STEM professionals leave. This is problematic. The Liberals will say they are throwing more money at education and training, but when people are trained and they are leaving the country, that is a problem.

Could the member comment on how this budget is failing young people, especially our youngest and brightest who graduate with great degrees but have to go offshore for employment?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all my colleague for Oshawa is doing in his community to support the hard-working families of Oshawa.

He is 100% right. We should be attracting the best and brightest to Canada, and keeping those people in Canada. When someone graduates from college or university with high-skilled job training and then goes to an international destination, that is something we need to combat. The way we do it is to ensure that Canada is a welcoming and hospitable place for businesses to set up.

We can look at places like Silicon Valley, which is attracting bright, smart young individuals. We need those people to come to Canada to access the great things we have to offer here. We could do that by having a meaningful conversation about what we need to do to encourage businesses to relocate here in Canada, rather than chasing them away to international destinations.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, National Defence; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, The Economy.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today on the budget implementation act. There is a lot to talk about, so I will stick with a few important issues, and I will start with the good.

This budget has a few elements that are remarkably similar to parts of the NDP election platform in 2015. One, of course, is the promise of $10-a-day child care. The Liberals criticized the NDP in 2015 for that proposal and I am glad they have finally seen the light. I am sorry it took a pandemic to make them realize how critical child care is to Canadian families and our economy, and I am disappointed that it took them six years to figure that out, but I am glad to see it here.

The second is the $15-an-hour minimum wage for workers in federally regulated sectors. Again, that NDP idea was criticized by the Liberals in 2015. I say good work, but it is six years late. I am really disappointed that there is no part of the bill that is designed to ensure that ordinary Canadians do not end up paying for the necessary pandemic stimulus and programs to build back better. There is nothing in the budget that makes sure the superwealthy, Canadians who literally made billions of dollars in extra income in the last year while most Canadians struggled, pay the lion's share of those pandemic spending programs.

The NDP has put forward a plan for a 1% wealth tax applicable to all Canadians who have more than $20 million in assets. That is a very small number of Canadians. It is fewer than 1% of Canadians, yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer has calculated that such a tax would net $5.6 billion every year. The NDP has also demanded the government close off access to offshore tax havens. That would net the treasury $25 billion per year. An excess profit tax, such as the one we instituted to pay off the debts accumulated during World War II, would bring in $8 billion. Instead, this budget suggests a luxury tax that would make sure the wealthy would pay an extra 10% for their Lamborghinis or private jets. That would net us less than $1 billion. Apparently it is all talk anyway, as it is not included in this budget implementation act.

I would like to turn now to aspects of the budget that have real resonance in my riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay. It is the most beautiful riding in the country, as I have said on numerous occasions. It has a high percentage of seniors on fixed incomes, a high percentage of people working for minimum wage in the service sector and a high percentage of people working for low wages in agriculture, yet it has some of the highest real estate prices in Canada. The ratio of average income to housing costs here is one of the worst in the country. The big issues in my riding are housing, housing and housing.

The average cost of a single-family home in Penticton, my hometown, is over $800,000. That is the average. Many families, especially young families, are forced to rent, but in many communities across the riding rentals are very expensive or simply not available. There was an ad recently offering a single room with a shared bathroom and no access to a kitchen for $1,000 a month. A local family in the news recently lost their rental suite when the landlord decided to cash in on the housing market and sell the house. The new owner was not interested in renting, so this family had to find a new home. There was none available. The family eventually set up a GoFundMe account and raised enough money so they could buy an old RV to live in.

It gets worse the lower one's income is. People on income assistance or disability pensions are eligible for subsidized housing because the income we provide them is far too low to live on: It is about $1,000 per month for everything. As of last week, there are officially no subsidized rental units available in Penticton, so if a house someone rents goes up for sale, that individual is literally homeless. They are unhoused and on the street. For those who are still lucky enough to have rentals in old motels, the news is not much better. Penticton has a large supply of old motels that are mainly used for affordable rental accommodation. Two were sold recently and the residents evicted. Three more have just been sold and the concern is that they too will be unavailable to low-income residents. A hundred more people will likely be unhoused in Penticton.

Homelessness is not just a Penticton problem. It is a crisis in almost every community in B.C. In my riding, it is a huge concern in Grand Forks and Trail. The City of Trail recently wrote to the provincial and federal governments pleading for help with housing and mental health and addictions, and for support for the RCMP to make sure detachments are fully staffed. These communities are overwhelmed with these complex problems. This is a crisis across the country. We need urgent action from the government.

The NDP would create 500,000 affordable housing units across the country in 10 years to catch up with the backlog that has been building up over the last 30 years, since Liberal and Conservative governments gave up on federal housing programs. Instead, what we get in this budget are relatively small investments that will not make a dent in the housing crisis, not in the short term and not in the long term.

Now I will get back to the good pieces in this budget.

There are a couple of line items that would be welcomed in my riding. One is the $100 million over two years for the wine sector to make up for the loss of the excise tax exemption, a loss that will kick in next year. Losing that exemption will be very hard on many small wineries in my riding, and I have been lobbying hard, along with other MP colleagues from other wine-producing ridings, to find a trade-legal support that would ease that transition, so this is good news.

Another change comes a little too late to help my riding, and that is the new disaster mitigation funding that will cover projects between $1 million and $20 million. I have been trying to help the Town of Oliver get federal funding to cover some of the costs of irrigation canal repairs after a disastrous rockfall in 2016. Those critical repairs cost about $11 million, but federal infrastructure funding covers only drinking water and waste water, not agricultural water that is absolutely essential in the South Okanagan.

Federal DMAF funding only kicked in for projects costing more than $20 million. I repeatedly pointed out this problem to successive ministers of infrastructure, suggesting they allow smaller projects under $20 million to qualify as well. Unfortunately, the Town of Oliver could not risk waiting one more year to make these fixes, so it went ahead with the project last winter with provincial funding, but without federal help. While I am disappointed this change took so long in coming, I am sure it is welcomed by other small communities facing larger costs to repair infrastructure after floods, landslides and wildfires.

One topic I have spoken up on in this House on numerous occasions is the important of home retrofit programs. I even had a private member's bill in the previous Parliament to bring back the ecoENERGY retrofit program the Conservatives had in place. It was a hugely successful program leveraging five dollars for every dollar spent, allowing thousands of Canadians to make their homes more energy efficient, saving them monthly heating bills, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and benefiting the local economies in every community in Canada. I am happy that the government included a similar program in the fall economic statement and a loan program in this budget, but both these measures fail to help the Canadians who need that help most.

Twenty per cent of Canadian households live in energy poverty. They spend more than 6% of their income on home energy. They cannot afford the upfront cost to access grants, and they cannot afford to take on more debt, no matter how low the interest, to do those necessary retrofits. We need a turnkey, fully funded federal program, like the one Jack Layton proposed years ago, to make these older homes more energy efficient and support Canadian families who live in energy poverty.

To conclude, this budget gets gold stars for the child care program, a federal minimum wage, help for the wine industry and small communities facing big infrastructure repair bills, but it fails on so many other fronts. After decades of promises, it only promises more talk on a public pharmacare program. It does almost nothing for students facing crushing debt after post-secondary education. It cuts the Canada recovery benefit for workers still jobless because of the pandemic. It does nothing to take the profit out of long-term care. It does nothing to end fossil fuel subsidies and it does nothing to make the ultrarich pay their fair share.

As the government knows too well, better is always possible. These better ideas are needed now more than ever.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am the chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and we have just done a study on unpaid work. Certainly child care has been a huge issue during the pandemic, and even before, and when I look at this budget, I see the government has $30 billion for it over five years. However, this is contingent on the provinces putting their part in place. It also fails to recognize that in addition to this kind of national solution, many people are looking for a culturally sensitive solution for themselves, so we need to have options for parents.

This looks more like an election promise than anything likely to happen anytime soon. Would the member agree?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what is really clear to me is that a big component of any economic recovery we will have from the pandemic has to be aimed at getting women back into the job market. We have lost a tremendous share of the job market that women used to have. They took the real hit in job losses during the pandemic.

The key to that is child care. I have talked to so many people who are looking for work. Someone in my riding got a job, but was forced to relocate because there was no child care available for her. That is the critical part, and we can fix it. I do not know which provincial government would turn down funding for child care. It is such an essential part of this recovery.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member. I always appreciate his speeches; they are very thoughtful. I have a great deal of respect for him.

Does he agree with the government's record support of transit or anything else? There are a lot of items in the budget to reduce greenhouse gases, but in particular there are record amounts for transit. This includes a brand new program, announced not long ago, for rural transit, which is very important for my area. There are already over 1,000 projects approved, but many more will be coming. I want to make sure the member is in support of that.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the Yukon for those comments.

I agree with him. Like his riding, my riding is very rural, with a lot of small communities scattered far apart. Rural transit is essential here. It has suffered a big blow in recent years, after Greyhound pulled out of the area. It has become impossible for people to move from community to community, to go from the Okanagan Valley to Vancouver or Calgary. Greyhound has now pulled out completely from all of Canada.

This is where the government really needs to step in and create an interprovincial transit system for people who cannot afford to fly, although right now there are few options to fly. We have to put in a rural transit system that works for people. I am all for transit in cities. I think it is very important and I am glad there is funding going into that, but rural transit is often forgotten about completely. I hope it has not been forgotten and that we get a complete, real and integrated system across the country.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for one short question.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be as brief as possible.

I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. If the NDP were in office right now, would it increase health care transfers from 22% to 35% like the provinces, territories and Quebec are calling for?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to be quick, I would say that, yes, this is one issue where the NDP and the Bloc agree completely.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have waited a long time for the budget. The last one was tabled in March 2019. The absence of a budget in 2020 is a little bizarre, but here we are with budget 2021.

Having a well-planned budget in this pandemic environment is critical because it is like a compass that can help us find our way out of the wilderness. Canadians are distressed by the pandemic. They want a sense of assurance that the government has a plan to help us move forward toward recovery. Families have tragically lost their parents and grandparents to COVID-19 outbreaks in care homes. Social isolation has exacerbated domestic violence and challenged women from being able to reach out for help or leave their abusive partners. Businesses have been crushed. Entire sectors are hanging by a thread. Addictions and suicides have escalated. COVID-19 has stubbornly held our lives, institutions and finances hostage for long enough. The trauma that Canadians have been facing throughout the pandemic has been daunting, and Canadians need hope.

Our country needs a budget that mirrors a plan for recovery, job creation and long-term growth. Canadians are waiting for a practical plan. Unfortunately, budget 2021 seems like a déjà vu of the original COVID-19 emergency benefits that required many hands from opposition parties to fix so that more than just a select number of people would qualify for the announced supports.

While the budget appears benevolent in its parts, as a whole, when examined, it lacks foresight and at times transparency and clarity. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's May 5 report, a good portion of the recovery-plan spending will not actually be used to stimulate the economy, but is presented as such. Furthermore, the government's projections on growth are inflated. About $24.7 billion in spending from the fall economic statement was already in the economy and accounted for in the figures present when the budget was being written, and much of the $101.4 billion in spending proposed by the budget was already accounted for in the private sector growth projections. It would appear the Liberal government wanted to overstate its generosity.

Furthermore, the increase in jobs, according to the PBO, would grow from 39,000 to 74,000 to 94,000 jobs from 2021 to 2024, while according to budget 2021, the employment growth from the recovery plan would evolve from 315,000 to 334,000 to 280,000 jobs in that period. The PBO report captures this discrepancy in the statement, “Finance Canada’s impact assessment of the Recovery Plan overstates the economic impact of stimulus spending in Budget 2021.”

When it comes to balancing the budget, we experienced yet another déjà vu. The PBO states:

...the Government has decided to effectively stabilize the federal debt ratio at a higher level, potentially exhausting its fiscal room over the medium- and long-term. This means that any substantial new permanent spending would either lead to a higher debt-to-GDP ratio or have to be financed through higher revenues and/or spending reductions in other areas.

Therefore, the next time we have a crisis, who or what are we going to sacrifice? We will have very little reserve to work with.

He also says, “Long-term projections presented in the budget also show the federal debt ratio remaining above its pre-pandemic level through 2055.” In other words, the government does not plan on returning our deficits to at least the pre-pandemic levels.

The Liberal government has left no fiscal room to make future investments and it has no intention to get out of debt. Prolonged deficit spending will bring an inflation hike. We are experiencing this already, with increases in the prices of groceries, lumber, housing and gas. What kind of future does this leave for our country, for our children? Budget 2021 needs a reality check into the future.

The unprecedented needs during the pandemic called for spending from the government to sustain individuals, families and businesses in a temporary time of crisis. The pandemic is a temporary crisis. We are still going through it, but it is supposed to be temporary. We do not need to make it permanent with poor planning or no planning. The deficit will not replenish itself.

As parliamentarians, we need to listen, analyze, process and respond to the needs of Canadians with the foresight of visionaries, the thoughtfulness of problem solvers and the focus and integrity of conscientious leaders who have a plan and purpose greater than ourselves. This is what our constituents expect of us and deserve. However, this budget instead looks like a patchwork of short-sighted, reactionary, electorally driven promises that will leave our country with a larger debt, more deficits and more government interference. Again, the budget strangely feels like déjà vu.

Happily for the Liberals, they have gotten away with the way they have been operating for a long time. However, tragically for Canadians, the government's short-sighted haphazard leadership, which is also reflected in this budget, has delayed our country's path to recovery and has allowed greater plight for businesses and the mental health of Canadians.

Vaccinations were a key part to a swifter path toward recovery, but poor decisions on vaccinations delayed that and caused the third wave of lockdowns. In the business world, this has translated to more losses and fewer reserves to bounce back. Each wave and each lockdown tests the patience of reasonable Canadians, who have been faithfully following COVID-19 regulations for the safety of all.

The CanSino deal between the Liberal government and the Chinese company was blocked by China's communist regime and ended Canada's would-be first procurement of vaccines. This process occurred from May to July last year, when insolvency of businesses was climbing to a peak, and Canadians were gripped with shock and fear. At our most vulnerable stage of crisis, the Prime Minister gambled the health and well-being of our nation on working with a communist regime. I would be curious to know from the Prime Minister's why pursuing this risk took precedence over the lives of Canadians.

Given the Liberals' bad track record when it comes to timely procurement, does the budget reflect a realistic vaccination recovery timeline? Given the extension of the ideal three-week gap between doses that Canadians will receive, the possibility of having to mix vaccines for first-time AstraZeneca recipients and the yet-to-be-confirmed date for the next delivery of Moderna vaccines for second doses, how will the government's abysmal rollout of vaccines impact the effectiveness of the budget?

Our future is uncertain because the government is unpredictable and follows its own convenient electoral clock. How will any efficacy issues outside the government's anticipated success of the vaccinations impact the effectiveness of the budget? Our future is uncertain because the government is unpredictable and follows its own convenient clock.

I would like to speak now on one of the hardest-hit sectors, travel and tourism, which was the first to shut down and will likely require the longest time to reboot. British Columbia's tourism revenue in 2019 was $22.3 billion. The tourism sector provided 149,900 jobs in B.C. The hotels in my riding are dependent on the overflow of the success of tourism in Vancouver at large. Their revenue continues to be tested.

A group of Korean business owners in downtown Vancouver who are also dependent on the tourism sector for their livelihoods reached out to my office to express their struggle. They are primarily owners of small restaurants and convenience stores that are dependent on tourist seasons. They have suffered due to low foot traffic of tourists from international flights and cruise ships.

Because of high commercial rental prices in the downtown corridor, they have been unable to hire employees and are run instead by husband and wife owners. They also have relatively low non-deferrable business expenses that do not meet the $40,000 minimum, therefore they do not qualified for CEBA. They continue to struggle without support. Their recovery will be dependent on the recovery of the travel and tourism sector, which will probably be the last industry to recover.

Where is the support for these small ma-and-pa shops? Will they continue to be left behind? How is the government going to ensure these business owners will make it through?

The President of the United States has told American cruise ships to skip docking in Vancouver because the Prime Minister continues to show no sign of reasonable and safe reopening. The independent travel advisers in Port Moody—Coquitlam and across Canada are concerned and feel left out. They have continued working through cancellations without pay and with clawed back commissions, which are now just starting to get sorted out. Simultaneously, if they were to start booking clients, they would not see commissions for a long time.

Most of them are women, and they are only eligible for CRB. As the travel industry does not anticipate most people will make travel plans until 2022-2023, even though the travel restrictions will be lifted, and their income will be hurt greatly. They need sector-specific help that will support them until the travel and tourism industry operates again. All of this is dependent on the efficacy of vaccinations and safe reopening.

Business owners generally do not want to depend on government assistance in the long term. They want to succeed on the merit of their entrepreneurial excellence and hard work. What they really want to see is for the government to implement a plan to safely reopen. This will let them prosper, and it will create jobs.

They cannot handle one more lockdown. Canadians are moving their businesses from our country to the U.S. because we are so behind in our reopening. A constituent in Port Moody has done just that.

Canadians are waiting for a plan to reopen. Where is it? They are depending on us to give them hope and a pathway to a sustainable future. I hope we will find a way to do just that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member is supportive of tourism because there is over a billion dollars for the tourism industry in the budget. This is because we recognize that it is the hardest-hit industry of all. There is $200 million for local festivals, cultural events, heritage celebrations, local museums and amateur sporting events.

There is also the same amount, $200 million, for larger events and $100 million for Destination Canada to market Canada. There is $500 million for the tourism relief fund, and then there is another $700 million in support for business financing and reopening the economy. As the member said, she would like to reopen the economy.

I wonder what other supports the member thinks we could provide to the tourism industry over and above these record amounts.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the government credit in that it has poured in a lot of money, and that is necessary in times of crisis like we are in now, but it does not necessarily translate into productive fruit that will actually help them.

The reason I mentioned sector-specific support is because they need specialized support. It is not a one-size-fits-all deal. On top of that, as I said, many entrepreneurs do not want to keep depending on these rollouts. They would rather work hard to move forward, be able to plan out their future and have certainty that they are going to prosper again.

While these supports are helpful, it brings me back to the time when we were helping the government refine those COVID supports. I feel that a lot of the things that were mentioned in the budget report require that kind of support with many hands coming together.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam for his excellent speech. I am going to continue in the same vein as the question that I asked the NDP.

I know that the Conservative Party has said that it supports increasing health transfers for Quebec and the provinces. However, it has not said anything about the percentage by which it would increase those transfers, even though Premier François Legault and his counterparts from the other provinces and territories provided a number in their request.

The Conservative Party is saying that it wants to support the provinces, so then why is it unable to officially put a number on the increase in health transfers?

Will my colleague's party agree to increase health care transfers to the provinces and Quebec from 22% to 35%, as requested by all of the provincial premiers?

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a clear answer because I personally do not know, but I do know, concerning the throwing out of numbers and making promises, that our motto as Conservatives is that we want to over-deliver and under-promise.

We do not necessarily want to give out numbers, as we are in a very fluid situation. I think it would be wise, if the opportunity came to present a number, and that if we were to form government again, then that would be the right time to introduce it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for all of her hard work on the status of women committee.

I wonder what the member thinks about this budget in light of what it would and would not do for women in Canada and what is needed.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to work with my colleague on the status of women committee. We have been looking at the impact COVID has had on women, and what keeps coming up is the issue of child care.

The federal government can promise a lot of money to this effort, but the provinces are struggling. They may not be able to provide the 50% of the money that the federal government requires to provide the transfer, so there may be support for something that we may not see in practice, which is one of my concerns.

The other concern is that, again, one size does not fit all. There were many voices on a variety of needs that came to the table during our committee meetings regarding child care. I hope that in the future we will be able to see those kinds of sensibilities regarding child care.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy being here in the House to talk about various bills. I have to say it has been a while. I feel a bit rusty, but I would like to take this opportunity to thank the House of Commons staff who support us and make these hybrid sittings possible. When we are at home, we can be in our ridings. I am grateful to them because I think it is just incredible that this all came together so quickly. I also want to thank the interpreters. Their work is so important, and we do not say that often enough.

We have waited two years for the Liberal government's budget. Let us not blame everything on the pandemic. Canada was the only G7 country that did not introduce a budget in 2020. All the provinces introduced budgets too. The federal government kept us waiting.

Admittedly, there are some good things in this budget, which I will come back to. However, there are some gaping omissions. The Bloc Québécois has made its position clear on those. My colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean outlined them clearly earlier: seniors and health have been forgotten. It is quite ironic, given that we are experiencing one of the worst health crises in our history. We think that that is where investment is needed, to support the health care systems of the provinces and Quebec.

The government ignored the unanimous request made by the House through the motion that was tabled by the Bloc Québécois and accepted. It also ignored the unanimous requests of the provincial premiers, who asked for health transfers to be increased from 22% to 35%.

As I was just saying, it is inconceivable that we could be going through a health crisis without making the necessary investments in health care. Seniors are not getting enough. We did see a glimmer of hope. The Liberal government got in on a promise it made in 2019 to increase old age security. That is great, but the government is not going far enough. It is forgetting seniors aged 65 to 74 who are also in financial difficulty, just like those aged 75 and over. The government is increasing pensions for seniors aged 75 and over, but only by roughly $60 a month, which we do not think is not enough. We in the Bloc Québécois have been asking for an increase of $110 per month, and we will continue to lead that debate. The House has not heard the last of the Bloc on this issue, because the people of all regions of Quebec deserve it.

This comment comes up a lot in my riding. Grandparents, who have worked incredibly hard all their lives, feel so neglected by the federal government, even though they are the ones who have suffered the most in this pandemic, both mentally and physically. This virus can be extremely harmful to their health. It is appalling that they are being let down like this, when we thought we were making progress with this request.

I would like to talk about the money being allocated to the tourism industry in this budget. For a region like mine, the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé, tourism is extremely important. The fact that some emergency assistance programs, such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the rent subsidy, are being extended will certainly help many businesses back home. I commend that, but there are businesses that were in financial difficulty before the pandemic or that were having a hard time finding workers. Some other programs that were necessary for some people, such as the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, are now hobbling business owners. It was already hard enough to find people who wanted to go to work, and things did not get any easier once the situation stabilized a bit. There were pros and cons to this program. It is a little frustrating because business owners are the ones paying the price. It is important to have targeted assistance for this type of sector, but that is not really what we are seeing. Yes, a few million dollars has been allocated to the tourism industry, but the devil is often in the details. When we look a bit closer, hundreds of millions of dollars are going into ad campaigns to make sure people go visit the various regions of Canada. That is good, but is that really the way to help our industries and our small businesses? That is the question. I think we can do several things at the same time.

Allow me to share some figures. The tourism industry is a vital part of the economy in the Gaspé region. There are 700 businesses and nearly 7,000 jobs, 50% of which are permanent. This is not just a seasonal industry.

Businesses in the area benefit from tourism year-round, which is good. The region saw around $16 billion in economic spinoffs in 2019, but that figure dropped to $5 billion in 2020. This more than $10-billion drop represents a lot of money, and business owners are the ones taking the hit. It is shameful that they are not getting direct assistance, which we have been calling for since the beginning of the pandemic. The message does not seem to be getting through to the other side of the House, though.

As we gradually reopen over the summer, I truly hope that the industry will recover. However, we must bear in mind that there are still no international tourists or cruises, so we cannot expect to see the same results, the same amount of money coming in. The sector will need targeted assistance from the federal government, and that is what we are calling for.

When I see all the different Canada-wide programs that are being announced, such as the national child care program, I realize that it may be good news for the provinces that do not have this type of program. However, Quebec already has a day care program.

We have heard the Prime Minister speak about an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec to redirect these funds. I do not really understand what is meant by an asymmetrical agreement, but it looks like interference to me. The Government of Quebec has been managing its day care system very well for many years. If the federal government decides to implement a similar program, it must give Quebec the money it is owed with no strings attached. Letting Quebec invest these amounts as it sees fit seems perfectly logical to me.

In regions like mine, there is definitely a shortage of day care spaces. Elected officials and families are saying so. However, it is up to Quebec to decide how to use these funds in its system. I believe that it is in the federal government's interest to redistribute these funds without conditions, but that is not the message we are hearing at this time.

I would also like to talk a bit about the environment. Bill C-30 offers no details about how the government plans to invest the funds announced in the budget. I hope that will be revealed in another bill soon because we are talking about $17 billion in green recovery funding. As I said earlier, $17 billion seems like a heck of a lot of money, but consider this: It is exactly what the government will have invested in the Trans Mountain pipeline alone.

Considering the fact that the government continues to invest heavily in the oil and gas industry, we have to wonder how committed it is to fighting climate change. That is a little frustrating too. The budget allocates a mere $1 billion to climate change adaptation. People in the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspé are very concerned about shoreline erosion, and they are experiencing more and more floods. Stakeholders in the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspé have said how disappointing it is to see so little money invested in adaptation. The Conseil régional de l'environnement du Bas-Saint-Laurent has pointed out that rebuilding roads only to have them destroyed again the next year is not good enough. What people need is a multi-year framework and actions that will stand the test of time.

I still have several things to say, so I will say them quickly. In the budget, the government announced that, if all of the proposed measures were put in place, Canada would be able to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 36%. However, according to people in my region, that reduction is not enough. The executive director of the Conseil régional de l'environnement du Bas-Saint-Laurent thinks that number is all well and good but that it is lower than Quebec's commitments and the targets adopted by many countries that are parties to the Paris Agreement. The federal government itself realized that several days later and announced a range of higher targets. Ambition is all well and good, but the measures that were announced are not consistent with that ambition. We need to look at how we can align all of that.

Since I do not have much time left, I will close by saying that members are beginning the clause-by-clause examination of Bill C-12 tomorrow in committee. I heard the minister assure us that he was going to include this new target in the bill, but that does not seem to be the case based on what we are seeing in the amendments. I am anxious to see how the government will keep its promise with regard to fighting climate change, because that is the challenge of this century, and we really need to address it.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, since the outset of COVID, we have seen 60,000 small businesses shut their doors. More than 200,000 are at risk, according to the CFIB, and yet we continue to see significant gaps with regard to some of the government's COVID relief supports for small businesses, including with respect to the commercial rent assistance program for companies that have both a holding company and an operating company, as well as the requirement that the full amount of rent be paid within 60 days.

Then, there was absolutely no support for new businesses that opened their doors just before COVID. It has been 15 months, and still no support.

Could my hon. colleague speak to some of those issues affecting small businesses?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his extremely relevant question.

I have to say that I have seen some extremely brave people in my riding who decided to open a business in the midst of a pandemic, or just a few months before, and who managed to get through it, but that is not the case for everyone.

This government claims to champion families and small businesses, but that is not necessarily true.

As I said, there was already a labour shortage before the pandemic, and the health crisis certainly did not help. In the Gaspé region, in the tourism sector alone, there is a shortage of some 20,000 employees. That is a pretty significant number.

I think the government needs to invest more to help our small businesses. If our businesses are thriving, we can revitalize the smaller regions and get people to move there. That is hard to do if the government does not step up and help.

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

Mr. Speaker, although my riding is the farthest from the hon. member's, I think what we have in common is support for tourism. I am delighted the member is in support of targeted tourism support.

There are $200 million for local festivals, cultural events, heritage celebrations and local museums in small communities, and then another $200 million for the large ones, $100 million for marketing, and a $500-million tourism relief fund in the budget. On top of that, there are the CEBA loans, which have helped over 170,000 businesses in Quebec, and CEWS has protected over a million jobs. For those who fall through all the cracks, there is the RRRF program, which has supported over 7,000 businesses in Quebec.

I am just wondering what the member's positive suggestions would be on what else we could do to support tourism in the Gaspé.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question.

I would agree that what is being done for tourism is a step in the right direction. However, in my view, the assistance needs to be more targeted.

As my colleague said, $200 million is being allocated to festivals. There are 56 municipalities in my riding, and they are all small. In one of them, there is a small western festival, and another village is home to a small guitar festival. We do not have any large-scale events. These people and these projects are not getting targeted assistance.

When I received the electronic version of the budget, I did a search and could not find any of the municipalities in my riding, but many big cities with their big projects were included.

I think we need more targeted assistance to meet the needs that exist in all regions.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member has indicated, the climate emergency is urgent, and action and leadership are desperately required from the federal government.

British Columbians actually do not want the Trans Mountain pipeline. We want to stop that expansion, so we are in agreement there. However, if we really want to address the crisis, would the member agree that we also need a jobs guarantee for those transitioning out of the oil and gas industry?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I agree that there needs to be a transition. It would ultimately cost more not to make a transition. We completely understand that there are good jobs in some sectors and that no one wants to see those jobs disappear. However, I think we can invest in other sectors, such as wind, solar and hydro power. We can help our neighbours who may be struggling more with the transition. We can invest in those areas to give them a hand.

I think that is how we will be successful. For example, projects like Lion Electric is getting some big grants to electrify our transportation. That is the direction we need to be heading in. The government needs to stop investing heavily in increasing greenhouse gas emissions. That is unfortunately what it is doing by continuing to invest in the oil and gas industry.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in the House to speak to the budget implementation act. This is the first time for me as a new member of Parliament to speak to a federal budget. It is hard to believe I have been here 19 months, but this is our first budget.

I am here to speak about what it means for my constituents in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry and for our country. It is very hard, in 10 minutes, to put all my thoughts together on a federal budget, but I will do my best.

We are talking about $300 billion in revenue and $50 billion in expenses equalling a deficit of $350 billion last year. Finally, after two years, we got a federal budget. That is important because we have seen a lot of money go out the door for those in need. The Conservatives have supported programs that have helped people, but we need this accountability, we need this framework. We need the whole picture of the budget to see what is happening in our country for both short and long-term fiscal sustainability.

We have had different world wars and a global pandemic a century ago. At no time have in our history have gone this long without a budget. The United States and the United Kingdom, which I cite often in the House, never skipped a beat and were able to continue to produce budgets throughout. Nevertheless, we are here. We have a document and we are able to comment on it.

In my limited time, I want to focus on two key themes. I call them the two Ds: debt and delivering. Frankly, this budget does not take our financial realities seriously. The Liberal government and the Prime Minister have accumulated more debt in the last six years than every other government and prime minister combined before them. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars. I acknowledge again that we supported many of those programs because it was the right thing to do to help people in need, but they were some of the highest per capita in the developed world in terms of spending.

Recently, I was looking at the OECD website when I was putting my speech together. When we look at our unemployment rate compared to similar G7 countries, Canada stands at 8.1%. The G7 average at that time was 5.6%. We can all watch Japan in amazement. It has an incredible unemployment rate of 2.6%. We have spent nearly the most to get the least amount of results with respect to our outlook and moving forward past COVID.

My political science degree from Carleton University comes in handy in looking at some of the history of budgeting and our fiscal realities in our country. The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently said that at best we would have a 1% maybe 2% growth. For the amount of money we have spent and the times we are in, other economies are growing at a much faster rate.

The reason I believe my political science degree comes in handy today is when we go back and look at the amount of debt. When we go back a generation ago and look at the debt under the first Trudeau government of the day, the challenge of the PC government and Brian Mulroney and into Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin's Liberal governments, interest rates truly hurt our economic outlook. It was increased interest rates, not in the short term when the debt was acquired but over the course of time that led to significant structural deficits.

Under a Liberal government, under Jean Chrétien and finance minister Paul Martin, we saw cuts to health and social programs in an effort to get our budget sustainable. I worry we could be in the same situation. The numbers we are seeing today, even in contrast, are astronomically larger than we saw back a generation ago when I was just starting out in elementary school. Nevertheless, that lesson is important.

I say this respectfully, but I get frustrated when I look at this. We cannot get things done very easily anymore. Let us look at the slow vaccine rollout. We are now acquiring a higher and higher deficit because we did not secure vaccines early enough so we could reopen and get our small businesses and jobs back on track. We would have been able to wind down our support programs because our economy was reopening. The United Kingdom and the United States have been successfully procuring vaccines, getting them into the arms of their citizens which has allowed them to start to reopen. Their numbers are quite safe lately so they have been able to do that.

We talk about getting things done. I look at the United Kingdom. It was in a similar situation to Canada in not having domestic vaccine procurement in its country. Under the leadership of the U.K. government, when COVID hit, it put in a “wartime-like effort” to build domestic capacity within its country. It worked tooth and nail and when vaccines were approved and ready to be manufactured, the U.K. was able to do it and look after its citizens.

In Canada, the Prime Minister took one year to make an announcement in North York and Toronto to much fanfare. If we look at the website, the facility will be ready in 2027. There is a direct contrast there. The United Kingdom and Canada took two different approaches and had two different results, which is very clear today.

That builds on my second point, which is delivering. Notice that the title of the bill is not just the budget act, but it is the budget implementation act. I am a Conservative member who represents a rural eastern Ontario riding. The word “deliverology” was a big word the new Liberal government of the day used in 2015. It splashed it out in cabinet retreats. It had speakers talk about how “deliverology” was going to be the way of the Liberal government. I hope the Liberals fired that guy. Actually, they did because we do not hear that word anymore.

The key theme in a lot of my speeches is that the government, and I will give it a compliment, is the best in the game with respect to making announcements and making us feel good. However, it does not have the ability to properly implement what it says it wants to do. It gets an A for announcement, but an F for follow-through.

Regardless of where we sit in the House, we have to ask ourselves, when we see some of these items, if we actually rehash them over and over again, will we see a different result? How many times have we seen the Liberal government commit to national child care? Over and over again, it promised that this time would be the year it would get it done. Interprovincial trade has come up numerous times with very little progress. Every target it has set for itself with respect to the environment it has failed to meet.

I think of infrastructure projects in my riding, and I am appreciative and I ensure we get our fair share of dollars at home, but we need timely announcements of those projects. In South Glengarry, the Char-Lan rink got approval for funding. That is wonderful. However, it got the money too late and cannot go to tender this year. Now this infrastructure project is delayed likely for another year before it is completed.

I want to acknowledge the situation, a perfect example, and I do not want to say national shame, of Lac-Mégantic. It has been eight years since that disaster happened. I can still remember the images of that horrible day. I watched it as a staffer on Parliament Hill. I remember the lives that were lost and the anger and frustration that this had happened. We are now looking at maybe the year 2024 the government says. We are still under negotiation. We are still looking for more details. It is still not out to tender. There is still not a shovel in the ground. My colleague today successfully passed a resolution, calling for this to be recommitted to. How is it that on something so vital, a national disaster of that scale, it is taking us over a decade at least to get that project done?

We are losing the ability to get things done in a reasonable and timely manner. The dollars we spend in a federal budget need to be timely, targeted and temporary for our sustainability. Saying we are going to spend money is not a result. We have to check projects off, make tangible differences and put that money to proper, efficient use. There is virtue-signalling, there is talking a good game and there is actually delivering.

We have an amazing country, with great businesses and great people, but the government's inability to deliver is hampering our recovery. I hope we can get better implementation of the budget.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know there are a great many things the hon. member and I agree on, but the budget is probably not one of them. I want to point out at this point that because the New Democrats have said that we will not plunge the country into an election during the pandemic, he has the luxury of voting against this bill in its entirety.

I want to ask him about a provision that this budget implementation act brings forward, and that is cutting the CERB, starting July 1, by 40% for people who are not back to work yet. Yes, I would like to see an early reopening and I would like to see everybody not needing the CERB, but does the hon. member support cutting by 40% the benefits that are being offered to those who are not able to get back to work yet?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from the NDP knows I have a great deal of respect for him. We do agree on some issues here and there.

On his comment about that, I will go back to my comments before. We need to have supports as people begin to recover. I am frustrated that we have to offer CERB as we go into this summer, because parts of our country will be reopening.

We have made it very clear that we need to be there for our businesses, we need to be there for individuals, but for me, that means getting more vaccines into arms quickly so we can safely reopen. July is almost a year and a half after this started. We are months behind the United Kingdom, the United States, Israel and other countries that have had successful rollouts. The fact that we need to have this and the fact that are businesses are not allowed to reopen, flourish and regrow our economy is a failure in itself.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for all his hard work. I share his concern with this budget. There are a lot of things that have been promised time and again that have not shown up, and we are losing our ability to do things in the country. One of the things that was really absent in this budget was something to inspire the natural resources sector. There was zip-a-dee-doo-dah in the budget. Considering the contribution to our GDP and the fact that the industry has been decimated, I would have expected the government to identify some package. What does the member think about that?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would agree with my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton with respect to our natural resources sector. I have spoken in the House many times about the importance of our natural resources not just for those in Alberta and Saskatchewan but for our entire country. We are lucky from the east coast to the west coast in a wide variety of jobs and industries.

When we look through the budget, the sector is absent. More than ever the sector needs our support. We talk about the environment and the opportunities to do better environmentally. Investments in our oil and gas sector, investments in research and development and investments in technology can make Canada a world leader on emissions reductions and job retention. People in Alberta, Saskatchewan and across the country look at this, and it has certainly been missing in this federal budget.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and I will follow up on what was just discussed.

It is interesting to hear that the most polluting sectors need help making this transition. I do think that may be a good idea. However, the government continues to take taxpayers' money and put it into these industries while in regions like mine, in Matane, wind turbine manufacturing plants are closing because these businesses have no more contracts. They have to lay off their employees because the different levels of government believe that investing in the wind industry is not a good thing. The government may not believe that it is enough.

I have a problem with continuing to subsidize the most polluting industries. I believe we must take action on several fronts at the same time. Yes, we must make the energy transition, but in several ways, by investing more in renewable energy sources. Oil is not one of them.

I would like my colleague to comment on this.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think we will agree that the environmental plan presented by the government has not done what it said it would do. Every target that has been set has been missed. To my colleague from the Bloc's point, if she speaks to the oil and gas sector workers, they do not want government assistance, they do not want any subsidies; they want the government to get out of the way and allow them to grow the sector. We can do that, as we recently announced in our environmental plan, by investing in the sector and in the technology. It is amazing out there. Every opportunity we get, there is so much technology and so much potential for the industry. The government just needs to stand back and let the sector flourish.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, during the pandemic, inequalities have increased. The ultrarich are becoming richer, while those in need of help are still struggling to get by.

We have learned a lot about the Liberals in the last few years. They talk a good game, but time and again we see they have little intention of walking the walk when it comes to taking bold action. The Liberals choose to continue to give their rich friends a free ride, when what we need is for them to pay their fair share.

This is evident in budget 2021, which brings no wealth tax, no excess profits tax. If anything is clear in this pandemic, it is the fact that Canada needs a wealth tax on the super rich to rein in extreme inequality and contribute to crucial public investments in the wake of COVID-19. A wealth tax is economically and technically feasible, but it requires breaking with a status quo that all too often is just there to serve Bay Street and the wealthy few.

According to the Canadian group for fair taxation, three-quarters of Canadians surveyed are in favour of a wealth tax. What is clear is that the only thing lacking in bringing in a wealth tax is the political will to make this bold change. One has to ask what is wrong with this picture: According to the CCPA, Canada’s 87 richest billionaire families control 4,448 times more wealth than the average family and as much as the bottom 12 million Canadians combined. Budget 2021 will only serve to perpetuate such inequalities.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that if a 1% wealth tax was brought in for those with a net wealth of over $20 million, as proposed by the NDP, it would raise $5.6 billion in the first full fiscal year, rising to close to $10 billion per year by 2028.

In addition to a wealth tax, the NDP is also calling for a profiteering tax. Members should try to wrap their heads around this: The ultrarich made $78 billion over the course of the pandemic. Surely they can afford to pay a bit more to support Canadians in need. We also know that the ultrarich often stash their wealth in offshore accounts so they can avoid having to pay their fair share on their massive wealth.

It is a disgrace that budget 2021 only seeks to consult instead of taking action on tackling the problem of tax havens. Meanwhile, big banks are going unchecked, with no oversight. They are making billions during the pandemic, while hiking bank fees. This is wrong. We have to remember that Canadians were urged to avoid cash transactions during COVID-19, and now they are being dinged with increased bank fees.

All this is happening when one in five Canadians does not take the medication they need because they cannot afford it. As people continue to struggle, the call for a comprehensive universal public pharmacare continues to go unanswered after 24 years of promise by the Liberals. Not only that, but one in five Canadians avoids the dentist every year because of cost. The community is desperate for dental care, and that is not even mentioned in budget 2021.

As these basic needs are ignored by the Liberals, they have chosen to continue to provide fossil fuel subsidies to big corporations, and Canada continues to fail to meet its Paris accord targets. It is also disgraceful that the Liberals chose to turn a blind eye to the abuses of large companies that received the wage subsidy despite cutting jobs, increasing dividends to shareholders and increasing the salary of their executives.

The wage subsidy was clearly to protect Canadian workers and their jobs and was not meant for bonuses for top executives. Here on the west coast, the Pacific Gateway Hotel has terminated 140 workers. At the Hilton Vancouver Metrotown, another 100 workers have lost their jobs. The Sheraton Ottawa has fired 70 of its workers.

Any federal relief to be provided to big companies should require the companies to include an agreement on recall protections for workers who lost their jobs during the pandemic. This includes the new federal hiring subsidy, which should prioritize rehiring laid-off staff over replacements.

Speaking of supporting workers, the increase of EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks in the budget implementation act is not enough. Not only that, but it would not take effect until 2022. For those suffering from chronic illnesses, 26 weeks is not sufficient. I have heard from constituents who are recovering from cancer or from a stroke and they are in dire situations because their EI benefit has run out. Since they did not lose their job because of COVID, they did not qualify for the CERB or the CRB. These families are falling through the cracks in their time of need. I am calling on the government to increase EI benefits to 50 weeks so that people can get the help they need.

On the CRB, while the government will extend the benefit for 12 weeks, for the last eight weeks, from July to September, the support will be reduced from $500 per week to $300 per week. This will be detrimental for workers in sectors that are slow to return. For many, $300 a week will not even cover rent, let alone ensuring that there is food on the table.

Similarly concerning is the fact that the Liberals have chosen to create two classes of seniors: those who are 65 versus those who are 75 and older. The increase for OAS should not be just for seniors over 75. We can afford to ensure that all seniors, 65 and older, are lifted out of poverty.

Also, it makes no sense that the Liberals have decided to study the needs of people with disabilities for three years instead of taking action now to lift them out of poverty. Most people living with disabilities have been excluded from some of the financial assistance offered by the Liberal government. Even the one-time payment to people with disabilities, a meagre $600 offered by the government, is difficult to access. For many people, because of the requirement to provide a disability tax credit certificate, it is not feasible for them to access this support. It is incomprehensible that the most vulnerable are not getting the help they need, while top executives are allowed to get big bonuses using government wage subsidies.

As this pandemic drags on, many Canadians are faced with significant rent arrears. The last thing we need to see is more people displaced without a home. That is why I fully support the National Right to Housing Network's call for action, which includes the call for a residential tenant support benefit. I also support Acorn's call to stop predatory lending.

On the issue of loans, the Liberals have finally taken the baby step of eliminating interest on student loans this year, although I have to note that this is not permanent. The Liberals need to stop making money from student debt, period. Not only do I want to see the interest gone, but I would like to see the government forgive student loans to help struggling students during the pandemic.

There is money to support Canadians in need. It is a matter of priorities.

As we look to the recovery, every effort must be made to support small businesses. There are huge gaps in the programs right now. Many new businesses that opened just prior to the pandemic did not get the support they need to get through the pandemic. Many of those businesses had to shut their doors.

Artists, musicians, performers and cultural workers have been among those hardest hit by the public health orders and advice issued in order to curb the spread of COVID-19. I have connected with many of my constituents and labour groups that represent theatre workers, like IATSE and ACTRA, to discuss the need for the federal government to provide better emergency pandemic supports in those sectors. I am in full support of their call for action on the #ForTheLoveOfLive campaign, which includes extensions of the wage subsidy and rental subsidy to the end of the pandemic, as well as additional sector-specific funding specifically for the live performance sector.

I am also renewing my call for the federal government to support the PNE. It needs to be able to access the wage subsidy. This 110-year-old institution in Vancouver East must be saved. Aside from the wage subsidy, I am also calling on the government to support the PNE with a grant similar to what was provided to Granville Island. Likewise, Vancouver's Chinatown needs support and this—

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

We have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her speech.

I am pleased that she mentioned how much attention the budget pays to seniors, namely none. In my opinion, the Liberal government's reaction shows a blatant lack of respect.

I would like the member to share her opinion on the following. Why did the government abandon our seniors?

Could this possibly be an attitude the government is adopting because there is going to be an election? Is the government going to show up in August with something more for seniors than the small amount of $500 and the 10%?

What does she think about that?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is shameful that the Liberal government has left seniors out. It promised seniors during the election that it would support them, but of course after the election it forgot all about that promise. Then, in the face of the pandemic, what did the government do? On the eve of another election, the Liberals said they will give a bit of support to seniors who are 75 and older, to entice them to vote Liberal. Maybe that is their message; I do not know. However, what about seniors who are under 75? Do they not deserve support as well? All seniors should be treated fairly and equitably and with respect and dignity. They all deserve support.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to enter into debate today on the budget. I would like to share my thoughts and what I am hearing from the people who I represent about how disappointed they are.

They are disappointed that this budget, two years late, has nothing in it to get our economy back and rolling again. It is immensely frustrating, coming from Saskatchewan, to see that, if we look at the sectors that have been ignored over the years by the Liberals, this has continued with this budget. It is frustrating because of what this budget would do for future generations, or what it unfortunately would not do.

It is a budget that unfortunately adds more debt. The Prime Minister will add more debt than all other prime ministers in the history of Canada combined, which is a shocking amount of money, and we are going to have to pay that back. It is generational theft that is occurring here.

Another great concern of mine is how the Liberals are paying for this debt or how they are accounting for it. It has been commented on that in our history regimes around the world have tried to print money to get out of the fiscal issues those countries were facing. Those regimes in other parts of the world all failed, and they failed miserably. They failed their society and their citizens because of what printing money ultimately does. When we print money, additional currency enters into the system, which means existing money is worth less, and that ultimately leads to inflation. We are already seeing this.

When I meet with seniors, they are mostly concerned about the cost of living. When I meet with young families, it is the cost of living they are concerned about. This is combined with professionals who are concerned there will be to be fewer opportunities for them or their children because of the decisions that are being made right now in Ottawa.

On that backdrop is the item I am most concerned with. Once we create this inflation by printing currency, and that is what the Liberals would be doing, the government will attempt to tap it down by measures, which are usually interest rate increases. That would have a cascading effect throughout our country. It would have a cascading effect on other levels of government. Consumers and citizens who are just holding on by the skin of their teeth right now are paying record low interest rates, which we know will rise because of inflationary pressures to combat those effects.

What we would have is an effect of layering on misery with citizens. That mortgage payment for families that are just scraping by right now would be increasing. For anyone who has personal debt, that would be increasing. What choices are those families going to be making because of this budget? I shudder to think what the country would look like.

Let us examine what will happen to other levels of government. The provinces are all running deficits throughout Canada, and some of them are near record deficits because there is a pandemic going on. There are all hands on deck, and we need that to get through this pandemic. Conservatives have been very clear that we support short-term emergency relief, but what we would be getting out of this budget is much more, unfortunately.

The provinces are fighting this pandemic with everything they have and any extra dollars they may have are going into health care. That is probably the most disrespectful and shocking part of this budget. Not one thin cent is going to health transfers to the provinces. We have the provinces on the front line paying for nurses, doctors and everything that goes along with providing health care, and there is not one additional dollar in health transfers from the federal government to the provinces, which are on the front line of this pandemic.

If we go a step further, we are hopefully rounding a corner, but we are severely lacking second doses in Canada. We are 50th out of 70 countries when we look at fully vaccinated people. It is a mammoth mistake that the government has done such a poor job of procuring vaccines for our citizens, worse than any other G7 country in the world.

Another unfortunate aspect of this pandemic is that a lot of health care has been delayed. We know that diagnoses of cancers have been delayed, and that one is quite scary for me. We all know that health outcomes, especially with cancer, improve with early diagnosis. If we push back diagnoses, what does it mean for patients and families?

Let us also consider the elective surgeries that have been pushed back. Other health concerns out there are not getting attention right now in our health care system because every additional dollar in capacity is going to fight this pandemic, and the feds are nowhere.

There is not $1 in health transfer increases this year. They all point out that they are paying for the vaccines and PPE. Of the contracts we are aware of that we have paid for as a country, we paid a premium for slow delivery. We can see the slow delivery in the world.

Now that we are into the playoffs, I hope we are all taking a bit of a breather from our schedules to watch a little hockey. If we turn on the highlights of the teams in the states, because their government procured enough vaccines, they have fans in the stands. This is compared to the stark reality of arenas in Canada that lay empty. The excitement is there, but there are no fans. That is all at the feet of the federal government failing to procure enough vaccines.

Even the aspects the federal government is responsible for, it has failed us. It failed us in getting enough vaccines. Of the contracts we are aware of, we paid a premium for late delivery. One has to ask why that is. Was it the three months wasted at the start of the pandemic when it was negotiating with the Chinese Communist government for vaccines? Why did we pay a premium? Were we late in the negotiations and other countries already had their orders in?

I have never heard a reason for us paying this premium. I am not against paying a premium for vaccines if we have them already. The delay of getting them into the country means the lockdowns and economic hurt is going to continue. That is most disappointing to the people of Saskatchewan.

The VIDO centre in Saskatoon did receive some funding. Members may remember that facility was the first in the world that isolated COVID-19. The leading scientists and doctors working on this vaccine are in Saskatoon, and they isolated COVID-19 first among all other countries in the world. It is a renowned centre. Within days, if not weeks, after isolating it, it had a prototype for a vaccine.

One of the most frustrating days as a member of Parliament was meeting with its representatives. They asked the federal government for additional dollars and they had to wait for the budget before getting the dollars. We are in the middle of an emergency—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. member. We are almost over time.

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Trois-Rivières has time for a short question.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Saskatoon—University for his speech.

As he pointed out, this budget increases inequality for all classes of voters. As he also mentioned, the government refused to meet the expectations and needs of the provinces and territories when it comes to health care transfers.

What does he think about the premiers' requests to increase health care transfers from 22% to 35%?

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

We have time for a very short answer from the hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, during a pandemic is not the time to keep baseline health transfers flat, and that is what has happened. It should tick off more Canadians that they have kept it flat for a number of years, but we are in the largest health crisis of our times, and they did not increase it. Yes, they should be increasing it this year and they did not.

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

It being 5:58 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from May 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

The hon. member for Saskatoon—University has three minutes and 45 seconds remaining for questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen's Privy Council.

[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, we have before us a very important piece of legislation. It is legislation that continues what the government started over 12 months ago, which is to be there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way during this pandemic and going forward.

I am wondering if my friend could just provide his thoughts on why it is so important that we continue to provide support to individuals, and businesses in particular, so we can be in a better position to even build back better.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member brings up the supports for business, and there is not a business owner who I have talked to in the last few months who is not concerned about the future. They are concerned about what the government is doing, or not doing, on a growth agenda to actually get the the economy growing again and get people back to work. That is what people are looking for, and that is what those people are most let down by in this budget. It does not have a road map to get Canada growing again.

It has been a disappointment to the people of Saskatoon—University and the individuals who are looking for hope. After two years of waiting for the budget, I would think there would be something in there to get the economy back on its feet, and there is nothing. That is a disappointment to me and to many of the other residents in Saskatoon—University. They are disappointed with the government.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the increase to old age security will apply only to seniors aged 75 and over and will not take effect until 2022, when a need is already being felt right now. I would like to know what he thinks about this harmful decision to create two classes of seniors.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, what the Liberals have done is insulting. They drew the line at 75 for no reason. The HUMA committee, which I serve on, talked to the Minister of Seniors, and she had no good answer for why that year was chosen as the cut-off for seniors, who have suffered so much during this pandemic. They are looking for their second doses, and they are just not getting them from the federal government.

Liberals do not realize how many seniors' lives have been changed because of the lack of doses in our country, especially the lack of second doses. I think of all the seniors who, for the last year and a half, have sacrificed their freedom and their ability to see friends and family. They are being let down by the government, which refuses to get those second doses into our country and into arms.

Seniors watching the hockey games may have seen some of the highlights in the States, and they have arenas full of people. Then when they watched the Habs and the Leafs last night, there was no one in the stands. It is a stark reminder to Canadians how much the government, with its lack of action on the procurement of vaccines, has let down seniors and individuals across the country.

We are months away from getting what the states have received so far in vaccines. What will get us through this will be getting the second doses into people's arms, but it is not happening fast enough under the Liberal government.

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, International Trade; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Ethics; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Human Rights.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I live in Mississauga and I proudly represent my constituents of Mississauga East—Cooksville. I know how hard they work to provide for their families; protect their health and provide a better education for their kids, which we know are the keys to a better future; and to take care of their aging parents and grandparents. In short, they work to build and to dream. That is what Mississauga East—Cooksville is all about, and in turn, that is what the Canadian dream is from coast to coast to coast.

That is why, when a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic such as COVID-19 shook the very foundations of our health care, and social and economic systems, our government stepped up and ensured that we would do everything we could to help protect Canadians. As the Prime Minister often says, we have Canadians' backs, meaning we will be there for Canadians every step of the way to support them and to help them weather this storm. The actions we have taken have helped Canadians stay safe and buffer the worst economic impacts.

This third wave has hit hard, with further public health restrictions and regional lockdowns leading to many Canadians facing unemployment or reduced hours this last couple of months. As we work to finish the fight against COVID-19, we will continue to support Canadians through programs such as the Canada recovery benefit, a more flexible EI program and the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which continue to be lifelines for so many Canadians.

That is why we announced through budget 2021 that we will be maintaining flexible access to EI benefits for another year until the fall of 2022, fulfilling our campaign promise to extend EI sickness benefits from 15 to 26 weeks, extending the Canada recovery benefit by an additional 12 weeks until September 25, and expanding the Canada workers benefit to support low-wage workers.

These are historic investments that address the most pressing issues exacerbated by COVID-19, which are to put people first, create jobs, grow the middle class, set businesses back on a track, and ensure a healthier, greener and more prosperous Canada.

I would like to commend the Minister of Finance because Bill C-30 brings us to the next stage. It is a recovery plan for jobs, growth and resilience, the Government of Canada’s plan to finish the fight against COVID-19 and ensure a robust economic recovery that brings all Canadians along. The COVID-19 recession is the steepest and fastest economic contraction since the Great Depression. It has disproportionately affected low-wage workers, young people, women, and racialized Canadians.

The pandemic has laid bare long-standing inequities in our economy. Budget 2021 is an inclusive plan that takes action to break down barriers to full economic participation for all Canadians. It would establish a $15 federal minimum wage.

For businesses, it has been a two-speed recession, with some finding ways to prosper and grow, but many businesses, especially small businesses, fighting to survive. Budget 2021 is a plan to bridge Canadians and Canadian businesses through the crisis and toward a robust recovery. It proposes to extend business and income support measures through to the fall and to make investments to create jobs and help businesses across the economy come roaring back. Budget 2021 is a plan that puts the government on track to meet its commitment to create one million jobs by the end of the year.

Budget 2021 is a historic investment to address the specific wounds of the COVID-19 recession by putting people first, creating jobs, growing the middle class, setting businesses on track for that long-term growth, and ensuring that Canada’s future will be healthier, more equitable, greener and more prosperous.

The Government of Canada’s top priority remains protecting Canadians’ health and safety, particularly during this third, aggressive wave of the virus and its variants. Vaccine rollout is under way across Canada, with federal government support in every province and territory.

In my riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville, over 60% of adults have received their first vaccine, and this past weekend we began to inoculate kids 12 and over. I accompanied my 15-year-old twin boys, Alexander and Sebastien, to get their first shot through Trillium Health Partners Mississauga Hospital mass vaccination site this weekend.

I want to thank all the frontline staff, volunteers and emergency services for making the experience a friendly, efficient safe and secure one. We could see how proud, joyful, hopeful and, I have to say, patriotic people felt, that they were doing their part to safeguard themselves, their family members, their community and their country by getting vaccinated and helping shield us from this horrible virus. People are starting to be cautiously hopeful as vaccines roll out and we approach herd immunity. Canadians can dream once again of something approaching normality.

During last week's constituency week, I had the opportunity to meet with Mississauga and Peel Region's leadership team of elected officials, management and stakeholders to discuss long-term care and the continuum of care with a focus on our seniors and vulnerable populations. The COVID-19 pandemic has strained our long-term care facilities across the country and in my community of Mississauga East—Cooksville like never before. I want to thank the Minister of Finance for the well-deserved measures to strengthen long-term care and supportive care.

Many seniors have faced economic challenges as they take on extra costs to stay safe and protect their health. This 2021 budget proposes to provide $90 million to Employment and Social Development Canada, a government department responsible for social programs, to launch the age well at home initiative. This initiative would assist community-based organizations to provide practical support that helps low-income and otherwise vulnerable seniors to age in place, such as matching seniors with volunteers who can help them with meal preparation, home maintenance, daily errands, yardwork and transportation. This initiative would also target regional and national projects to help expand services that have already demonstrated results helping seniors stay in their homes. Funding would be provided over a three-year period starting in 2021-22. I am pleased to say that many non-profits and charitable organizations working with seniors across the country stand to benefit from this measure.

In addition, the 2021 budget proposes to build on work conducted by the Health Standards Organization and Canadian Standards Association in launching a process to develop national standards focused on improving the quality of life of seniors in long-term care homes. This budget would provide $3 billion over five years to Health Canada to support provinces and territories, ensuring standards for long-term care are applied and permanent changes are made; and, $41.3 million over six years and $7.7 million ongoing, starting in 2021-22, for Statistics Canada to improve data infrastructure and data collection on supportive care, primary care and pharmaceuticals.

We made a campaign commitment promising to increase old age security, OAS, benefits for seniors aged 75 and older. Many seniors are living longer and they are relying on monthly benefits to afford retirement. These funds would be delivered in two steps. The 2021 budget would support seniors by providing a one-time payment this August of $500 and increase regular OAS payments for pensioners 75 and over by 10% on an ongoing basis as of July next year. This would increase the benefits for approximately 3.3 million seniors, providing additional benefits of $766 for full pensioners in the first year and indexed to inflation going forward. This would give seniors more financial security later in life, particularly at the time when they face increased care expenses. In total, the two measures represent $12 billion over five years for our seniors in additional financial support, beginning in 2021-22; and at least $3 billion per year ongoing, to be delivered by Employment and Social Development Canada.

Budget 2021 invests in Canada's biomanufacturing and life sciences sector to rebuild domestic vaccine manufacturing capacity. It has a plan to put in place national standards for long-term care and mental health services.

Budget 2021 makes a generational investment to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. This is a plan to drive economic growth, increase women's participation in the workforce and offer each child in Canada the best start in life. Budget 2021 would invest almost $30 billion over the next five years and provide permanent ongoing funding, working with provincial and territorial and indigenous partners to support quality not-for-profit child care, ensuring the needs of early childhood educators are at the heart of the system. The goal is to reach $10 per day on average by—

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

The hon. member will have the opportunity to pursue through questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the member for his passion and I invite him to use the first 10 seconds of his response to finish his speech.

Then I would like to ask him about a very serious concern that my constituents are raising with me over and over again, and that is inflation. The cost of groceries is going up. The cost of lumber is going up. The cost of housing is now out of reach for many millions and millions of Canadians. What in the budget will address this significant economic issue that my constituents keep bringing up maybe because I do not see anything?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I cannot thank the hon. member enough for allowing me to conclude. What I want to say to every member in the House of Commons is that this is about helping protect Canadians' health, supporting our workers and businesses and giving assistance to those who have been hardest hit by this pandemic. Supporting this budget and Bill C-30 is what will really help Canada build back better.

As the member heard, it is very comprehensive. It is about taking care of our most vulnerable, assisting our businesses so they can bridge this pandemic and this difficult time. It is about helping our students and our seniors. This is the time to invest in Canadians. We know Canadians work hard and we are going to continue to invest in Canadians so that we will create those million jobs and build back better.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He talked about a number of things, including help for seniors. At the moment, groups that support seniors are unanimous on this issue, as are members of Parliament. It was in the news again today.

How can he justify his party's choice to leave a whole group of seniors out in the cold? These seniors are sounding the alarm. They say they need help too. Caregivers under 75 have needs too.

How can he justify his party standing alone on an issue as crucial as helping all seniors starting at age 65?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the opportunity to thank our seniors. Our seniors have built our country, so through their hard work, through their sweat and tears they have built this magnificent country we have here in Canada.

That is why, since we formed government in 2015, we have worked with seniors and supported seniors. We increased the GIS at that time. We have brought more supports to the community for seniors. I am proud of the commitment we made to increasing the OAS for seniors aged 75 and over, when expenses do get higher as people get older be it for medications and other needs; that is the right direction. Our government will always have the backs of our seniors.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have known the hon. member for a number of years now as he was my seatmate prior to the pandemic. As a result of that, I know that during his time as a member of provincial parliament in Ontario and certainly since 2015 in federal politics, he has been a champion for seniors' issues.

We heard him speak passionately about provisions in the budget that will assist seniors, but I wonder if he could expand on that specifically on the issue of long-term care and what it means to his constituents in Mississauga.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member and great friend for giving me the opportunity to speak to something that I am very passionate about.

When it comes to long-term care, we saw through this pandemic the tragedy in our long-term care homes, particularly here in Mississauga, but also in London and right across our province and across our country. We saw seniors not treated to the standards to which we believe Canadians should be treated, to have the dignity and respect. We have come forward with $3 billion to be able to assist and work with our partners, the provinces and the municipalities to be able to provide the level of care that we deem should be a standard and is vitally important. All Canadians feel the same way. It broke our hearts to see how seniors were treated in long-term care homes.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-30, the Liberal government's budget implementation bill.

It took almost two years for the Liberals to get around to presenting a budget, the longest period in Canadian history without a budget. For decades there had never been a gap of more than two years between budgets, until the current Liberal government. Despite COVID-19, all other G7 countries produced budgets last year, so too did our provinces and territories, yet for two years, Canadians expecting the Liberal government to lay out its priorities in an open and transparent fashion were left waiting.

The fact we are here today debating this bill is positive, but presenting a budget is one of the bare minimums expected of any government. Now that we have this budget, it has been something of a letdown. One would think that after two years with time to prepare the Liberals would knock it out of the park, but that is not what happened.

As I listened to debate on this bill and reviewed the contents in my role on the Standing Committee on Finance, I have been struck more by what is absent from the budget than what is included. I noticed the Liberals are doing the bare minimum of what is expected of them and then expecting accolades in return.

As Canadians continue to face challenges as a result of COVID-19 and the restrictions imposed upon governments in response to COVID-19, Conservatives have been clear that those struggling need support. When the government forces someone to close down their business or prevents customers from shopping at their store, the government has a duty to support them through that situation. When the government forces people to stay home and prevents them from earning an income, the government has a duty to support them through that situation. Everyone in this House gets that and I think they all support it.

Measures to that effect included in Bill C-30 are important, but they are the bare minimum the government can do for Canadians during this time. A serious budget would do something more. It would include a road map to help Canadians move beyond this endless cycle of restrictions and lockdowns. It would include a data-driven plan to safely reopen the economy.

As we have heard time and time again from witnesses at the finance committee, a plan would help many small businesses, many hard-hit industries, looking for some certainty to help them plan for the future. Workers employed in sectors like tourism and hospitality, the aviation industry or our border communities depend on cross-border travel. They deserve to know when their lives will return to normal.

As Canadian families struggle to recover from a tough year, budget 2021 offers little encouragement. Instead, the Liberals are asking Canadians to accept the bare minimum. Besides a safe plan for reopening, this budget was a missed opportunity to address the need to support Canada's economic recovery and growth. After living with COVID-19 in Canada for more than a year, how can the government still be spinning its tires?

Upon reviewing this budget, many economists have lamented the troubling reality that this budget is more about short-term benefit than positioning our economy for long-term success. I know the Liberals like to look good, but I would argue that doing good, not just looking good, is what Canadians want and expect from their government.

For example, former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney said, “What we're seeing in some other jurisdictions is that the focus is more squarely on the growth.” Another former Bank of Canada governor, David Dodge, noted “a lack of growth-focused initiatives in the budget.”

Robert Asselin, a former top economic adviser to the Liberal government described the new spending as “unfocused and unimaginative.” He also wrote, “it was clear for some time that the government’s decision to spend more than $100 billion in so-called short-term stimulus was a political solution in search of an economic problem.”

Former clerk of the Privy Council, Kevin Lynch, said the budget “misses an urgent opportunity to rebuild our longer-term growth post-pandemic.” He also said, “Despite the extraordinary emphasis on stimulus, there is little focus and few measures to rebuild Canada's longer-term growth.”

These comments, taken together, point to a real problem. If one's house is on fire, one wants and expects the fire department to come to one's aid. When it is the only house on fire, the resources are best directed toward that home. However, if the fire department showed up and sprayed a little water on that home then moved on to spray some water on the neighbour's place then turned around and sprayed the houses across the street, one would seriously question their approach.

It matters where the flow of water is directed, yet this seems to be the approach taken with this budget. There is no focus, no intentionality in terms of directing resources where they are actually required so Canada can move beyond the economic harms inflicted throughout COVID and thrive once again. Without doing the hard work of determining where federal tax dollars can be most impactful, the Liberals are asking Canadians to accept their bare minimum effort.

As Canada continues to grapple with COVID-19, one of the most important tasks of the government was to provide increased sustainable funding to the provinces for the provision of health care. This request was made by the provinces and supported by organizations like the Canadian Medical Association.

The CMA stated:

As provinces and territories continue to struggle with the ever-increasing cost of providing care, the federal government must follow through on its own promise to work with premiers on revisiting the Canada Health Transfer. Without this collaboration, our healthcare system, which has been put through the ultimate stress test, will struggle to recover.

Perhaps now more than ever Canadians recognize the importance of ensuring our health care system is sustainable. Unfortunately the Liberal budget does not. It touches on mental health and long-term care, but does not take the biggest and strongest step in the right direction by responding to the requests made by the province. Again, it does the bare minimum.

Another big concern is that the Liberals continue an avoidance of implementing a meaningful fiscal anchor to guide levels of public spending. In their budget document, there is only one reference, which states:

The government is committed to unwinding COVID-related deficits and reducing the federal debt as a share of the economy over the medium-term.

This is extremely vague. This is not a fiscal anchor; it is aspirational. At best, it is a wish list. There is not a hard stop to be found in the budget and no specific benchmarks that have been clearly established as fiscal anchors. At best, we could call them perhaps a guardrail.

Economist Jack Mintz wrote:

This is a pretty weak fiscal anchor. It perpetuates deficit financing forever. It is also easily violated every time the economy slips into a recession, such as our recent one. As debt ratchets up as a share of the economy, the rule permits bigger and bigger federal deficits over time.

I like the definition of a fiscal anchor offered by the Business Council of Canada. It notes, “notional ceilings or caps to the levels of public spending, deficits, and debt that governments are prepared to reach in their fiscal policy.” Its definition identifies the purpose of a fiscal anchor as well as:

1 Retaining the confidence of lenders and global markets...

2 Establishing a positive investment climate for businesses;

3 Providing a measure of fiscal discipline inside government...and

4 Ensuring that the government has the ability to respond to future economic shocks and unforeseen crises.

These are the types of fiscal anchors the Liberals should have been striving for, yet, once again, they are offering Canadians the bare minimum in an attempt to be transparent and accountable but without actually committing to a real metric.

To try and showcase the budget as something more than a bare minimum budget, the Liberals announced big plans for child care. The government could have taken the time to better understand the unique needs of parents and families, but instead of doing the hard work, it is pushing a one-size-fits-all Ottawa-knows-best approach to child care in Canada.

The Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario has highlighted the consequences of this proposal: uncertainty for families, limited access, job losses at existing day cares and the closure of many women-owned small businesses.

Andrea Hannen told the finance committee, “We shouldn't have systems that require families to mold themselves to the system. The system should evolve to allow families to be in the driver's seat.”

The committee also heard from Andrea Mrozek, a mother and child care researcher. When I asked her about the Liberal child care plan, she said, “It's not an equitable way...of helping families who address their child care need in many diverse ways.”

By pursuing a plan that perhaps is good for press for the Liberal government, it leaves many Canadians behind. The Liberals yet again having shown that this budget is only about doing the bare minimum. Canadian families need more than the bare minimum. They need a budget that helps those struggling through COVID-19 today and sets them up to succeed tomorrow. They need a budget that does not just spend for the sake of spending, but rather makes targeted investments that will generate tangible results for all Canadians. They need a budget that sets real goals for ensuring Canada's long-term fiscal sustainability, a budget that supports families in making best choices for themselves. Sadly, this bare minimum budget does not cut it.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to know what he thinks of the idea of creating a Canadian securities regulator that would be based in Toronto, as proposed in the bill, especially given that Quebec has had its own securities regulator, the Autorité des marchés financiers, for a long time, and it is working extremely well.

Does my colleague believe that the existing entities should be respected and maintained and that the federal government, which as usual thinks it has all the answers, should not be allowed to encroach yet again?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately I do not have an answer for that specific question, but putting in the proper regulations and oversight for the things he mentioned is a good idea, and they could be done.

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

Madam Speaker, I first want to acknowledge what is a statement of fact: We know that Canadian women have suffered greatly during this pandemic, and part of that reason is because of a lack of access to child care.

I was very concerned to hear the member decry the historic commitment to child care, which is something that we in the NDP have been pushing for, as have many Canadian women.

How can women get back into the workforce and do the work they need to do to regain their standing without child care?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski's question is a good one and a valid one.

We heard from many witnesses at committee. They talked about the $10 day care and early learning education program that has been presented in the budget. The overwhelming response from those folks was that this program would not be accessible to all women across Canada.

There are many types of day care and child care set ups that women and parents right across Canada are employing through the use of friends, neighbours and licenced day cares. A $10-a-day government-knows-best subsidized day care system will not provide parents the choice they require, including women in the workplace.

[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, a headline in the Winnipeg Free Press today reads, “Manitoba is less than two weeks away from vaccinating 70 per cent of its eligible population against the novel coronavirus in a final push to bend the COVID-19 curve of Canada's hot spot.”

From day one, the Government of Canada has been there in very tangible ways, through the creation of the CERB program, with over nine million Canadians having direct increases to disposal income; and numerous government supports for small businesses. Now we see some light at the end of the tunnel. Also, Manitobans saw the flash of the Winnipeg Jets sweeping the series 4-0 against Edmonton, which made a lot of us feel good.

I wonder if my colleague from Manitoba could provide his thoughts on some better things we could be conveying to Manitobans.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the member for Winnipeg North on his recognition of our Winnipeg Jets having ousted the Oilers in four straight games, led by Mark Scheifele and Blake Wheeler. Of course, we are looking forward to continued success. We are looking forward to a Canadian team from the centre of Canada, which is in my riding, holding the Stanley Cup.

What should we be telling Canadians? When COVID-19 hit, the government needed to act quickly, and it did. As Conservatives, we supported what the government did. In fact, when it came to the Canada employment wage subsidy, initially the government rolled out a 10% wage employment subsidy to employers that were experiencing a decline in sales. We, as Conservatives, proposed to increase that to 75% so the folks who were hurting could really benefit.

We joined together with the other parties in the House to come to the aid of the folks who wanted it. Unfortunately, this budget falls way short of providing additional support.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was thinking today about how I should approach the budget implementation bill.

I have a particular fondness for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. I like it when he says we are trying to pick a fight. I was wondering how to interpret that, and I was reminded of a name my father used to call me when I was a teenager.

My father was the king of neologisms. He was a guy who could invent concepts and words. When I was young, he would tell me that I was “contrarious”. I do not know if that came from the word “contrary” or “contrarian”, but he told me that “contrarious” means someone who scratches their backside when their head is itchy. That is just his turn of phrase. I do not mean to be offensive. That, according to my father, is what it means to be “contrarious”. I think that someone who is “contrarious” is someone who goes against what makes sense. It is true that in my teenage years, I frequently did things that did not make sense and defied my father out of stubbornness.

Now when I hear this government telling us that we are trying to pick a fight, I often think that they are using the same contrarian rhetoric. I am not saying that the government has an itchy head and is scratching the wrong spot. That is not what I am saying. I am simply saying that perhaps some of the government's actions are counterproductive.

In my view, there are four aspects of Bill C-30 that clearly demonstrate that the government's actions are counterproductive.

The first aspect is old age security. My office has never received as many complaints as it has about the government's proposal to give $500 to people aged 75 and over.

While my father used to use the analogy that our heads are itchy but we are scratching our backsides, I would say that seniors are fired up, and that is the truth. I have never received so many complaints, both online and by email. This is unfair. It creates two classes of seniors. We have made our position clear, but we did not even need to, since that is how it looks on the ground.

The seniors receiving the payment are unhappy. Seniors aged 75 and over who have a spouse under 75 who will not be receiving it are unhappy, and they are vocal about it. Some of the emails I received even got quite abusive, blaming me as if it had been my decision. I am getting this type of criticism. It is understandable in the context of the pandemic that there are tensions and people who are unhappy. As we know, seniors were the ones who were overlooked during the pandemic.

The Bloc Québécois made a proposal, masterfully presented by the member for Shefford, that I think was rational and reasonable. Why not increase old age security by $110 a month and increase the guaranteed income supplement by $70 for a couple and $50 for a single person? To me, this is a desirable and reasonable position.

I said earlier that the government is acting unreasonably. In my opinion, it is not picking a fight to say that. I am saying that, having listened to the people on the ground, the seniors in my riding, I believe that a desirable and reasonable position would be to increase old age security by $110 and the guaranteed income supplement by $50 or by $70 for a couple.

Health transfers are another aspect of Bill C-30 that I find unreasonable. To me, this perfectly encapsulates what is not working in federalism. I clearly remember two instances of what we call Canadian-style neo-liberalism that took place in the Canadian federation after the 1995 referendum, in 1996-97 and 1997-98. The government cut transfer payments by $2 billion each fiscal year. It totally dismantled Quebec's health system.

There was a report, the Séguin report, which was issued not by a sovereignist, but by a federalist. This report demonstrated what we call the fiscal imbalance. No one ever came out and said that it was conjured up and contrived by the interests of people who had a different political opinion from the sovereignists. No one ever came out and said that, but I think it is a proven fact.

Then there was a slightly better agreement on health transfers with the Conservatives, thanks to a bit of a push from our party, it must be said.

Then, under the Harper government, we were back to meagre health care funding. Year after year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that if nothing changed with respect to health transfers, provincial deficits would grow while the federal government ended up swimming in surpluses. That is according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, not me. It is in the 2013 report.

What is in Bill C-30? Certainly not the 35% the provinces want. The government is signalling that transfers will come with strings attached. That is what we saw for senior care. That seems to be the government's intention. I think this indicates something unreasonable that nobody wants to see.

Another fairly important aspect of Bill C-30 that made me raise my eyebrows when I read it is the extension of various programs, such as the wage subsidy. My thought was that, if the government were interested in fixing a mistake, it could simply change the wage subsidy to make it off-limits to political parties, but there is nothing about that in Bill C-30.

It is no secret that we will likely be in campaign mode soon. Some political parties will be campaigning using money from the wage subsidy. We are still waiting for our Conservative friends to pay back this money. They at least admitted that it may not have been ethical and may not have been the right thing to do. The Liberal Party and our colleagues in the NDP, however, seem quite comfortable with their decision to claim the wage subsidy.

The government could propose a worthwhile amendment to fix that. At the very least, an amendment would send the message that members of the House of Commons do not create programs that benefit them personally. That is all I will say.

The infamous green recovery is another thing that I think is unreasonable and counterproductive. I will never understand what the government is trying to do with this green recovery. There is virtually no mention of it in Bill C-30.

The only information have we gotten about the green recovery so far is an announcement about the electrification of transportation.

Allow me to back up a little. I am sure this figure is shocking, but the government is talking about a $17.6-billion investment in the green recovery.

Do members know how much the Trans Mountain pipeline cost? It cost $17.1 billion, and that was just one project. Overall, the pipeline costs as much as the green recovery.

That is an image that really hits home, for anyone who is serious about the environment. When it comes to the green recovery, what we have been hearing about is the electrification of transportation. That bothers me a bit because Ontario is going to make off with most of the money associated with that, yet it is the only province that is no longer offering a rebate for purchasing an electric vehicle. That is ironic, but let us leave that aside.

The other thing that really bothers me is that the government announced its intention to get into hydrogen production. There are three types of hydrogen. In committee, the government told us that it would prefer to develop the hydrogen market without making a distinction. Anyone who is familiar with the energy sector would tell us that the worst idea out there right now is grey hydrogen. There is no way that making hydrogen out of oil and gas is environmentally friendly. It is anything but.

Lastly, I want to talk about the forestry industry. There is nothing in Bill C-30 about the much-talked-about $55 million that was announced for the investments in forest industry transformation program, or IFIT. Why is it not in there? I do not know. Fifty-five million dollars is nothing. It is peanuts compared to the support that was announced for the oil and gas industry. There is nothing about that in Bill C-30.

I do not have much time left, but, in closing, I want to tell my friend, the leader of the government, that I am not trying to pick a fight, but when my head is itchy, I scratch it, and when my backside is itchy, I scratch that. It is important to be consistent.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Jonquière for his speech.

In his speech, he highlighted the Bloc Québécois's work on two very important files, seniors and health transfers. He also spoke about the green recovery. We both want to represent the interests of Quebec.

I think that support for the forestry industry is another area that he is very invested in.

I would like him to tell us more about how this sector could be part of the green recovery.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, what a fantastic opportunity. My party commissioned a study on maximizing the potential of the forestry industry in Quebec. We are talking about 16,000 jobs over a 10-year period.

The forestry industry is probably the sector that is best positioned to fight climate change and rising greenhouse gases. As everyone knows, the forest is a carbon sink. Unfortunately, the federal government hardly ever funds the forestry industry.

In Quebec alone, this sector represents $20 billion in economic spinoffs per year, yet the federal government only supports this sector to the tune of 0.03%. That is tragic compared to the oil and gas industry.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wonderful speech.

Given the dramatic increase in debt, is the member not concerned that the Liberal government will cut transfers to the provinces, as happened in the 1990s under the Chrétien government?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is quite right to be concerned.

When we return to the House after the next election campaign, we will probably come back to the idea of a balanced budget. That is what usually happens.

I do not want to displease my colleague, but governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, sadly have this unfortunate habit of balancing their budgets on the backs of the provinces.

That is when transfer payments get cut. That is what happened in the 1990s, but the Harper government did the same thing from 2013 onwards when it cut transfer payments. We have to expect this and be very vigilant 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, one thing we committed to in the last federal election was to increase OAS by 10% for seniors over 75. That commitment was made during the election, and in this budget we see a fulfillment of it.

Would the member not agree that in supporting our seniors, the government's response in fulfilling the commitment to seniors over 75 is a positive thing, especially when we factor in the other increases and one-time payments that we have given to all seniors aged 65 and over?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I challenge the parliamentary secretary to say that to the seniors in my riding who saw the $500 for those 75 and up as a direct affront and a vote-grabbing ploy.

If he is interested and would like an answer, I can forward the emails and Facebook messages I received. I am certain that my colleagues would be very pleased to do the same. He would have enough reading material for probably the next two or three weeks.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is a special place for Quebec in this budget, but there are not necessarily the same ramifications for Alberta. I am wondering if the member thinks that all provinces should be treated equally.

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

The member for Jonquière has just enough time for a brief answer.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague said there is a special place for Quebec, but not Alberta.

If you look at the federal funding for the oil and gas industry and the funding for the forestry industry—

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

I am going to have to encourage the hon. members to have a discussion somewhere else.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to rise today from the territory of the Snuneymuxw First Nation, and to serve the communities of Nanaimo—Ladysmith in the territories of the Snaw-naw-as, Stz'uminus and Lyackson First Nations.

The budget is over 700 pages long and the budget implementation act is over 300 pages long, so there is a lot of ground to cover in a short speech. I have picked some of the key positive and negative aspects to highlight.

A national child care system is a program the Green Party has been calling for for decades. This program is needed more urgently than ever, as we begin to address the heavy impact the pandemic has had on working mothers. The Province of Quebec has been providing low-cost child care for the past two decades, and researchers have studied what has been successful there and what has not. I am encouraged to see the government supporting the not-for-profit model. We must not allow the quality of child care or the quality of—

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

I am sorry to cut the member off, but we have issues with sound and interpretation.

It is now working. Please proceed.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, the budget makes some positive steps toward addressing the affordable housing and homelessness crisis in Canada. Unfortunately, it is not enough to make up for decades of neglect by the federal government. Housing is a human right, recognized in international law and affirmed in the national housing strategy. Much more needs to be done to ensure that right is respected. Weak regulations have allowed our housing market to be used by the global ultrawealthy for tax evasion and money laundering. These activities have driven up the cost of housing to unsustainable levels and it continues to climb. Where does this end?

We should be looking at regulations to protect Canada's residential real estate market. Many countries have regulations that restrict foreign buyers. I have heard both Conservatives and Liberals talk about how much they love foreign direct investment. When people earning median incomes can no longer afford to own or rent a home without spending 50% or more of their income, is foreign direct investment in housing benefiting Canadians? Housing prices in Canada have gone up an average of 30% in the past year. We have barely begun to see the fallout of that.

The investment in Canada's nature legacy is a very welcome addition, especially the funding directed to indigenous protected and conserved areas, or IPCAs. Reconnecting indigenous people back to their traditional lands is key to reconciliation. A sixth mass extinction is happening right now. Species are disappearing at a rapid rate, and we are losing important and endangered ecosystems around the planet. The endangered big tree old-growth ecosystems on Vancouver Island are a perfect example of where the funding from Canada’s nature legacy should be spent. Indigenous protected and conserved areas would put land under the control and authority of local first nations. This ensures long-term economic development built on harvesting second-growth forests and creating value-added forest products, while preserving old growth for eco-tourism and traditional practices.

Low-income seniors in my riding have been asking for additional pandemic relief and for a permanent increase in the old age security. The budget promises that old age security will increase in 2022, a year from now, but only for seniors over the age of 75. This is creating two classes of seniors: those 75 and up and those under 75. This is going to force more seniors to continue working in jobs that young people could be filling.

It is positive that the government is moving toward national standards for long-term care, but bolder action needs to be taken. The pandemic has exposed glaring deficiencies in some provinces that allowed for the warehousing of seniors in for-profit homes. Serious action should be taken against private for-profit long-term care homes that used pandemic relief funding to give executives and shareholders a bonus instead of fixing deficiencies.

The government has made a good start with additional support for students during the pandemic, with interest relief and an increase in student grants, but it is time to take bold action to bring Canada fully into the knowledge-based economy. It is time to follow the lead of northern European countries and make post-secondary education in this country tuition-free.

The Green Party has long been calling for improvements to our health care system, with an increase of health transfers and a system that recognizes provincial demographic differences. There is an incremental move toward universal pharmacare, but we need bolder steps to ensure Canadians have access to the medicine they need. We have been calling for universal pharmacare, universal dental care, universal mental health services, wellness care and a patient-centred focus on health and well-being to keep people out of the sickness care system, because we know that all of these things will save money in the long run and keep Canadians healthier.

Small businesses are going to have a more difficult recovery than large multinational companies that have been able to ride out the storm with big box stores and online sales. Small and medium-sized enterprises are the lifeblood of the economy. They hire the vast majority of private sector workers. Special consideration needs to be given to ensure that the hundreds of thousands of small and medium-sized businesses across this country are able to recover. The wage subsidy ends in September. Many businesses in my riding need help well beyond September.

This is Tourism Week. The budget commitments to the tourism industry are not enough. Tourism's contribution to the economy is underestimated. Tourism employs more people than oil and gas in Canada, and $500 million is not adequate to meet the needs of tourism operators across the country, especially for those who will not be in full operation again until at least 2022.

I hear from constituents like Shelley and Dave, who own and operate CruisePlus, a company that books tours in Canada and around the world. When the pandemic hit, they and their team worked hard to get Canadians home and cancel bookings. They have struggled to stay afloat during the pandemic. They have lost well-trained, loyal employees and are concerned about the end of the wage subsidy. They will lose support before they are expecting to be able to restart their business in a serious way.

The plan to lower the Canada recovery benefit from the current $500 a week to $300 a week by July needs to be re-examined. Workers are still struggling and may not be able to find enough work to compensate for that reduction.

The pandemic has demonstrated the need to improve our social safety net with a guaranteed livable income. We are going to see additional shocks to our economy with automation, artificial intelligence and climate change. A guaranteed livable income can help ensure that no one falls through the cracks as we navigate these new realities.

How will we pay for all these things? During the peak of the pandemic, more than 5.5 million Canadian workers lost their jobs or were working half of their normal hours. More than half of Canadians are within $200 of not being able to cover their monthly bills. At the same time, Canada's 48 richest billionaires increased their wealth by $78 billion and now have almost a quarter of a trillion dollars among them. We now know that some large corporations used taxpayer-funded relief programs to pay their shareholders and executives huge bonuses. That is disgusting.

Canada needs an increase in the progressive tax rate at the higher income brackets. We also need a wealth tax and an inheritance tax for the ultrawealthy. It is time to close tax loopholes that allow them to offshore their wealth and avoid paying taxes. It is time to tax the Internet giants that extract billions from our economy. Big banks and credit card companies have been raking in profits through increased user fees and interest rates they charge to consumers and businesses, and payday lenders are trapping low-income people into predatory loans with terms designed to keep them in endless cycles of debt. This is unacceptable. How have we let income inequality reach this point? All of these things could have been dealt with in this budget.

Over and over again during this debate, I have heard the Conservatives call on the government to spend less. They caution about deficits and increasing debt. I agree with them in at least one area: We need to end all taxpayer handouts to the fossil fuel industry. Real climate action requires that we cut all funding to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project, cut all subsidies to fracking companies and put them on notice that their climate-destroying practice will be banned within the year, and make the costs of industrial cleanup a non-dischargeable debt so we can stop subsidizing the cleanup of abandoned wells. The fossil fuel industry is a sunset industry. It is time to stop propping it up and invest those billions in a just transition to a renewable energy economy.

While there are a number of things that are positive in this budget, it falls short of dealing with the challenges of our time. We are in a climate emergency and we have growing inequality. Canada can and must do better for people and the planet. I will continue to work toward that goal.

[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, within the budget there is a historic commitment for the development of a national child care program. Whether it is coming from the Prime Minister, the ministers or just different caucuses, the push in recognizing the true value of expanding child care in Canada will assist the economy and assist many others who would have been disengaged or maybe not had the same opportunity to get engaged into our economy. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to the true value of extending child care for more people.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, having a universal child care program is well beyond its time. The Liberals have been promising this since their “Red Book” in 1993. I hope that we pull through with this and actually make it happen, because I have heard from constituents that they want this, and Canadians across Canada have been asking for a universal child care program for a long time. We have seen it work in Quebec. We know we can make it work in the rest of the provinces by working with them on this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, the private sector has a very important part in bringing us out of this pandemic. It will create jobs and economic opportunities, and corporations will even pay dividends, many to seniors to help them go forward.

However, the member does not seem to think that the private sector has any role. Does the member believe there is any value in the private sector, as I do?

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, it would seem that the hon. member has missed a good piece of my speech where I talked about small and medium-sized businesses across this country employing a vast number of Canadians and how important that is to our economy.

Small and medium-sized businesses are very important to my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. That is why I was asking for extensions to the wage subsidy, to make sure that we protect our small and medium-sized enterprises. During this pandemic, the big box stores and the multinationals have been able to weather the storm by keeping their big box stores open and by doing online sales.

We need to protect our small and medium-sized businesses. I am absolutely onside with that.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He raised several very pertinent elements: support for housing; forestry, an area in which we could have invested; seniors who are being left behind; and the knowledge economy. That is all great. He also rightly pointed out that the wage subsidy was sometimes improperly used to pay bonuses. If that is true, I completely agree with him that the situation needs to be rectified.

I would like his comments on that. In my opinion, the use of the wage subsidy by political parties in the House is a misappropriation of funds. Should these political parties repay this money, which belongs to taxpayers?

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, the wage subsidy was put in place to ensure that employers were able to keep staff on. Companies and political parties need to be able to justify taking the wage subsidy. We have seen it being abused by large corporations, and that is a problem.

At the very beginning of the pandemic, we said that we should have specific rules to ensure that there was no pandemic profiteering and misuse of public funds during this pandemic. Those warnings were not heeded. We have seen the misuse of funds, and that is a serious problem.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, this week we had the International Energy Agency coming out and saying that we do not need any new oil developments. We have had the Canada Energy Regulator saying that we do not need Keystone XL and that we do not need the Trans Mountain pipeline. Could the hon. member comment on the fact that we are still subsidizing oil companies to the tune of $18 billion and only investing $15 billion into climate action?

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, we absolutely need to end subsidies for the oil and gas industry, and that includes provincial subsidies for the fracking industry, which has had $6 billion for LNG Canada to export fracked gas from this country. That is going to be a stranded asset. It is going to be wasted taxpayer dollars, the same way that Trans Mountain—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin my speech by addressing some of the things that we heard from the Green Party member just before this. He was talking about stranded assets. The eastern part of Canada could be significantly stranded if Line 5 gets shut down, and that is the reality.

He was talking about oil and gas being a sunset industry. That may be true, but that sunset is not likely to happen until several hundred years from now. We are still seeing an increase in demand for oil production around the world. Even if one believes all the projections, that increase in demand, not a reduction in demand, will continue for the next 30 years at a minimum.

What better place to get those hydrocarbons from than Canada? We have some of the most ethically produced oil on the face of the planet, with some of the lowest-carbon-intensity oil, right here in Canada. Never mind the fact that we are importing hydrocarbons from around the world to continue to supply Canada. That alone seems to be ridiculous, in my opinion. We are an energy-rich country. We have endless amounts of natural resources in this country, yet we rely on other countries to supply our energy.

In the case of Line 5, we are relying on another country to keep the licensing going for that particular pipeline. As far as I know, right now that pipeline is operating illegally. The most recent Line 5 news is that the easement through the State of Michigan has been revoked, but the pipeline continues to operate. We are hanging in limbo as we go forward.

I am speaking to Bill C-30, which is the budget implementation act. It has been fascinating to listen to all of the discussion around this particular budget. We hear repeatedly from folks about the subsidization of the oil and gas industry. I was just discussing with one of the Bloc members how the government subsidizes oil and gas, but does not subsidize the forestry industry. I have not seen any direct subsidies to the oil and gas industry, with the exception of buying a pipeline.

The Trans Mountain pipeline was being built by private industry. Due to the actions of the government, the pipeline was no longer to be built. The government subsequently bought that project. If that is what the Bloc member meant by subsidizing oil and gas, I get it. I do not think we need to be publicly funding pipelines either. Pipelines have been built successfully in this country for generations by private industry, and I would assume that would continue.

The Bloc member was commenting about the forestry industry in Quebec. In Northern Alberta, the forestry industry is a big contributor to jobs and the economy. Oil and gas are a shiny spot in our economy, but Alberta's economy is diversified. Where I come from, we do the three Fs: forestry, farming and fracking. Those are the big job creators in my area, and they are basically what support all of the population in the area. I am always interested in the challenges we see.

One aspect of this budget implementation act is the removal of interest on the apprenticeship loans that have been given out. I think that is a noble cause. I am the product of one of the apprenticeship programs in Alberta. I was one of the first to go through the rapid apprenticeship program when it was introduced back in 2003. I got my automotive ticket from Northern Alberta Institute of Technology.

The apprenticeship programs we have developed in Alberta are world-renowned and recognized. There is also the good work of NAIT, the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. I went through there in classes full of apprentices.

Many of my friends have been apprentices. I got my journeyman's ticket back in 2007, so I know about the life of an apprentice. The beauty of apprenticeship programs is that people typically get to work while they are getting their training. Believe me, all of the apprentices I know are tradesmen. They are proud of what they do. They work with their hands. They would all very much appreciate having jobs right now, rather than having the interest on their loans waived. While I appreciate that in this particular bill, I do not see a lot in this bill that will get these people back to work.

I call Line 5 the magic pipeline because it has changed the Liberal rhetoric on pipelines dramatically. The Liberals are now starting to sound like Conservatives: Pipelines are the safest way to move petroleum products. If we did not have this pipeline there would be 8,000 rail cars and 15,000 tanker trucks on the road.

There is one way to get all of these apprentices back to work, and that is to start building some of the pipeline projects that had been proposed and were ready to be built back in 2015. One, in particular, runs parallel to Line 5 and is called energy east. That pipeline was ready to be built back in 2015 when I was first elected. The Liberals kiboshed that project, but we do not see anything. We do not see a repeal of Bill C-69: the “no more pipelines” bill. That would have been something they could have put in the budget to promote the development of our natural resources, promote jobs and promote private industry spending its own capital to get folks back to work and get us back to the lifestyle we were used to before COVID.

This seems like a prime opportunity to get us all back to work. It would ensure that we would have apprentices across the country making paycheques and being able to pay the interest on their student loans by going back to work. They could be raising their families, making money and doing all of the things that they do. I do not see a lot of those kinds of initiatives in this particular bill.

One thing that I saw in the budget was around the home renovation tax credit. I was hopeful we would get some details on it in this bill, but they are not evident. It was an initiative that the Conservatives undertook during the last great recession. We rapidly passed the home renovation tax credit, which allowed people to update their windows, insulation and other kinds of things. It could also be thought of as a green initiative. It was in the budget. We were talking about a particular $5,000 tax credit on a $40,000 loan. We do not see details of that in this particular bill, so I am disappointed about that.

Lastly, I want to talk a little about equalization. This bill touches on equalization, and on what is called the federal-provincial transfer act. One of the things that Albertans have been requesting for a number of years is the removal of the cap on that financial stabilization program. It is currently capped at $60. The Liberals have moved that cap to $166. That is a movement in the right direction, but there still is no logic as to why there is a cap on the equalization stabilization program.

Why is there a cap? If a province is suffering under duress and having less revenue than it had in the past, the stabilization program is there to maintain funding for programs while we go through a dip in revenue. Nobody can explain the logic for why there is a cap on that. We see that the government has acknowledged that maybe the cap is too low and it is going to raise the cap to $166, but the Liberals do not provide us with any logic whatsoever as to why there needs to be a cap on that program. If government revenues in a particular province are suffering in a major depression, the stabilization program is supposed to balance that out and ease the pain of that. Why would it have a cap on it? There has been no logic whatsoever provided for that. I am also quite frustrated by that.

I see that my time is up. I am always grateful to represent the people of Peace River—Westlock.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe I heard my colleague say that there have been no investments in the oil sector, or none that he was aware of. I would like to remind him that $27.3 billion will be invested in that sector in 2021, which represents an increase of nearly $3 billion over last year.

These investments cover a decline in indirect fees such as municipal taxes in Alberta or electricity costs in British Columbia and Saskatchewan. Again, $27.3 billion is being invested in 2021 in this energy source that we firmly want to divest from as soon as possible.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned that we all want to shed this. I am not that particular about trying to end the oil patch at this point. It provides jobs for thousands of people in my area, it has brought prosperity to this country and it has contributed over $600 billion to the national coffers over the last decade. Why would we kneecap ourselves? While the rest of the world is looking for hydrocarbons, why would we not be the country to produce 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, there is a bit of a divide within the Conservative caucus, it seems. There are those who believe that the government should be spending a lot more money and then there are those who believe that the government has spent too much money. Those who say we should be spending more talk about health care transfers and spending additional money to support businesses and so forth. Those who want cuts talk about the deficit.

Which side of the divide is the member on? Does he believe the government needs to continue to support and invest in Canadians or would he like to see cuts by the government?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a matter of priorities. I do not think there is the dichotomy that the member is referencing. We can be concerned about the debt and deficit and we can also be supportive of particular programs. There is no dichotomy in that.

What Conservatives are frustrated with is the government patting itself on the back. If there is a particular problem, it just says it spent this amount of money on that problem. In many cases, we see that the amount of money it has spent on a particular problem has made the problem worse, not better. We are saying if the government is going to spend a lot of money, let us see some results from it. The most striking example of this before COVID, in particular, was when there were border security issues and the government kept saying it was spending a certain amount of money on it, way more than Conservatives ever spent on it. What is interesting is that when Conservatives were in power—

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

I have to allow for more questions.

The hon. member for Provencher.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals talk a great game when it comes to building back and building back better, but the budget does not even include a plan to build. The member has very clearly articulated how the Liberals could have focused a little more on the trades and had something in the budget to encourage folks to get educated and trained in the trades. Could the member expand on how that is lacking in this budget?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the crux of my speech was waiving interest on apprenticeship loans due to COVID. For those paying interest on apprenticeship loans, the interest would be waived for a certain period of time. While I commend that, if people are not working, having the interest deferred while not getting jobs means they are still in the same trouble. I do not see anything in the budget or the budget implementation act, Bill C-30, which we are discussing today, that would get Canada building things again or get our natural resource development kick-started.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the Liberal budget and raise concerns on several fronts. When I was elected in 2019, and in the years prior during the first mandate of the Liberal government, we saw deficit after deficit with no clear plan for balancing the budget. The grand plan for the budget to balance itself was failing. Now here we are a year and a half since the last election, and the $20-billion deficits we were concerned about then seem like a drop in the bucket compared with the enormous budget we are debating today. For years, the Conservatives warned the government about spending the cupboards bare when times were good, and now we are facing the repercussions of that.

The pandemic was unavoidable. No matter which party was in power, there would have been large costs associated with COVID. However, this brings to mind the famous saying that life is 10% what happens to us and 90% how we respond to the challenges thrown our way.

I will take some of my time today to reflect on the failures of the Liberal government and the ways it was too slow to act, which cost Canadians dearly.

First, it was early January 2020 when the Conservatives raised concerns about COVID-19 and called upon the government to take action at our borders. It was not until late March, when numerous COVID cases had already entered Canada, that the government took action. This delay in action would cost us big time. As opposed to a proactive response to the pandemic, what we had was a reactive one.

Second, the government failed to implement and utilize widespread rapid testing. Widespread rapid testing would have allowed more businesses to stay open, as there could have been better testing and tracing. Instead, for the past year, businesses have been teetering on the edge between not being allowed to stay open at all or being allowed to open under strict rules.

Canadians are now 15 months into this climate of uncertainty, with the Liberals only making things worse by not providing them with a clear plan to reopen our economy. I was deeply disappointed when the government voted against our opposition day motion to provide Canadians with certainty and establish a clear plan to reopen our economy.

I believe $354 billion is a staggering number. That is how much debt the government has added to Canada's debt load for 2020-21 alone, bringing the total amount of debt added by the Liberals since 2015 greater than that of all other governments combined. Let us break that number down. The largest purchase that most Canadians will make in their lives is the purchase of a home. Currently, with rapid inflation in the housing market, the average Canadian home is worth $716,000. This means the homes Canadians spend the better part of their lives paying for could be purchased nearly 500,000 times over in this year's federal budget.

When I think about the deficits we are accumulating, what concerns me most is the fiscal mess we are leaving behind for future generations to deal with. The interest on our debt is forecast to be $30 billion per year by 2026, and that is with low interest rates. To put that in perspective, this budget commits $30 billion to child care over the next five years. In the same time frame, we could spend that amount five times over simply just servicing our debt. Therefore, it is extremely important that we return to a balanced budget as soon as possible, so that we are not further increasing what we are paying in interest payments and can instead put money toward helping Canadians get ahead.

A few months ago, I stood in the House and spoke to Bill C-14 and to my concerns with raising our debt ceiling to $1.8 trillion, an increase of $663 billion. My colleague, the member for Abbotsford, compared this to asking for a line of credit from taxpayers but not saying where that money will be spent. Now, in this budget, we finally have some answers as to where this money will be spent and where it will not be.

Alberta's oil and gas industry has once again been forgotten by the Liberals. In the 725 pages of this budget, the words “oil and gas” are mentioned only once in relation to the wage subsidy. While the wage subsidy has helped the sector through COVID, it is not what this sector needs to prosper, and the temporary wage subsidy does not address the root issue of red tape and government roadblocks. When our oil and gas industry does well, Canada does well, and as the most ethical oil producer in the world, we should be creating more economic opportunities for oil and gas by getting pipelines built and supporting our world-class technology and our emerging industry in carbon sequestration. This budget leaves behind the oil and gas industry and all the economic prosperity that comes along with it.

The Conservatives know that spending is required to recover our economy. We had a strong recovery plan after the 2008 financial crisis. We made targeted investments, got Canada's finances back on track and returned to a balanced budget by 2015. However, make no mistake: This budget is not the same thing. It does nothing to secure long-term prosperity for Canadians. Instead, it presents a plan for a reimagined Canadian economy, as the Prime Minister put it. It is a plan that dabbles in risky economic ideas such as abandoning our oil and gas and natural resource industries, leaving our economy in a precarious position. This is not stimulus spending focused on creating jobs, but spending on the Liberals' partisan priorities.

When I talk about targeted support being needed, an area that comes to mind where this budget has a shortfall is tourism. COVID-19 has decimated the tourism industry in Canada, with many businesses on the brink, permanently closing or coming out of the pandemic with large debts. There is no doubt that the programs currently in place are helpful. However, I worry the $500 million allocated to tourism recovery is not enough, especially when the Liberals continuously fail to provide us with a plan to reopen our economy.

Canada's tourism industry has a similar GDP to that of the oil and gas industry, and while at least tourism, unlike oil and gas, is getting some money through this budget, $500 million is not adequate when I look at all the tourism businesses from coast to coast that need support. It is extremely important that we fully recover the tourism industry, especially in communities that rely on the industry as a significant part of their economy, such as the municipality of Jasper in my riding. Approximately 48% of the municipality's GDP was related to the tourism industry.

Another area of the budget that stuck out to me was the unfair and unjustified old age security increase for seniors over 75, as there was nothing for seniors aged 65 to 75, who have also been struggling throughout the pandemic. Statistics Canada recently reported that inflation has surpassed the Bank of Canada's 2% target and is now reaching 3.4%. Policies like the Liberal carbon tax and money printing have driven this inflation, and old age security payments must reflect that. Perhaps when we get to questions after my speech, a Liberal member can explain why they believe 65- to 75-year-olds are immune to inflation. It is far too often that seniors are emailing my office and saying they feel let down by the government's failures to support programs.

To conclude my remarks today, I would like to reiterate that I cannot support this budget because of the staggering deficit and the fact that the new spending in this budget is ideologically driven and completely abandons our oil and gas industry. This long-anticipated budget is a major letdown for western Canadians.

I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, I have heard the Conservatives talk a lot about the amount of debt that has been taken on during the pandemic, but I would argue that it has been a requirement to take care of Canadians throughout this very difficult time.

What I find perplexing about this is the fact that the Conservatives voted for those pandemic measures and all of the spending worth hundreds of billions of dollars, quite often through unanimous consent motions. It would have taken just one of them to say no and it would not have passed. It would have triggered a whole series of events to have these bills go through the committee stage and be properly vetted. During that time, the member could have pointed out his concerns, but he did not. He voted in favour of them.

Can the member explain to the House why he voted in favour of those unanimous consent motions to spend the money if he is going to be critical of it now?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that if the member had actually been paying attention to my speech, he would have noticed that I said it did not matter which political party was in power at the time; there would have been huge amounts of spending. Obviously he must have missed that section. The money had to be spent at that time.

My concerns are about the late response by the Liberals toward COVID. They did not address the issues quickly enough by closing our borders. That was one of the issues I brought forward.

To conclude, I feel the Conservatives supported Canadians throughout this COVID situation, and if the Liberal member did not quite understand that in my speech, I apologize for his—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I liked my colleague's intervention on old age pensions.

In 1975, the old age security pension represented 20% of the average industrial wage. Today, it only covers about 13%. By the time young people turn 65, it is said that their pension will be worth 8%.

What does the member think of our proposal to increase the pension for all seniors starting at age 65?

What does he think of increasing it to $110 over three years so that they can regain some of the purchasing power they have lost?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. As my colleague will recall, when a motion was put forward in the House, the majority of MPs voted in favour of the increase, as he said, for our seniors, who built this country. We need to support them in their time of need, and without increasing their pensions, I do not see how they are going to survive as we proceed forward. I definitely agree with him. I voted in favour of that, as did the majority of the House, but the Liberals did not. That is one thing I do support.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that in his former life, my colleague was the mayor in one of his communities. As the mayor, he would have been seized with the concept that every annual budget should at least have a plan in it. Of course, the Liberal budget no longer appears to be annual; it seems more like a biennial event.

Is there any semblance of a plan in this budget that my colleague can detect?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when I was mayor, as the member for Provencher mentioned, I knew that we could not run deficits as a municipality. We had to have a proper plan in place on what we were going to address and how we were going to see our future grow.

That is one thing that was missed in this budget. I was hoping with much anticipation, like many other MPs, that it was going to be a great budget that would show how we were going to progress into the future, how we were going to open up our economy and how we were going to create jobs. I keep saying the word “how”. It is a shame that we do not see how this is all going to be done. That is the challenge with this budget, and one of the many issues I have with it.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021.

As always, I rise to represent the good citizens of the North Okanagan—Shuswap. They have been doing their part during this pandemic, but have seen this government let them down.

In previous budget debates and examining the Liberal deficits in the range of $18 billion to $20 billion, I had stated how these deficits created a public debt amounting to about $500 for every living Canadian. That is $500 for every person in Canada, whether they have the means to repay it or not. For the fewer than 50% of Canadians who are in the workforce and able to repay debt, their share was exponentially more than $500 per person on average.

Throughout this pandemic crisis, I have supported emergency spending, which was necessary to help individuals and small businesses get through the layoffs and business shutdowns caused by the restrictions required to prevent the spread of the virus. Members from all parties, and indeed all Canadians, have invested varying levels of trust in this government to spend where necessary to protect Canadians, to end the pandemic and to help Canadians and employers who required assistance along the way. In more than one way, Canadians had no choice but to trust this government to spend money and deliver a pandemic response.

How has this government treated the trust of those who depend on it? Well, scandals have emerged and proven the self-evident truths that this government has reportedly failed to focus and deliver the investments required to secure the future of all Canadians. Crisis spending was and is clearly still required, but without a plan, spending without controls never delivers the outcomes that are needed.

One outcome of the government's spending that we can all bank on is the additional $343 billion in national debt that the government has already added, which works out to $9,270 for every Canadian, whether they are able to repay it or not. That means, once again, that those in the workforce who are potentially able to pay down debt have been handed another tax bill of $20,000 each by this government. What is worse is that the government still has no clear plan for getting Canadians back to work to start paying down the debt of the 2016 to 2020 deficits, and now this new added debt.

I have reviewed the budget and searched for the priorities identified to me by the good people of North Okanagan—Shuswap; the priorities that I have consistently relayed to this government on behalf of my constituents. Unfortunately, in budget 2021, this government has failed to recognize some vitally important needs.

Affordability is something weighing on the minds of many Canadians and, once again, this government has failed to recognize the reality in this budget. Seniors on fixed incomes see the cost of groceries and everyday living growing faster than their pensions. With no way of increasing their incomes, seniors are already worried that the future increases in taxes to pay for this government's spending will leave them with fewer dollars for daily living.

Young families see the cost of their first home growing faster than their income, and they need a plan to make home ownership more affordable. As the inflation rate has hit 3.4%, the highest level in a decade, these young families can only fault this Liberal government, with its policies of flippantly printing and spending money, for their inability to keep up with rising costs.

On infrastructure, over the years I have advocated on behalf of municipalities and first nations in need of infrastructure programs to help grow their communities and secure the future of their residents and members. The one-time investment of $2.2 billion to address infrastructure priorities in municipalities and first nations communities through the federal gas tax fund is not the long-term commitment the communities are looking for. When major infrastructure projects often take years to implement, a one-time injection is somewhat like the Prime Minister's promise of a one-shot summer. There is no plan to follow through.

On investments in aquatic invasive species, AIS, I have heard from numerous conservation organizations, municipalities, first nations and regional districts that are all justly concerned about the persistent threat of aquatic invasive species to wildlife, ecologies and economies in the North Okanagan—Shuswap.

In 2019, the Prime Minister directed the fisheries minister to make new investments in the fight against invasive species. Nearly a year and a half later, British Columbians are still waiting for the government to finally provide some new resources to protect our waters from invasive species.

Having served with the fisheries minister for years on the fisheries committee, the minister knows that the introduction of Zebra and Quagga mussels to B.C. waters would devastate our ecosystem and local economies, yet she persists in withholding the new investment the Prime Minister mandated her to make.

More needs to be done and Canadians deserve better. Throughout the pandemic, I have heard from hundreds of constituents doing their best to contend with the challenges they face. One common thread that I see in the input and requests I have received is that Canadians need a plan to help them secure their future, a long-term national recovery plan. Canadians want a plan that will secure their jobs. Businesses have been contacting me saying they are unable to fill shifts because of disincentives for people to go back to work.

That is why the Conservatives put forward a back-to-work bonus plan to help Canadians transition back to work, while gradually reducing the need for government benefits. Canadians want a plan that will secure accountability. Constituents have contacted me tired of the breaches of ethics by the Prime Minister, his cabinet and caucus. That is why Conservatives adopted the policy put forward by one of my constituents to strengthen legislation around accountability and transparency.

Constituents want a plan that will secure mental health. We all know someone who has been impacted by mental illness and been unable to access the support they need. Canadians need a plan that recognizes mental health is health.

Canadians also want a plan that will secure the country. Early in the pandemic, we learned that Canada was not prepared and that stockpiles of PPE had been shipped to China by the government. Canadians need a plan that ensures we are prepared for the next threat to our security, whatever threat that may be.

Canadians want a plan that will secure our economy, rather than borrowing and printing more money and driving up inflation. Canadians need a plan that provides stimulus measures that are targeted and time limited to avoid creating a structural deficit.

These are the differences between the Liberal government's budget and the implementation act, and our Conservative plan to secure our future.

When I hear of seniors' drop-in organizations that have been forced to close because they spent their last dollars paying utility bills and got no help from the government to remain solvent so they could be there when restrictions are lifted again, I see a government that has failed its citizens. When I hear from businesses that could be growing except they cannot find workers to fill shifts, I see a government that has failed. When I hear from first nations, municipalities and community organizations that the government is not providing the protective measures mandated by the minister, I see a government that has failed.

Canadians deserve better and I look forward to working with the good people of the North Okanagan—Shuswap in our pursuit of the plans and resources needed to secure the future and the future of all Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap will have five minutes for questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the motion.

It being 6:11 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from May 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I speak to Bill C-30, I want to begin with the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the new Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister, in his mandate letter, instructed the new minister to avoid creating new permanent spending. In other words, he instructed her to not create any additional structural debt, yet the flagship of this budget is a national day care program that does just that.

When the Minister of Finance finally presented the budget, she indicated that the government's national day care program was going to save the day. It was to be the key element in restoring our economy post-COVID by giving every mother the child care they needed at an affordable rate to enable them to return to or get real, paying jobs. The impression made was that every woman's innate desire to be engaged in the workforce, coupled with the national day care program, would enable, empower and enlighten the female portion of our population to do their part to create a healthier GDP for Canada.

It deeply troubles me when the minister for the status of women stands in the House and expresses her dismay that women still carry the burden of raising children in our society. In question period, the previous minister of immigration indicated that we needed to increase our immigration numbers because we have an aging demographic. When evidence suggests that perhaps we could encourage Canadians to have more children, the immigration minister's response was to pause and say that we have an aging demographic.

On May 18, the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario stated that the Liberals' child care plan would result in uncertainty, limited access, the loss of jobs and the closure of many small businesses owned by women. The association also indicated that the Prime Minister knows that this Ottawa-knows-best government approach to child care takes away choice and would ensure that only publicly funded operators would survive, leaving behind small businesses, women and families.

Choice in child care is a high priority for many mothers and fathers, including the option of having family or friends care for their children, or participating in a co-operative. That is an excellent option in my hometown, where many people work at the potash mine and appreciate giving oversight to the care their children receive while they are at work. Under the current government's plan, there is no room for choice. It appears all working parents would be required to use a national government-run child care system as their only option to qualify for federal child care funding while participating in the workforce. Canada's Conservatives believe parents, not the government, know what is best for their children, and parents should have the choice in determining who will care for their children within their communities.

Once COVID no longer fills our news channels 24-7, and families unlearn all the apprehension, confusion and ever-changing recommendations and get back to normal life by working, playing, going to school and, yes, arranging child care, the Liberals' plan would add even more adversity and struggle for Canada's mothers, their children and women entrepreneurs. Why would that be? The Liberals' plan to kick-start our economy with a national day care program assumes partnership in their plan by the provinces. The finance minister claims the funding for the program would become a 50-50 arrangement with the provinces by 2025-2026, with a federal minimum commitment of $9.2 billion per year in ongoing investments in child care, including indigenous early learning and child care. To support this vision, budget 2021 proposes new investments totalling up to $30 billion over the next five years, or approximately $5 billion per year, and $8.3 billion going forward for early learning and child care and indigenous early learning and child care.

The PBO was quick to note that the provinces are at their limit right now and have no capability to buy into such a program. They do not have access to a printing press. Many of their economies were suffering extensively before COVID due to the same Liberal government creating such economic uncertainty that international and domestic investments were already packing up and leaving. A warning, from our national defence, of an ensuing pandemic was ignored. In a matter of weeks, families were thrown into complete chaos as employment declined, schools closed and child care that was previously available became very limited. The question is this: How feasible is the Liberal government's plan, based on its financial commitment as outlined in the 2021 budget?

Cardus is a highly respected independent think tank located here in Ottawa that has spent over 20 years studying the institutions, communities, beliefs, leaders and intricacies of civil society that collectively compose the social architecture of our common life. Its research focuses on education, family, health, religious freedom, social cities, work in economics and spirited citizenship.

In response to the announcement of a national day care initiative, Cardus recently released a report entitled, “Look Before You Leap: The Real Costs and Complexities of National Daycare”. The report studies the actual cost of providing the national day care system proposed by the government by comparing the policies advocated by proponents with the costs of delivering those policies.

The government claims that, by the end of the five-year time frame offered on child care in this budget, it would be contributing half of the child care costs for the provinces and territories, which would administer the programs. Cardus, on the other hand, finds the real annual and ongoing costs of national day care to be $36.3 billion. Since federal costs are fixed at $8.3 billion ongoing, this means that the provinces would need to cover the federal funding shortfall. Here are a few examples. The cost to Alberta would be $3.5 billion annually, to Manitoba $984 million, to Ontario $9.5 billion and to New Brunswick $336 million annually.

In her testimony to the finance committee, Andrea Mrozek, senior fellow of the Cardus family, commented that every morning she works taking care of her two-year-old and every afternoon she works for Cardus. She stated:

The federal government thinks that only one of these activities is worthy of federal support....[For] those whose primary concern is increasing GDP, only the waged work contributes, but child care is the care of a child, no matter who does it, and for the majority [of parents] there is little to gain and much to lose from plans for national day care.

Andrea has researched child care for 15 years and co-authored the report I mentioned previously. She went on to say:

Our detailed cost assessment phases in spaces for 70% of children under six, over five years, and includes staff, capital, training and maintenance costs. All of our assumptions are based on the work of advocates for national day care; however, there are several things they would desire that we were not able to include, making our estimates low.

Our low-quality and low-cost estimate rings in at $17 billion annually. The more reasonable estimate rings in at $36.3 billion annually.

She highlighted three concerns. Her first point was that the funding levels are woefully inadequate for a high-quality, universal program. This level of funding guarantees only low-quality care, inaccessible care or both. This program would not deliver what it promises.

Her second point was that because it funds only licensed not-for-profit care, most parents would experience a loss of care options, increased child care costs or both.

She then spoke to the per-family funding amounts that could be provided, and noted that this was money allocated to children, instead of to spaces. If the allocated federal funding of $9.2 billion annually was given to parents instead of to spaces, it would truly help with the difficulty of the high cost of child care. The per-child annual amount for children under six would be almost $4,000 annually. If the real costs of national day care were given to parents for each child under six, the per-child amount would be nearly $14,000 annually. She entered her testimony and stated that:

...with the idea that a family’s unpaid time with their child or children is not work, not valuable, or offers no “return.” I think this is a short-sighted, technocratic approach to child care that fails to address Canadian families’ wishes and needs. There are fortunately better and more equitable and more efficient ways to meet those needs, and simultaneously respect Canadian diversity.

I appreciate and support early childhood education and day care programs for those who want them and for those who are vulnerable. Single and low-income parents who need or want to work deserve to have quality day care spaces designed and available specifically for them, if that is the child care they choose. However, it is also true that for one parent, or a combination of both parents, raising their children during their early childhood years is a high calling and deserves recognition as a significant investment in our economy. Stay-at-home parents who choose to earn less during those youngest formative years, and parents who work from home or choose to work part time while taking care of their children, are investing directly in our most valuable and important resource: the next generation of Canadians. The first five years of a child's life is a crucial time for teaching personal beliefs, values and a sense of worth within the family unit, which is a foundational building block of a healthy society.

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

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with the member that many parents choose to stay at home because that is their preference, and I think it is an incredible calling when someone specifically makes a decision to stay at home with their children, but the reality is that there are a lot of people out there who are doing it for economic reasons. They are doing it because it is more beneficial economically to stay home with their children than to put them in day care: At the end of the day, their income is quite often not much further ahead or is even behind if they have to put their children into day care.

Would the member not agree that when people want to pursue those opportunities in the labour force, or pursue entrepreneurial opportunities, they should have the resources to do that?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I certainly am one of those individuals who would have loved to be a stay-at-home mom, but I did not have that opportunity. I needed to work. I know a lot of women are in those circumstances when their children are young.

That being said, the point I am making is that this is not the most efficient way to provide child care to Canadians, nor is it the preferred way for the vast majority to receive child care support. They want the opportunity to have choice, which I appreciated and wanted when I was raising my children.

My concern is that this funding is targeted specifically to one type of child care, when really what we should be doing is providing spaces for those who are in circumstances that need that support and want it, but also providing—

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

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, the one thing that the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois agree on is that health transfers are not to be found in this budget. Unfortunately, the Liberals are demonstrating once again that they are incapable of hearing or listening to the premiers of Quebec and the provinces.

The Conservatives are telling us that health transfers must be increased, but they are not saying by how much. They tell us every time that they cannot pull an amount out of thin air, as that would be too easy. However, the premiers of Quebec and the provinces have agreed on an amount.

To date, I have not received an answer to my question because the Conservatives are vague and answer like politicians. I will ask my question again: Does my colleague believe that the Quebec premier and the provincial premiers are off the mark when they give an actual amount?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I certainly value my premier and the deep-dive work that he has been responsible for throughout the circumstances we have found ourselves in with COVID, much of which I strongly place on the shoulders of the government. Canadians have had to deal with this issue, when really it was the fault of the government right from the beginning in the way that it handled COVID.

That being said, I certainly respect the fact that the government also fails to recognize a lot of jurisdiction of the provinces and tends to try to rule with a heavy hand rather than to collaborate.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the government promised a 50% reduction in the average cost of child care by the end of 2022 and an average cost of $10 a day by 2025 and 2026. As we know, there is tremendous variation regionally and from city to city, so averages do not ensure affordability for all. We know the cost of living varies across the country. The government also did not explicitly tie the federal funding to national standards, which is something that has been called for by child care advocates throughout the country.

Does my hon. colleague believe that we need to put in place national standards and ensure affordable universal child care for all throughout the country?

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

A very short answer from the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question, however if she did listen to my speech, my concern is the fact that this is not realistic. It has been put out there in a very rushed way, and does not respond to the needs of all Canadians. I do not agree that a national day care program—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canada’s balance sheet is in trouble. There is no sugar-coating it. We are $1.1 trillion in debt, and counting. That is more than $33,000 for every Canadian. This year alone, the government is set to spend more than $22 billion on interest payments to service that debt, which is estimated to balloon to $40 billion per year with this budget debt added in.

We are in this hole in large part because of the pandemic, but the Liberals’ overspending long before COVID-19 is why we are looking at the sea of red ink before us today. They left the cupboards bare. By next year, the Prime Minister will have added more debt since 2015 than all other prime ministers who came before, combined. Sadly, the budget has yet to balance itself, and Conservatives have always known that this magical thinking was not the approach of a serious government that cares about the work and the hours that go into Canadians paying their taxes every year.

Putting aside how we got here, my hope for this budget, the first tabled by the government in over two years, was a plan for steady growth, lasting job creation and a more prosperous future for all Canadians. I also hoped it would lay out a clear vision of economic recovery and prosperity, attainable goals that leave no Canadian behind.

What we have before us is not that. No, instead, we get risky and unproven economic schemes, a 700-plus page document with no road map to reopen Canada’s economy, and more than $100 billion in new spending on Liberal partisan priorities disguised as stimulus. The very definition of economic stimulus is spending that facilitates economic activity and growth. There is a difference between stimulus spending and just, well, spending, but the government does not seem to appreciate that difference.

Let us consider just a couple of examples from the so-called stimulus fund. There are $13 billion on pandemic supports. My Conservative colleagues and I have voted for these programs from the outset. Many Canadians faced with unprecedented realities and public health restrictions need the help right now. I will say more on this later, but that is not stimulus.

There is $8.9 billion on the Canada workers benefit, a refundable tax credit for Canadians who make less than the threshold. Again, this is not stimulus. Members should not just take my word for it. The independent, non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer said that only $69 billion of this new spending billed as stimulus is really that, stimulus.

Whatever one wants to call it, the sheer amount of all this new spending is simply not necessary. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer noted that “the size and timing of the planned fiscal stimulus may be mis-calibrated”. Other experts agree. One might hear $100 billion and think, “Great, that is a lot of money. Surely it will kick-start the economy”, but the truth is that government spending does not equal growth.

Between 2010 and 2013, under the more fiscally responsible Conservative government, growth averaged 2.8% annually. We can compare that to the Liberals’ first four years in power, when spending rose sharply and average growth was down to 2.2% per year and was grinding down.

What I really do not understand is how, with over $100 billion in new spending, the Liberals’ budget still does nothing for the long-awaited and much-needed infrastructure projects in the Lower Mainland of my home province of B.C., major projects like the George Massey tunnel replacement and the SkyTrain expansion from Surrey out to Langley, or even smaller projects like reinforcement of the White Rock Pier, damaged almost three years ago now.

Does the government not want to help us in B.C.? Maybe it is waiting for another shipment of steel from China like the one used on the Pattullo Bridge before it commits, instead of using beautiful, high-quality Canadian steel. Much-needed infrastructure projects like this would not only create jobs overnight and stimulate the economy but also make a lasting impact on the ability to transport people, goods and services stretching from the U.S. border through several communities up to Deltaport, the international airport, Vancouver, the north shore and beyond, all key to lasting growth and prosperity.

A federal budget is supposed to be a plan for the people, for the people of Canada, our neighbours and our constituents. What do I mean by “no Canadian left behind”? What about the commuter who needs the SkyTrain to get from Langley to Surrey so she can get on another train to get to her job in Vancouver?

Why does she live in Langley or further east? It is because there is no way she can afford to live in Vancouver or Richmond or Delta or Surrey or perhaps White Rock. This budget does nothing to help her own her own home. Instead of encouraging home ownership and helping Canadians experience the achievement and pride in owning their own home, it has recently been made harder to qualify for financing, which negatively affects homebuyers and sellers, realtors, builders, developers, construction crews, contractors, building material suppliers and more.

How about the families in B.C. and across the country that continue to be affected by substance abuse? In B.C., there have been more deaths resulting from overdose than from COVID-19 in the last year. This budget does not do enough to address the opioid epidemic. Where is the comprehensive, recovery-oriented substance abuse plan?

How about the 988 suicide prevention hotline? More than five months ago, this House unanimously passed a motion put forward by my Conservative colleague, the member for Caribou—Prince George, to implement this critical three-digit resource. There is no funding for that.

How about the natural resource workers? A friend of mine recently spoke to a greeter at Walmart in Alberta who used to be an energy sector engineer but is now working a minimum-wage job to demonstrate the dignity of work to his children and put food on the table. What about him? Why is this Canadian being left behind?

What about the travel agencies across the country? About 83% are owned by women, who not only have had their incomes devastated, but have had their commissions pulled back when cruises and trips were forced to cancel. Why are these Canadians left behind?

At a $100-billion price tag, one might have thought we would see increased health transfers to the provinces, given the stress our medical system has undergone in the past 15 months and repeated calls for this from the provinces. It is not included.

Of course, budgets should not just be about spending. They should provide a clear plan for the future of our economy and how we are going to get there. This, amidst a pandemic, must include a plan for a data-driven, safe reopening. Conservatives put forward a motion on this in March, but it was voted down.

Every time I meet with small business owners in my riding over Zoom, businesses like Kin Thai in Surrey or Uli's in White Rock, they have the same question: What metrics will be used to evaluate the situation and eventually allow them to reopen to full capacity? When will it be back to business as usual? Even with expanded patio space, they need to make investments just to reopen. They deal in perishables. Businesses need to plan for the future. They need to order inventory and schedule staff. They want reasonable notice, and they want to get back to doing the work they love.

Before politics, I was self-employed in the practice of law, an entirely different business, but anyone who runs a business can appreciate the need to plan three months, six months, nine months out. The government is not giving businesses the certainty they so desperately need right now. Even if the plan had to be adjusted, given unforeseen circumstances, the government should at least set out what Canada can expect and what yardsticks will be used to adjust.

When I speak to owners of new businesses, they have an additional question: Why not us?

To be very clear, my Conservative colleagues and I have supported programs to help Canadians make ends meet during the pandemic from day one. In fact, we have often pointed out ways to improve programs, as we did with the rent subsidy, insisting the funds be paid to tenants, not landlords. I, for one, am glad the government listened.

Another area for improvement that this budget completely ignores is the ability for newer businesses, opened within the last two years, to qualify for the same supports as their peers that have been open longer. I have spoken to the ministers about this and I have written to them. We need to help them out. The investments to start these businesses were made long before the pandemic and their life savings can literally be on the line.

There are some things I like in this long budget. I am pleased to see the regional development agency for B.C. I think that is important, as long as the funds are allocated in the right places throughout the province.

Canadians waited a long time for this budget, 763 days, to be exact, the longest-ever gap between federal budgets. Unfortunately, it was not worth the wait. Too many Canadians have been left behind. They need to secure their future.

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

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of the member's speech, she spoke about the amount of debt that has been taken on in order to help Canadians through this pandemic, and she referenced the amount of debt that would be taken on under this Prime Minister specifically. I am curious if she is aware that she has voted for all of that debt over the last two years in the House and, often through unanimous consent motions, agreed to that spending.

Is she aware that she is just as responsible for that debt being taken on as the other 337 members of Parliament?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question from the member across the way.

I said in my speech, if the member was listening, that in fact Conservatives did vote for supports and help for Canadians throughout the pandemic. We have been very supportive of the need to help people who are in unprecedented times and unprecedented want. However, I also pointed out that the reckless spending by the government before we even knew about a pandemic left us in a very precarious position, and now the debt has run away from us. With this new budget, there is nothing here to show us a plan to get our house in order.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, like the member for South Surrey—White Rock, we support a number of things in this budget, including the $15 minimum wage.

However, we are concerned about young people, who have been dramatically affected by this pandemic, particularly students. We have called for the elimination of federal student debt of up to $20,000 and a moratorium on and elimination of interest on student loan debt. Do the member and her party support such measures to make it more possible for young people not to be affected for their whole lives by the consequence of this pandemic on their futures?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing that is very concerning to me is that there is not enough in this budget for youth, or for seniors, for that matter.

Being a mother of four children who have all pursued university education, two of whom had to do it all through Zoom in lockdown, with student loans, which I myself took out, I have a great deal of sympathy for them, and also because they are coming out into a very uncertain job market.

This is why I say that we need watermarks, benchmarks, so that Canadians of all ages, particularly youth, who want to figure out where they are going, when and how, can have a much clearer idea of how that can be accomplished.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the next-door riding of South Surrey—White Rock for mentioning a very important infrastructure project, the SkyTrain extension into my riding of Langley.

I wonder if the member would comment on the important interplay between transit, particularly transit-oriented residential development, and tackling the housing affordability crisis in the Lower Mainland.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is little doubt that my colleague and I know about the lack of affordability in B.C., particularly in the Lower Mainland. It is a very expensive place to live, a very beautiful place.

What we need in order to encourage growth, development and home ownership is better transportation south of the Fraser River. We need to be able to get people from community to community, to their jobs or to whatever it is they need to travel for. We need easy access for goods and services, as I mentioned in my speech, not just within the communities but up the highway to Deltaport, to the international airport, to Vancouver and beyond. This infrastructure is vital to us, and we do not understand why it is not being given the attention it deserves.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to finally have an opportunity to speak on the federal budget. It has been long overdue, as the first one presented to this Parliament.

While we are looking at what the budget offers to Canadians, as well as the late timing, it is important for all of us to remember that the theme of the Liberal government is that the key to happiness is low expectations. It is also worth reminding the Liberal government that if it is going to keep people waiting or ask for an extension on a deadline, it had better make sure the final product is worth the wait by making it impressive.

However, it was not worth the wait. The large number of pages only makes it a bigger disappointment. It was disappointing that the Liberal government, unlike the provinces, did not even bother to present one at all for the last year. Speaking of the provinces, if the federal government really wanted to prioritize a pandemic response, we should have expected it to focus on the requested increase of health transfers. Whatever happened to those?

Apparently, for the Liberal government, giving fuller consideration to the future of Canadians, their grandchildren and their children's future was not worth the effort. Canadians were also not shown basic respect for their rights, time, money or trouble during the past year. What might be the worst part of the government's disregard is that it really shows up in this budget.

Today, I want to focus on where the lack of leadership is taking us as a country. In particular, I want to speak of the rural-urban divide. Especially at the federal level, we should always be trying to promote national unity in the face of any number of divisions. Regional differences have always been a source of tension and they continue to come up. It is getting more common, again, to hear and talk about the idea of western alienation, for example, as having the potential of turning into separatism.

As a western Canadian MP, I definitely believe that this is a growing social problem that needs to be addressed for the benefit of all Canadians. Sadly, we have already reached a point where it is obvious that the Liberal government does not care for western Canada. It is hardly a surprise to anybody, and with this budget, the Liberals are not even trying to pretend much more either.

While saying this, I also think we would be missing an another essential part of the larger issue if we do not consider the problems common to rural Canada, regardless of region. The rural-urban divide in Canada is one of the greatest divides experienced today, whether it is in the Prairies, the Atlantic, Ontario, the north, B.C. or Quebec.

Before getting into some of the details of how the Liberal budget will affect real Canadians or, more accurately, how it will leave them behind, we can get a general sense of the Liberal government's stated priorities from its own words. The nice thing about having a budget in front of us right now is that, for better or worse, it forces the Liberals to clarify on the record where they choose to place their priorities. Even though they have avoided and delayed this important measure of accountability and transparency, we now have a better idea of what they say they care about and what they apparently do not care about.

The word “environment” is mentioned 234 times in this document. The phrase “natural resources” is mentioned only 19 times. From those 19 times, I will point out some examples, and it becomes quickly apparent that the Liberals use the phrase “natural resources” in relation to anything but energy workers, especially those in the oil and gas industries.

There is $22.3 million for Natural Resources Canada to create an atomic workers recognition program, and $63.8 million over three years to create new flood maps for high-risk areas. To bring it even closer to home, these energy workers are mentioned once, one time, in the 724-page document. It is not even in the context of seriously proposing anything close to a full solution for this hard-hit sector of the economy. That single mention is in the context of how climate action could present opportunities for them.

Years before COVID first arrived in Canada, and even more during a restricted economy during the last year, thousands and thousands of these workers lost their jobs. Without any support and political certainty, many more Canadians will be joining them soon. This industry and these workers will comprise a large chunk of our nation's workforce and an even larger share of the national GDP. Again, they are mentioned once in 724 pages.

During the last six years of Liberal government, energy workers have come to understand that when they are mentioned as part of new climate opportunities, it actually means that they are going to lose their job. Meanwhile, all the talk about creating futuristic jobs with big spending provides no real certainty without any detailed practical planning.

What about pipelines? There is a reference to a pipeline of innovation, a pipeline of vaccines and a pipeline of talent, but there is not a single mention of energy pipelines. This is unaddressed in a year when nearly half of Ontario and Quebec's energy supply from Enbridge Line 5 is in danger of getting stopped by the Governor of Michigan. Western workers and investors are living with the fact that the dream project of Keystone XL is cancelled and fading away.

With Keystone XL, it is especially shameful because of who some of those investors are. It is very different from big corporations dreaming of profits. These are the dreams of real people. I especially feel the need to bring up the dreams of the Nekaneet First Nation and their Chief Alvin Francis, whose company owns a part share in Keystone XL. They were planning on using the profits to help the people of his community. When I met with him during the winter, before the cancellation of the project, he laid out quite clearly the plans for economic development and jobs beyond working on the pipeline.

These opportunities will no longer be happening thanks to the lack of effort of the current government.

The reality of indigenous participation is too often ignored. It is a reconciliation issue and we need to think of it that way. In my riding, which has an abundance of natural gas, there are mineral rights owned by first nations from across the province of Saskatchewan that are at risk of losing their biggest source of income because of the anti-energy policies of the Prime Minister, income that will not be replaced, income that lifted entire communities out of poverty. They do not have the luxury of waiting for the government to figure out an energy transition over 10 years or more, pushing it along without a plan. To these indigenous communities and all Canadians in all of Canada's energy sector, the silence is deafening.

The Liberal government has some stated priorities, but its record can easily lead anyone to question if it will deliver on what it says it is going to do. People who live in rural Canada, as my constituents and I do, are used to hearing a lot of empty promises, if we are lucky enough to hear anything from it at all.

Most recently, we have had to wait for it to begin rolling out the universal broadband fund, UBF. It has increased the UBF to $2.75 billion, up from last year's announcement of $1 billion, but the deadlines for the first billion dollars have been continually shifting, with almost nothing to show for it. Municipalities in my riding have been waiting for help to get broadband rolled out to their communities or even just increasing the amount of broadband available and are still waiting without so much as a peep from the government. Listing huge dollar amounts does not mean these problems will be solved. It also does not mean the Liberals will get around to finishing the job any time soon.

I have to say the more time I work in Parliament the more it becomes obvious how much Ottawa needs to regain more of a rural perspective. The best example for this debate might be the environment. If the Liberals want to mention the environment 234 times, they can go right ahead. Yes, let us protect and conserve the environment in every way. The economy can grow at the same time if we do it the right way, and we can all agree here on that, but do members know who already sets the bar high for doing this? It is rural Canadians, the people who work the land, enjoy it for sport and live out in the country surrounded by its beauty. They care about the environment. After all, farmers, ranchers, fishermen, energy workers and others live off the land. They do it the best, acting as if their way of life depends on it, quite simply, because it does.

However, they are not seeing a responsible approach to these issues; instead, they see a government that is more interested in pursuing out-of-touch radical ideas and pet projects. The Liberal government could learn a lot from rural people if it would start listening to them and their concerns. The Liberals need to start respecting the fact that farmers and ranchers are the true stewards of the environment. When we look at all the different ways the government is trying to focus on rural people, it is more or less trying to split them off into separate groups, treating them as if they are special interest groups, patting them on the head and offering them pretty words without actually doing anything to address the real concerns that are facing rural Canadians these days.

Canadians are looking for stability and trust following times of uncertainty. They are getting neither from the Liberal government, which has decided to offer a campaign platform in place of a budget.

This budget continues to miss the mark for rural Canadians. Looking further into some of the items in the budget, it talks about boosting rural transit. We are looking at announcements from companies like Greyhound, which has now basically all but removed itself from the Canadian picture. The Liberals treat that as if there is rural infrastructure that already exists for things like transit, but the fact is it is now completely gone and there is no alternative. I look at people who have to drive four, five, six hours sometimes to find the services they need. Literally, there is not even an option for them regarding transit, yet the government has chosen to use policies that are going to disproportionately impact rural Canadians. Its own assessment of these issues shows that it knows that, but it continues to choose to ignore it.

This budget would have been a good opportunity for the government to really signal to the people in rural Canada that it understands the struggles they face, but it has done absolutely nothing to address those issues.

[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, unfortunately there are parliamentarians who feel the best way to get ahead is to blame Ottawa, feed into western alienation and spread misinformation in order to advance their own personal political agenda, whether for them or the Conservative spin. I often see that with the Conservative members from the Prairies. I was born and raised in the Prairies. I have lived in all three Prairie provinces. The misinformation that is given is sad to see.

My question to the member is related to that. How can he say that Ottawa has done nothing when in fact it has done more for the Prairies in the last six years than Harper ever did in the last 10 years, even on the issues the member has made reference to, such as rural Internet expansion and Trans Mountain? We are the government that brought a commitment to resources to the coastline, unlike the Conservatives. We have done so much more on infrastructure, financial dollars in the pockets—

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

I have to give the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands an opportunity to answer.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member's back must be sore, because he is patting himself pretty hard on the back. I want to highlight something. I spent 10 years working for an Internet company here in Saskatchewan. It was under the Harper government where funding came into the province to help set up Internet, broadband services and land line services on reserve for indigenous people to be able to have the same Internet access that people living in urban areas had. That was under the Harper Conservatives. I do not see any expansion of those services happening now. The dollars have been announced for the universal broadband fund, but we are still waiting. It has been years that the government has been talking about it and it is still not happening and still not getting done.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I represent rural natural resource workers. I sit here day after day and listen to this false conspiracy theory from the Conservatives that if we do not give them another couple billion dollars to build yet another pipeline, they are going to break up the country. They are willing to misrepresent facts time and time again.

It is not a conspiracy that the energy markets are changing. All of the major hedge fund investors said they were pulling out of Alberta and Saskatchewan because the right-wing governments there believe they are still in the 19th century. Let us look at Jason Kenney trying to blow the tops off the Rocky Mountains to get at coal. We can look at the transition that is happening with the four major oil companies taken over by shareholder revolts driven by the hedge fund operators because they are sick and tired of a nation, that includes Canada and the provinces, not taking the environment crisis seriously.

When I listen to this member trying to portray it as a rural versus urban divide, it is the failure of Conservatives to be honest about the need to get ready for a transition that is coming whether they like it or not. It is the 21st century; wake up.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that rhetoric. To put it quite simply, let us look at the Trans Mountain pipeline. It was a private investment. It was fully funded privately and the government chased that investment away and ended up spending that money on its own. The private sector was investing in that with its own dollars; that is it.

I will remind the member that he voted against our motion yesterday to support oil and gas workers. It was a very simpl, very well-thought-out motion. He voted against it, so when he is saying he is standing up for natural resource workers, he needs to take a look in the mirror to understand where he is actually putting his support.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention today. I appreciated the content of it. I just wanted to clarify, given some of the questions the member received.

How important does he think it is for Canada to play a major role in supplying natural resources to the rest of the world because of the way that we extract in a very ethical and environmentally friendly fashion? Should we not be looking at gaining market share, rather than depleting market share?

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

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has 15 seconds to respond.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, we have the highest environmental standards in the world and our natural resources should be the ones we are exporting to meet the growing energy demands of the developing world.

I will add something quickly about farming in the Prairies. When we look at the net carbon that it sequesters, we sequester 33 megatonnes more than we emit just through agriculture alone. When we talk about environmental—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Jean.

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

Madam Speaker, today I rise in the House to talk about the budget implementation bill. Talking about the bill, however, means backing up a bit and talking about the budget itself.

Members will recall that the Bloc Québécois voted against the budget on April 26, which came as no surprise because that is what the Bloc Québécois said it would do. We said we would not support the budget unless it contained two key measures.

First, the Bloc Québécois wanted the budget to increase old age security, or OAS, for people 65 and up, not just for those 75 and up, which is what the government is doing.

Moreover, the government's OAS bump for those 75 and up is happening next year, not this year. The government announced that, in the meantime, it is going to give seniors 75 and over a one-time $500 payment this August. When the budget came out, it made no sense to create two classes of seniors because financial insecurity does not begin at 75. It made no sense then, and it makes no sense now.

As my colleague from Shefford pointed out yesterday in the House, creating two classes of seniors is bound to cause a reaction, and that is exactly what is happening: FADOQ, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons and the National Association of Federal Retirees have all condemned this move.

The Bloc Québécois's other condition for supporting the budget was a stable and ongoing increase in health care transfers. Not only are all provincial premiers who sit on the Council of the Federation calling for this, but it was also the will of the House, since the Bloc Québécois got a motion passed on December 2, 2020, that said the following:

That the House:

...call on the government to significantly and sustainably increase Canada health transfers before the end of 2020 in order to support the efforts of the governments of Quebec and the provinces, health care workers and the public.

The government missed a great opportunity to heed the repeated calls from the Bloc Québécois, as well as the community and the other levels of government, on the need to increase health transfers from 22% to 35%. Neither the budget nor Bill C-30 provides for such an increase.

What is more, it looks as though there was enough fiscal space to allow for such a measure, since the deficit that the government had announced and the actual deficit we see in the budget differ by about $28 billion. Ironically, that is the exact amount Quebec and the provinces are asking for to increase health transfers.

The Bloc Québécois voted against the budget given the absence of these two key measures that we would have liked to see included. However, that does not prevent us from voting in favour of Bill C-30 because the measures included in the budget, although insufficient, must be implemented.

Bill C-30 also includes important measures that we would like to see applied. I will name two of them, taking the time to explain the improvements we would have liked to see.

I like the measure concerning the tourism industry. We know that the 2021 budget proposes to establish a $500 million tourism relief fund administered by the regional development agencies. The fund could help support local tourism businesses in adapting their products and services to public health measures. We also hope that it will help the entire tourism industry recover from the pandemic.

I am thrilled to see that certain measures will be extended, in particular the Canada emergency wage subsidy, or CEWS, and the Canada emergency rent subsidy, or CERS, since this also indirectly helps the tourism industry. However, I am disappointed at the absence of certain specific measures for particular sectors of the tourism industry.

Once again, I will try to hammer it home: I would have liked to see something specific in the budget for sugar shacks, which, I repeat, suffered two years of total loss, since their season is only a few weeks long. Unlike other businesses, they were unable to make up for losses during the rest of the year when there were lulls in the pandemic. I would also have liked to see the addition of fixed costs for sugar shacks in the subsidy. Unlike traditional restaurants, sugar shacks do not replenish their stores based on the number of clients coming in. They stock up several months before the beginning of the season. As a result, in 2020, sugar shacks lost everything they had procured by the end of 2019 for a normal season.

A bill as colossal as omnibus Bill C-30 also includes a number of very precise and very specific items. Sometimes that allows us, as members of Parliament, to take a nostalgic trip back to before we were parliamentarians.

In my case, I was a family lawyer, and that is why I wanted to talk about family allowance, since Bill C-30 proposes an amendment to the regime. The bill allows parents with unequal shared custody, for example on a 65-35 basis, to share the Canada child benefit.

As a lawyer, I have seen otherwise successful negotiations fall apart just because of the benefit when a decision should have been made in the best interests of the child. The amendment proposed in Bill C-30 makes it possible to reframe discussions based on this principle and stop getting hung up on the benefit.

Since I am talking about the benefit, I will raise a few aspects of its administration that could have been modified. The first one was pointed out to me by a constituent who noticed a particularly archaic assumption in the law. Last September, this person received a letter from the Canada Revenue Agency that said that, according to the Income Tax Act, when a child lives with a man and a woman who are either married or de facto spouses, the woman is assumed to be the person responsible for the care and education of all children living in the house.

In this case, my constituent is a father who shares custody of his children with his ex-spouse and who lives with a new spouse. In the eyes of the law, his new spouse is assumed to be the primary caregiver for all of the children who live in the house. Although, as my constituent pointed out, his spouse is an extraordinary stepmother, the children are his. He found it surprising that his spouse was obliged, under the law, to write a letter to the CRA to confirm that the benefit was to be paid to the children's father rather than her.

In the words of my constituent, he thought the letter had come from 1955. He requested an amendment to the act that would better reflect our modern society and the sharing of parental responsibility, which, ideally, would be equal.

Another problem with the Canada child benefit was brought to my attention by a constituent whose child died a few years ago but who is still fighting a long battle for other parents who are currently in the same situation she was at the time. Some children with severe disabilities or at the end of their life live in specialized centres, like the Marie Enfant rehabilitation centre, so that they can receive care.

The problem is that the parent loses the child benefit, as is also the case when a child is placed in a youth centre, even temporarily.

As my constituent mentioned, when a child is placed in a facility like the Centre de réadaptation Marie Enfant, the parent does not necessarily have fewer expenses, and may have even more. In her case, since she visited her child every day, she had to pay extra travel and parking expenses. She had to change her work schedule and adjust accordingly. Today, many parents find themselves in the same situation. I am talking about this today in the hope that we can eventually resolve the situation. All the better if the debate on Bill C-30 allowed me to plant those seeds of hope.

There are many other things I could say about Bill C-30, but I will stop here. I will be pleased to answer any questions my colleagues may have.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to join you from the confines of my office in Saskatoon to speak about the budget implementation act.

Canadians have spent the last year and a half struggling under the weight of the COVID-19 pandemic. When COVID reached Canada's shores early last year, millions of Canadians lost their jobs. Those working in retail and service industries, anyone working in a restaurant and workers in a variety of other sectors were simply told to go home. Countless small businesses had to close their doors and families were forced to completely redesign how they lived their lives.

Life has become harder, less affordable and all around more difficult. Our economy is in a bad state. Our annual inflation rate right now is rising at its fastest pace in a decade. Soaring house prices are stoking fears of a cost of living crisis. The federal deficit is flying past historical levels and the national debt is growing at a record pace, having now exceeded $1 trillion for the first time in our history.

Canadians are well aware of the situation we are in today. According to the Nanos poll, 74% of Canadians, or three out of every four Canadians, are very worried about the size of the deficit. That is not just Conservative voters or conservative-minded Canadians. This represents concerns from voters across the spectrum that deficit spending is out of control.

I have heard those concerns in my riding in Saskatoon—Grasswood. When I asked my constituents about their top concerns, where and what they wanted to see in the recent budget of 2021, there were a few answers I heard over and over again. I heard from my constituents that a plan to get the deficit under control was the top priority. My constituents are also concerned about jobs and economic opportunities. A plan to deliver jobs and economic opportunities needs to be front and centre moving on.

Then I heard the same thing I have heard every year since the Liberal government came to power in 2015. Taxes are simply too high. Families, businesses, seniors, everyone needs relief as the cost of living just keeps going up and up. Unfortunately, when the Deputy Prime Minister finally presented her budget, 763 days between budgets, people were left very disappointed. The simple fact is that the federal budget of 2021 does nothing at all to secure long-term prosperity for Canadians.

In the 700 pages of the budget, there was little that gave Canadians the assurance that their federal government was focused on creating new jobs and economic opportunity. First, there was no plan to get our economy reopened, which would be the number one driver of job growth and economic opportunity.

While the provincial governments have begun to announce their plans, timelines and criteria to get their provinces reopened, we have heard nothing of this sort from the federal government with regard to industries and regulations within the federal jurisdiction.

Then there was the size of the deficit, which at $154 billion this year is astoundingly high. Save last year, this is by far the largest budget deficit that Canadians have seen in decades, and for what? It is in the analysis of the budget. The Parliamentary Budget Officer noted that a significant amount of spending in the budget would not stimulate jobs or create economic growth. The PBO also raised concerns that the amount of deficit created was above and beyond what was actually needed to get the economy rolling ahead.

What does this tell us? It tells us that the Prime Minister's so-called stimulus fund is more about spending on Liberal partisan priorities than creating jobs and growing the economic. What are the Liberals going to give struggling Canadians and their families for relief? In a word, nothing.

In fact, the Prime Minister announced he would be moving forward with a far greater increase in the carbon tax than he indicated in the past. Despite calls for a halt on the carbon tax to provide much-needed relief at this time, the Liberals have not only pressed forward with their planned increases, but have now also announced that, throughout this economic recovery that will be taking place over the next few years, they plan to continue to increase it by well over 300%. That is 300%.

At a time when more Canadians are struggling to make ends meet than at any time in recent memory, and when more small businesses are being forced to permanently close their doors, the Liberals have decided the best bet is to further raise the tax burden on Canadian workers and their businesses. I hear this every day in my constituency office.

As well, at a time when millions of Canadian and their families are struggling due to lost wages and a skyrocketing cost of living, the Prime Minister has announced a massive increase to the carbon tax be tacked on just to add further burden. In truth, the Liberals' approach actually dumbfounds me and my constituents of Saskatoon—Grasswood.

Let us get to the facts. Let us get to what we should be seeing and what should be the top priorities of the government. That is something we are not seeing at all out west. First and foremost, we need to be focused on getting our economy reopened. Many countries around the world are beginning their reopening. We can just look south to the United States, where businesses are open right now. Sports stadiums are filled and people are returning to work each and every day.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the U.S. has even released guidelines that individuals who are fully vaccinated can safely resume their pre-pandemic activities and no longer need to wear masks. That is hard to believe because Canada is so far behind that we are still in lockdown in many places in this country. Why is that? It is because the federal government has totally failed in acquiring the vaccines necessary to get us there.

In Israel, nearly 60% of people are fully vaccinated. In the United States, it is 40%, and in the United Kingdom it is approximately 35%. In Canada, 4.5% of Canadians are fully vaccinated. Pretty much the entirety of the European Union is ahead of us, as are Brazil, Chile, Mongolia and several other countries.

As has been the case for months, the Liberals have given Canadians no realistic indication on how they are going to get us there and when. Instead, they tried to shift the blame onto the provinces for the failures of the Prime Minister.

Alongside a plan to get Canadians vaccinated, we need to see a plan to create jobs in this country, an economic opportunity now and going forward into the recovery. We need to see programs that will spur innovation and encourage investment in this country, programs that will result in better wages for Canadian workers and help struggling small businesses get back onto their feet.

To accompany such programs, Canadians need relief and they need it now. They need to see that their government recognizes they are struggling right now. They need a lower tax burden, not a higher one. We also need to see a plan to get the economy and the budget under control.

We know the reality is that structural deficits, such as those the Liberals have created, result in long-term economic problems and a grim future for our children and grandchildren.

For all these reason I have outlined here today, I simply cannot support this budget.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

Every time the Conservatives rise to speak, they tell us that the Liberals are spending recklessly but that the Conservatives have a plan and can quote figures for everything, regardless of what we are talking about. However, over the past few days, and especially since the start of the debate on Bill C-30, I have been asking the Conservatives to give us a number with respect to health transfers.

The Conservatives are always saying that the Liberals do not manage the public purse responsibly, which is true. However, when it came time to put a number on the only request Quebec made for this budget, only the Premier of Quebec and the premiers of the other provinces could do so. They estimated the increase in health transfers at $28 billion, because they want to see these transfers rise from 22% to 35%.

Is there a Conservative in the House who will tell me whether their party agrees with the number the provinces came up with?

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

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is no different than any other province in this country. We have seen a massive downturn in the last 14 months due to the pandemic. What has the Liberal government done? It has done very little.

I am just going to point out, because I was a sportscaster, it would have been nice to see in the forum in Montreal, during the last two games against the Toronto Maple Leafs, with maybe 10% of the people to cheer on the Canadiens against the Maple Leafs. This is a failure of the Prime Minister, not of Quebec or any other province, but of the Prime Minister.

[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 was actually a bit surprised, and I suspect the member might have surprised a few people who are participating today, when he made reference today to the carbon tax. The current leader of the Conservative Party has been doing all sorts of backflips and so forth to express to the Conservative caucus that a price on pollution is actually a good thing.

In fact, from what I understand, the official position of the Conservative Party of Canada is to support a price on pollution, yet this member wants to talk very negatively about a carbon tax, which is, in essence, the same thing. I am wondering if the member could indicate how deep the divide is within the Conservative caucus on whether a price on pollution is good or bad.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North knows in this province, and in his too, the agriculture sector has deep questions about the carbon tax. We know that in the fall they have to dry their grain, and we know they are not getting a lot of credit for the carbon sequestration that is going on in this country.

The carbon tax is talked about a lot in this country, and for very good reason. Regarding the member's statement about the Conservatives not believing in a carbon tax whatsoever, we know that is important in this country, but we also have seen the Liberals saying they are going to increase it. They keep increasing it, and right now it is out of hand for Canadians. They cannot afford it any longer.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is someone I have worked with on committee and someone whose insight I appreciate quite a bit.

I am an Albertan and he is a Sasketchewanian, but as an Albertan, one of my biggest concerns is jobs and jobs for people in my constituency. He, of course, will know that Alberta has suffered greatly over the last few years. Even before COVID, our economy was in free fall. It was in a very dire place.

When I read through the budget, I did not see what I wanted to see for support for Alberta workers. I did not see what I wanted to see for helping our workers move forward in a diversified economy to be able to take advantage of opportunities.

Why does the member think that is? Could he comment on things he would have liked to have seen—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona for all her work she does on the heritage committee, where we are currently studying Bill C-10.

She is right. There is no help at all for the oil and gas industry in Saskatchewan and Alberta. We need to diversify. Both provinces know that, particularly Alberta, because of its situation it is under right now, but the government has really avoided western Canada. I was looking at the polls today. They were shut out in Alberta and Saskatchewan for a very good reason in the last election, and they are going to be shut out again. They have absolutely forgotten about western Canada, and we are going to make them play next time in the province of Manitoba.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first acknowledge that I am joining members from Treaty 5 territory, the traditional territory of the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation, from my home community of Thompson, Manitoba.

Today, I join members to speak on behalf of our region on Bill C-30, the budget implementation act.

I speak today at a difficult time for our country and especially for my province of Manitoba. COVID is spreading faster here in Manitoba than in any other province in Canada. In fact, right now, it is the worst in all of North America. I want to share my thoughts and condolences with the many people and families who have lost loved ones to COVID-19 during this crisis. I also want to acknowledge the life-saving work of the people working on the front lines right now.

However, to be clear, it should not have had to be this way, and this did not just happen. This past year of the pandemic has proven how the system is broken. The neo-liberal agenda has proven not only dangerous but deadly for many: our elderly, our indigenous communities and our workers.

Indigenous communities, including those here in Manitoba, have faced some of the highest rates of infection of COVID-19. At least six first nations in our region received full support from the Canadian Armed Forces when they called for urgent help to be able to save lives in their communities. I want to acknowledge the leadership of first nation leaders across our region, who have done everything in their power, along with advocates and people on the front lines, to keep their community safe.

We have seen strict lockdowns. We have seen the need to take incredible measures to keep people in some of the most vulnerable communities in the country safe. We have heard time and time again, and I have certainly heard that they were doing this in the face of significant odds, which were completely avoidable. These odds were the result of decades of colonized policies, paternalistic policies and of systemic racism.

At the same time that communities were fighting a pandemic, they were also fighting a third world crisis of no running water, a third world crisis of inadequate housing and a third world crisis of not enough medical personnel, let alone doctors and nurses, in their communities. So many communities across our region, so many first nations, went above and beyond to keep their people safe.

Just yesterday we heard from the Auditor General that first nations across Canada did not have the personal protective equipment needed going into this pandemic to be safe, which is particularly the case in our region. We know that throughout this they have struggled in any way they could to access PPE.

I remember advocating on behalf of those in Sagkeeng. When they received the first test kits, they were very clear in their questioning of how could they do tests when they did not have access to personal protective equipment to administer the COVID-19 tests. This was early in the pandemic. This federal government has let first nations down time and time again, and we saw this explicitly during this pandemic.

I want to acknowledge the incredible leadership of communities and regional indigenous leaders here in Manitoba in fighting to get vaccines available to first nations, indigenous and northern communities on a priority basis. I was proud to work with indigenous and northern leaders, and colleagues in the NDP, to push the federal government to act on this front.

I am pleased to acknowledge that there was recognition and a response from the federal government early this year that first nations, and people living on reserve and across the north in particular, required priority access to the vaccine, but it is not enough. We continue to see, especially these days here in Manitoba, indigenous people be disproportionally impacted by COVID-19.

I am sad to say that Bill C-30, a bill that was developed during this crisis, does not deal with some of the fundamental challenges that first nations communities face. We know that one of the key contributors to the spread of COVID-19 on reserve is the lack of housing, particularly the existence of overcrowded, inadequate, mould-infested homes.

I remember the leadership of Cross Lake talking about, of course, that there would be a significant spread when there were 15, 17 or 20 people living in a home. The leadership in Shamattawa made clear that the spread back in December was as significant as it was because of the overcrowded housing that people in that community live in.

This is not new. This is something for which leaders and people across the region have been fighting for a long time. Bill C-30, unfortunately, does nothing to address the housing shortage in first nations and northern communities across the region.

I also want to acknowledge that the second and third waves of COVID-19 have hit working people especially hard: front-line workers, workers in long-term care, in meat-packing plants, in warehouses, taxi drivers, migrant workers, many of them racialized and many of them immigrant. In Manitoba, people of Southeast Asian descent are most disproportionately affected by COVID-19 at this time. They are impacted 13 times the rate that white people are.

Working people have been forced to work throughout this pandemic without personal protective equipment, without paid sick leave, without targeted shutdowns and without access to vaccines. They have been forced to work by employers, corporations and governments that have chosen to prioritize profits ahead of the lives of working people and their families. Women workers have also lost significant ground. Inequality and the lack of structural supports like child care holding us all back.

I want to acknowledge that while Bill C-30 has made a historic commitment to child care, it is not as a result of the benevolence of the Liberal government. This is the result of decades of women fighting for universal child care across our country. I am proud of the work the NDP has done to push this vision forward. Yes, it is time to see a historic investment in child care, especially as a result of what we have seen in this crisis, where women have had to leave work and have taken a hit financially and economically in terms of their stability because of the lack of child care in our country. Let us get moving on turning that commitment to child care into action.

However, let us be clear that Bill C-30 does not go far enough for working people. There is no commitment on paid sick days. We know that a critical factor in keeping people and workers safe is the ability to stay home and get well.

We also know that the government has not gone far enough in changes to EI. While there are some in Bill C-30, it does not go far enough to ensure that workers are supported, especially in this day and age when the nature of work has changed significantly and the rise of precarious work is a significant challenge for so many.

The reality is that we cannot afford the status quo. The COVID-19 pandemic has proven that. If we want different results, we need to make different choices. We need to tax the rich and ensure that those who have made an extraordinary profit on the backs of working people pay their fair share. We need to go after pandemic profiteers who have made money hand over fist during a time when so many are suffering and many have lost their lives.

We need to go further and push for supports for those pushed to the margins. We need to cancel student debt, recognizing that many students right now are paying for an education that will leave them significantly in debt and are heading into a job market that is pretty abysmal. We need Canada to take a stand for students. We need to go further than that and ensure that we are committing to free education for students across our country.

We need to take on one of the biggest challenges of our time, the climate crisis, recognizing that without climate justice, we cannot achieve justice for all. We need to move in that direction as soon as possible.

The bottom line is that we need a transformative vision for our world, one that seeks to prioritize the well-being of people and our planet over profits, a vision rooted in the power of the collective, a vision that believes we can achieve the social, environmental and economic justice that we all deserve.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of her speech, my NDP colleague touched on youth and jobs for the future. This is the community I am hearing about in Oshawa with Ontario Tech. It is a very technologically advanced university. The member is probably aware of the 2018 study by Brock University that found that 65% of software engineers and 30% of STEM graduates were leaving our country. It is not just the investment in education, but the jobs.

In this budget, we do not see investments in our current strength as Canadians, whether it is our historic strengths in the energy sector, mining, softwood lumber or manufacturing. I wonder if the member could comment on what needs to be put forth by the government to create those jobs and allow our brightest and best Canadians to stay not only in her community but in my community and all of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we need to deal with the jobs crisis in our country, particularly when it comes to young people, is a green new deal. We need a vision for job creation that is premised on a green transition and the creation of jobs for the future. That is what young people want. We can do that in our communities.

I come from a part of the country that relies in significant ways on the resource sector. As a result of job-killing trade deals and foreign ownership, we have lost hundreds of good jobs. People here want jobs, sustainable jobs for the future. There is so much opportunity for creating these jobs, but we need the political will around a green new deal. Let us get moving.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

I must admit, however, that I am having a bit of a hard time with the NDP’s rhetoric. The hon. member said that the budget does not go far enough, that it is the status quo, that it does not give people what they really need and that there is not enough affordable housing for first nations peoples. However, she and her party voted in favour of the budget.

Something similar is happening at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Since this government bill was first introduced, we have been saying that it does not go far enough because it does not propose any binding targets. The NDP, however, went so far as to say that it was not necessary to include any targets in the bill. It has refused any amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois or the Green Party that could have improved the bill.

If my colleague does not agree with the budget, why did she vote in favour of it?

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

Mr. Speaker, let us first acknowledge the hypocrisy of the Bloc Québécois, which claims not to want an election, but continues to miss opportunities to contribute to the legislative agenda and get results for people across the country.

We have to raise the problems with the budget. People back home are suffering greatly even now. There needs to be clarity on what needs to be done. However, we must also recognize the positive actions resulting from pressure from social movements, such as bringing in a national child care system, which is a necessity.

We also need to do even more. We have to learn from the COVID-19 crisis and take a far more visionary and progressive approach to improve the lives of Canadians across the country.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to expand on the comments of my hon. colleague. Manitoba is in a dire situation, with 23 people being sent out of province to ICUs, one who perished. Many are workers without paid sick leave. They are essential workers who have put their lives on the line. Some still have not been given proper immigration status.

Could my hon. colleague expand on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, all of us in Manitoba are so concerned and heartbroken by what we are seeing. Front-line workers, racialized workers, including, as was pointed out, workers without status, are paying the ultimate price. This is a time for Canada to step up and ensure the status of migrant workers. This is a time for Canada to recognize that for our country to move, for us to survive day to day, we rely on these workers, front-line workers and migrant workers, to do what needs to be done. It is time for status for all.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate today on legislation to implement the Liberal government's collection of partisan election spending measures outlined in budget 2021.

My constituents of Red Deer—Mountain View have waited a long time to see some concrete measures from the Liberal government that would provide us with some relief from COVID-19 and help us rejuvenate our local economy, which was not doing well even before the pandemic.

Every week, over the past 14 months in Red Deer—Mountain View, we have seen more empty buildings and more for lease signs go up. Many small business owners have had no choice but to close and so many more are barely holding on by a thread, as they see their life savings dwindled, in hopes of staying open when the economy turns around. It would seem that very little help is on the way.

In fact, due to a lot of Liberal government policies designed to cripple the energy sector and drive away investments, many businesses in Red Deer had already been closing and shedding jobs before the pandemic. I will give one example, but there are many more.

McLevin Industries has been in business since 1917, almost as long as Red Deer has been a city. Over that time, the business has managed to survive a lot, including the recession in the early 1980s. Like many Albertans, the owners were prepared to get down to work and further grow before the Liberal government took office. Those plans have long been scrapped. In the years up to 2019, revenues at the company plunged 40% and it shed 19 jobs. The Liberal government's legacy in communities right across this province and throughout western Canada has been unemployment, business closures and too many workers and families left without much hope for the future.

That brings me to budget 2021, the Liberal government's first budget in nearly two years. There is no question that the Liberal budget is a massive letdown for Canadians who were looking for a plan to create jobs and boost economic growth. Canada's Conservatives and all Canadians wanted to see a plan to return to normal, a plan that would secure jobs and the economy. Instead, what we have in budget 2021 is a dangerous and untested economic experiment where tens of thousands of Canadians remain out of work and many small and medium-sized businesses are still struggling to stay afloat.

The Liberal government's reimagined economy is a risky Ottawa-knows-best approach that picks winners and losers by deciding which jobs, which sectors and which regions of our country will be prosperous. This unproven and incompetent economic approach threatens the personal financial security of everyone in Alberta and all workers across the country. With unemployment running at more than 20% in rural Alberta, the Liberal government's budget throws billions of dollars toward so-called green energy industries and projects which, as we know from experience in Ontario, will neither create jobs, protect the environment nor stimulate the economy.

Canada's energy sector has consistently contributed billions of dollars to Canada's GDP and has provided tens of thousands of Canadians with well-paying jobs that allow families to put food on their tables. How does budget 2021 recognize and promote this fact? It does not. Budget 2021 continues the Liberal government's assault on our energy sector, which is also the most environmentally conscientious on the planet.

Since 2015, the human consequences of Liberal government attacks on Canadian energy have been devastating, with 200,000 jobs lost and $200 billion in cancelled projects, and these jobs depend on the Liberal government reversing courses and policies that have already damaged the Canadian energy sector.

The oil and gas industry provides hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs and is the single-largest contributor to Canada's GDP and our balance of trade. Its survival is critical to Canada's economic recovery, and the billions of dollars in tax revenue it generates pays for the social services Canadians rely on, like our schools and hospitals. Instead of supporting our energy sector and helping it recover from its worst recession in decades, the Liberal budget invests $17 billion over the next few years in so-called green energy projects, which, as history tells us, will create few jobs and contribute very little to economic growth.

In truth, the notion of helping generate economic growth seems to be of very little interest to the Liberal government. It is hardly mentioned in budget 2021. In fact, the words support, benefit and gender are riddled throughout the 700-page budget, but the word competitiveness appears just 13 times. Imagine that. Budget 2021 is supposed to be the Liberal government's plan for our economic future, but the words growth and competitiveness are barely mentioned in passing, amid all the $104 billion in new partisan spending commitments.

Before the budget was tabled, Canada's Conservatives called on the government to stand up for Canadians and bring forward measures to ensure the improvements to productivity that a competitive economy requires. We noted that sector-specific support is required, not a one-size-fits-all approach, and that the government's focus should be on the crucial small and medium-sized businesses that have been left behind because of poorly designed support programs.

Canada's Conservatives called on the government to dispense with the talking points of reimagining the economy and realize that Canadians simply want to know that things are going to get better. Canadians want their jobs, their small businesses and their communities back. Canadians are not calling for the government to embark upon a grand social and economic experience. They simply want to return to normalcy.

In short, Canada's Conservatives called on the Liberal government to deliver a real plan for Canada's economic recovery: one that secured our future by recovering millions of jobs. It also called on the government to introduce policies that resulted in better wages, and to help struggling small businesses get back on their feet. The Liberal government refuses to listen to sound advice and instead pursues its own course of massive and unfocused spending, record ballooning deficits, stunted economic growth and unaffordable national debt that has the potential to cripple our country for generations to come.

Let me say this. Over the last few months, those of us in Red Deer—Mountain View and in communities across Canada have been hopeful that we would soon see an end to the COVID-19 pandemic and the beginning of an economic recovery. Our recovery plan focuses on creating financial security and certainty. Our plan would safely secure our future and deliver a Canada where those who have struggled the most in this pandemic can get back to work. One of the central goals of our recovery plan is to ensure that manufacturing at home is bolstered, wages are increased and the dream of affording a better life for current and future generations can be realized by all Canadians.

We urge the Liberal government to consider including at least some of those measures we put forward for Canada's recovery plan in this budget. The Liberal government instead has chosen to embark on a reckless and untested course of partisan spending and ballooning debt that does nothing to grow our economy or increase our prosperity.

Unemployed Canadians who were hoping to see a plan to create new jobs and economic opportunities for their families are being let down by budget 2021. Workers who have had their wages cut and hours slashed, and who were hoping to see a plan to reopen the economy, are also being let down. Families who cannot afford more taxes and are struggling to save money for their children's education or to buy a home are being let down. The Liberal budget does nothing to secure long-term prosperity for Canadians.

The Liberal government has consistently ignored calls from Canada's Conservatives and from all political parties to bring forward a real economic recovery plan that would unite Canadians rather than drive wedges between them. Canadians deserve better. They deserve a real economic recovery plan, and my hope is that Canadians will soon see a Conservative government moving forward to do just that. That is what Canada's Conservatives are committed to delivering.

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

Mr. Speaker, a few moments before concluding his speech, the member talked about the Conservatives' plan and how it was going to increase wages for employees.

Can he explain how their plan would increase wages?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly can. The first thing that we would do is get rid of Bill C-69, which is stopping all opportunities for natural resource development. If we want to have green economies and green jobs, we have to recognize that we have to use the tool we have, which is Canada's oil and gas industry.

As we do that, we will be able to move into some of these other areas that are important to those who care so much about the environment, but we cannot shut down one part of it in order to try to promote a secondary one. From that same position, we know that there are going to be a lot of requirements for rare earth minerals. We have to make sure we get the government out of the way if we think those will be part of our future.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that one in five Canadians does not take the medications they have been prescribed because they cannot afford them, yet the Conservatives voted to continue protecting the profits of big pharma and not go ahead with a pharmacare plan. We have had a promise from the Liberals for 23 years for this.

Can the member explain why the bill before us ignores the needs for pharmacare? Will the Conservative Party come around to supporting a plan so all Canadians can have access to pharmacare?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course, a number of people are having difficulty attaining pharmacy services in the country. Many of them, however, have plans that allow them to access pharmaceutical products. From that perspective, we have to look around the world to see what the consequences have been in those places that decided to let the government do what governments do: In their minds, it is to manage their systems. I think that is really the critical part. If the member takes a look at some of the things that have taken place in Australia and New Zealand, he will understand that there is a lot more required than a standard blanket statement that says, “Pharmacare for everyone”.

We have to look at ways to help those who have been falling through the cracks. For that, I think, if we as Canadians do not shut down the things that help us, like our oil and gas industry, it will give us an opportunity to help all Canadians.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under the previous Conservative administration, real wage rates increased more than the rate of inflation. We heard just recently that the annualized CPI increase is now 3.4%.

Could my hon. colleague comment on what Bill C-30, and all of the spending that is embedded in it, will do to the inflation rate, and hence to the relationship of inflation to real wages?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a former math teacher and business person. One of the things that we always talked about was the effect of interest rates, as far as the economy was concerned, and how the general lives of individuals were going to be affected. If we look at the amount of debt that individuals have at this point in time and then look at the incredible amount of debt the federal government is looking at, I think we can realize the issues of concern and problems.

If we look at what happened during the days of the other Trudeau government, we had a 22% interest rate. It devastated this country. The target used to be 2% and now we see that it is 3.4%. All we have to do is a little bit of calculation on someone's mortgage to see what happens when the interest rate is doubled. That is a problem that all Canadians will have to sort out if we do not get this under control.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

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

The Liberals claim this budget is focused on finishing the fight against COVID, healing the economic wounds left by the COVID recession and creating more jobs and prosperity for Canadians in the days and decades to come. However, it does not do any of that and does absolutely nothing to secure long-term prosperity for Canadians.

The Liberal government has mentioned that a consequence of COVID has been women leaving the workforce. This is true. COVID forced businesses, small and large, to suddenly shut down. At the status of women committee, we heard from witnesses that women left the workforce for several different reasons. Some left not by choice but because they worked in industries such as retail, travel and hospitality, which were hit the hardest. Others left because of the additional responsibilities of having to become teachers to their kids and caretakers to family members, while for others working from home was just not an option. As well, the committee heard from these witnesses that while many men have returned to the workforce, women have not returned at the same rate.

The government came to the conclusion that the reason for this was a lack of child care spaces and the need for a universal child care package. Again, the committee heard evidence from witnesses that this was not the case. As a matter of fact, we heard that child care centres were closing because there was a lack of children to fill the spaces. Additionally, a universal child care plan is a simple answer to a very complex problem. Under the Liberal plan, all children would be treated exactly the same and day care centres would be identical from coast to coast to coast. It does not take into consideration parental choice and that parents, not the government, are in the best position to make decisions about what is best for their kids.

The Liberal budget also has not taken into account the cultural sensitivities that exist in such a vast and diverse country as Canada. For example, I am of an ethnic background where we strongly believe in the importance not just of ensuring our children get a good education, but of preserving and teaching our culture, language and religion. Canadians do not need a generic program where they drop their kids off and then pick them up at the end of the day. Instead, they need support in their choice of child care, whether that be a day care centre, grandparents or friends who teach their culture, language and values to their children. I have heard from many that, when their children were younger, their grandmas and grandpas would watch them throughout the day. That is where the children learned to do fractions, and that four quarter cups equal one cup, while spending quality time baking delicious cookies and bread their parents enjoyed when they picked their kids up at the end of the day. This is something that is extremely important to my constituents, and this Liberal budget does not achieve that.

The Liberal government's budget also discusses COVID recovery programs, including the wage subsidy and rent relief programs. These programs were necessary at the beginning of the pandemic. The Conservatives fully supported the programs, and even made recommendations and changes to the programs to improve them and ensure no Canadians fell through the cracks. While there were always challenges, and we heard from our constituents about how these programs needed to be improved, I know my constituents were grateful that all parties put their partisanship aside to provide emergency support. However, these programs have made a reappearance in this budget as they are being extended. While most of the country is grappling with an intense third wave of COVID-19, and provinces are once again instituting some of the harshest lockdown policies we have seen thus far, this is all because of the current Prime Minister's failure to protect Canadians.

These programs are only being extended because the Prime Minister failed to take the appropriate actions at the start of the pandemic. Examples include closing our borders to all international travellers, supplying the provinces with rapid testing and securing enough vaccine deliveries in large enough quantities to provide a successful vaccine rollout.

Instead, because of the government's incompetence, many of our frontline workers, many of whom reside in my riding, have only been given their first shot and have been told they have to wait months before they can get their second shot.

Finally, I want to highlight in the budget the focus on gender-based violence in Canada. Since the government was elected, it has constantly talked about gender-based violence and how it negatively impacts women and girls in Canada. On average, one in three women and girls in Canada will face some sort of violence in their lifetime. That is 6,373,325 women and girls.

Each time the Minister for Women and Gender Equality has appeared before the Status of Women committee, I have asked her repeatedly when Canadian women and girls can finally see the government's national action plan to address gender-based violence. What is the answer? The minister always replies by acknowledging this is an important issue that the government wants to address, yet there comes a point when words no longer mean anything if they are not followed through with action.

Every single one of our allies who signed the international agreement that gender-based violence is a serious issue, a pandemic that needs to be addressed, at the same time as Canada did, has already published at least one national action plan. In some cases, they are already working on versions two and three. We cannot even get our first version out. This is why I was pleased to see in the budget the government's plan to address this very serious issue. However, I was completely disappointed that, after years of campaigning and promising from the Prime Minister, the government has only now decided to appoint a secretariat to develop this plan.

There were 161 women murdered last year solely because they were women and just last week in Quebec, they had their 11th woman murdered, a victim of femicide, since February of this year. This is why I have been meeting with stakeholders across this country and working with my Conservative colleagues on how we can effectively and quickly address this ever-growing crime and end violence toward women.

Conservatives have put forward solutions to better monitor individuals with a history of domestic violence and to address sexual exploitation of minors. Conservatives have advocated for giving women the ability to find out if their intimate partner has a history of violence. Canadians cannot afford more empty promises and recommendations that fall on deaf ears, not when the lives of our daughters, sisters, mothers and grandmothers are at stake.

Canada's Conservatives were very clear that we wanted to see a plan to return to normal that would secure jobs and the economy. However, the Prime Minister's budget is a massive letdown for Canadians who were looking for a plan to create jobs and boost economic growth. Conservatives have put forward a real viable plan to help get our economy going again.

Canada's recovery plan is focused on creating financial security and certainty. This plan will safely secure our future and deliver a Canada where those who have struggled the most through this pandemic can get back to work. This plan will ensure that manufacturing at home is bolstered, where wages go up and where the dream of affording a better life for their children can be realized by all Canadians.

Canada's Conservatives got Canada through the last recession and with Canada's recovery plan, we will get Canadians through this one too.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really concerned about why Conservatives are so set on trying to paint the child care strategy that is being proposed by this government as some kind of uniform child care drop-off centre where every child has the exact same experience. This is not the case of what is being proposed.

We like to talk about the model that is in Quebec right now. In Quebec, subsidies for child care are for not-for-profit, family-based and for-profit. This has been going on for 20 years in Quebec. In addition to that, private for-profit child care does exist where there are provincial and federal tax credits, which make them very comparable to the subsidized ones.

Guess what? I did not know any of this 10 minutes ago. I just googled this while I was listening to the member's speech. Why are Conservatives so insistent on giving misinformation when it comes to what this government is proposing?

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, over the last year, we have seen the Liberal government announce programs, and the devil is in the details. I am glad to hear the member and the Liberal government are listening.

It is important to make sure multiculturalism and diversity in our country stay alive and that culture and language are protected. It is important that parents are not required to drop off their kids at day care and pick them up at the end of the day and that parental choice is at the centre of that program, which I have not seen yet, but I am glad the government is listening to our points.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

She spoke a lot about women and the status of women. The pandemic has made it clear that women are often affected by instability and violence. The pandemic has also shed light on the situation of seniors, many of whom are women.

The government has just created two classes of seniors: those 75 and up and those 65 to 74. That is a first in this country. What does my colleague think of this sudden move by the federal government?

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right, women have been suffering, and the pandemic has highlighted a lot of what was known previously. It has highlighted the issues that exist in our society in Canada, so it is important to focus on these issues.

I spoke about today femicide. There has been an 11th woman murdered in Quebec. This is bothering me and hurts me to my core that another woman, another mother, sister, daughter or granddaughter was murdered at the hands of their intimate partner. We need to focus on issues that impact women.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Highway 11 and Highway 17 represent the Trans-Canada Highway across Canada. This is where all the economic goods of this nation travel. If we talk to anyone who travels this highway, they will tell us about the rising number of truck accidents, trucks going off the road and trucks going into oncoming traffic.

My question is about the lack of vision and rules about proper training and standards for insurance to hold companies to account so we keep the drivers of the trucks safe but also keep the people who are travelling the roads in northern Ontario safe. I have not seen that in this budget.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this was more of a statement than a question. I hope the Liberal government heard it and will address the issue.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise virtually to participate in the debate on the budget and to provide the perspective of many Canadians, especially that of my constituents in northern Saskatchewan who feel left out, forgotten and, in some cases, at complete odds with the Liberal government.

It has now been 19 months since I was selected the member of Parliament for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. During that time, my team and I have done what we could under the current restrictions to meet with as many constituents, local representatives, indigenous representatives, business owners and many others across northern Saskatchewan to keep in touch with their priorities.

For example, in an attempt to reach as many constituents as possible, my office developed an online survey, targeted through social media to the people in my riding. The results show just how out of touch the Liberal government is with the people in northern Saskatchewan. When given a list of 10 issues and asked to choose their top three, the most common issues identified by the people in my riding were: ending and recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, jobs and the economy, and rural and gang crime.

This budget was an opportunity for the government to chart a clear path forward, to introduce a growth and jobs budget that would provide hope for Canadians that the fight against COVID-19 is nearly over, and that we have a path to recovery. Instead, it is a poorly crafted campaign document that plunges Canada so far into debt that my grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying for the reckless spending of the Prime Minister.

I want to touch briefly on these top three issues that were raised by my constituents for the duration of my time, starting first with ending and recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic. As I am sure members have noticed, several weeks ago Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe released a reopening Saskatchewan plan. This plan included vaccination targets by age groups and corresponding parts of the economy and social life that would be opened once these targets were met.

The response in Saskatchewan has been very positive. This has not only encouraged people to get vaccinated, but has done what I think is most important: it has given people hope, hope that this will soon be over, hope that there will be a return to normal, hope that we can once again gather with friends and loved ones, and hope for business owners that there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Unfortunately, we have received no such plan from the Prime Minister or his government. We have been asking for months for a plan, for targets that once achieved would lead us on a path back to life as we know it. Instead, we see Liberal minister after Liberal minister stand in front of cameras and pat themselves on the back, while at the same time attacking premiers from across the country.

Speaking of premiers, premiers across Canada came together and had one ask for this budget. It was an increase in health care transfers to deal with the pandemic, and with the hundreds of billions of dollars the Liberals are spending, they could not even provide a commitment to the provinces on this matter. That is a shame.

Next, my constituents ranked jobs and the economy. Unemployed Canadians hoping to see a plan to create new jobs and economic opportunities for their families have been let down by this budget. Workers who have had their wages cut and their hours slashed hoping to see a plan to reopen the economy have been let down by the budget.

Finally, families who have seen their taxes continually increase over the past six years under the Liberal government and who are struggling to save more money for their children's education or to buy a home have been let down by this budget.

The Prime Minister and the government will tell us over and over again, in fact he did it this week, how the first thing they did was to increase taxes on the top 1% so that they could reduce taxes for the middle class. As someone who has prepared thousands of tax returns over the last 30 years, the vast majority of them for middle-class Canadians, I can assure this House that this is simply not true. I could provide example after example of people whose personal income taxes have in fact increased substantially since 2015.

These are not people who are earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. I am talking about people who are earning $50,000 to $80,000 a year in family income and who have seen their taxes increase significantly.

Let me move on to jobs. There are two very important sectors in northern Saskatchewan that have been devastated by the government's poor handling of the pandemic, as well as its weakness at the bargaining table. These sectors are the outfitting and tourism sector and the forestry sector. Believe it or not, many members in this House may be surprised to learn that not all of Saskatchewan is flat prairies where one can see rolling wheatfields for miles at a time.

My riding in northern Saskatchewan is home to many businesses and jobs that depend on the forestry sector. The government's failure to secure a softwood lumber agreement with the United States over the past six years has been very difficult for them, and honestly embarrassing for Canada. Canada has not had a softwood lumber agreement with the United States since the fall of 2015, and the Liberal government failed to negotiate softwood lumber into the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement recently.

My very first question in the House, after I was elected, was on this exact issue. Nearly two years later, Canadians have yet to see any meaningful action on softwood lumber by the government. In fact, we are now seeing a step backward with the United States Department of Commerce's announcement last week of increased duties on softwood lumber imports from Canada.

I do not think the Prime Minister nor his ministers understand the importance of businesses like NorSask Forest Products in my riding. This is a lumber mill. It is owned by nine first nations. As I have stated in the House on previous occasions, dividends paid from this entity provide integral funding for critical programs to the ownership first nations. For this mill and many others that are not owned by first nation entities in my riding, these duties are doubling with the announcement last week. The stakes are too high for the government to continue to fail on this issue.

Let me move on to the outfitting and tourism sectors. The government's total failure when it comes to the border with the United States has continued to leave outfitters and other tourism operators in my riding in the dark. These businesses operate during hunting and fishing seasons. They are seasonal businesses, mostly with customers who travel from the United States to enjoy beautiful northern Saskatchewan. As I said before, the government's lack of a plan is severely hampering these businesses and the many other northern tourism operators.

Many will write this off as partisan, however the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been very clear in his analysis of the budget. Not only will a significant amount of the Liberal spending in this budget not create economic growth or jobs, the Liberals and their budget greatly overestimate their growth prediction. To use a very technical term from my days as an accountant, it seems the Liberals may be fudging the numbers to make themselves look better. I am sure it is not the first time and I am sure it will not be the last.

It is very clear that the Liberal government's stimulus fund was more about spending on Liberal partisan re-election promises than creating jobs or growing the economy. With their uncontrolled spending, the Liberals have made it clear that they have no plan to return to a balanced budget. Once again, this is just another example where the Liberal Party is completely out of touch with Canadians. In fact, a recent poll by Nanos found that 75% of Canadians were worried about the growing deficit.

I realize I have used most of my time on the first two issues, so let me quickly comment on the third priority of my constituents, those in northern Saskatchewan, and that is the rural and gang crime issue. The Liberal government has spent more time and energy going after law-abiding firearm owners like hunters and sport shooters than they have on illegal gun importing and organized crime. Tomorrow and next week, we will have more opportunity to debate the Liberals' disastrous bills, Bill C-21 and Bill C-22, that would decrease penalties for dangerous gun, drug and gang-related crime, while simultaneously criminalizing behaviour like hunting, which many indigenous and non-indigenous people in my riding rely on to provide for their families.

It does not take much to notice how the government has failed Canadians. One need look no further than the current NHL playoffs, games south of the border with fan-filled arenas and life returning to normal, while in Canada, my beloved Toronto Maple Leafs are handily putting a beat down on the Montreal Canadiens in front of empty arenas. It is time for the government to admit its failure and introduce a plan to return to normal, one that focuses on jobs and the economy, and does what it takes to keep Canadians safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the member is worried about anybody accusing his speech of being overly partisan, he should probably go back and watch it.

The member and many other members have talked about this budget being nothing more than an election platform. If that is the case, could he tell us what parts of the budget in particular are election platform items that the Conservatives do not support? Is it child care for Canadian families? Is it perhaps the extended supports for Canadians during a pandemic? Is it supports for small and medium-sized businesses? Is it the supports for the provinces? Which parts of this “election platform” he is not in favour of?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would answer that question with the vast majority of my speech, which spoke to jobs and job creation. For two years in my riding in northern Saskatchewan, I have promoted and advocated for the creation of jobs as a solution to many of the challenges faced by the people in my riding. In this budget, I see a significant lack of anything that would create jobs in my riding. That is what I would change.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. He spoke about job creation and tourism, but then he quickly moved on to the issue of health transfers.

I would like to know if he agrees with the Bloc Québécois and supports increasing the health transfer from 22% to 35%.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is not my place in my role at this time to determine the percentage and amounts of transfers for health care. I would suggest that as a government in waiting and somebody who wants to be part of government, we would commit to having a positive relationship with all provinces. We would work with those provinces to find answers and solutions to these issues rather than work against them.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the budget had no line for investment in, for example, VIA Rail. We know Greyhound is in the tank. These are critical and vital transportation links, particularly for remote communities. Many seniors, for example, use the bus and rail.

I wonder if my colleague is supportive of making massive investments in VIA Rail and Greyhound?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has consistently created policies and introduced provisions that divide Canadians, whether it be regionally or urban versus rural. Even today, there is much discussion about the division in categories of seniors. As somebody who represents a very northern riding, unlike my colleague asking the question, I very much understand the need for transportation for people in my riding.

If there is a lack of support for things that are important to my New Democratic colleague, why did she choose to support this budget in the first place?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, not to give any secrets away, but I suspect my colleague is of a similar vintage as me. I remember when my first mortgage, for example, was 13%. The interest costs in this budget are admittedly quite low, and we are in a low interest rate time, but they will go up.

I would like the member's comments on the impacts of higher inflation and interest rates and whether there is significant risk to our country with the massive amounts of debt that has been brought on by the Liberal government.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is the exact vintage as me, I am pretty certain, so we have very similar memories of our journeys in Saskatchewan.

I remember in the early 1980s when my dad was buying farmland and interest rates were 17% or 18% in a lot of cases. Just to put that in a really simple perspective, which is how I explain it to constituents, if we end up with a 1%, 2% or 3% increase in interest rates, the impact of that on the ability of government to support many of the programs it currently does would be significantly affected. For example, a 2% increase in interest rates is what is spent on national defence in a year. A 3% increase in interest rates is the amount of health transfers to the provinces every year. When we put it in terms like that and with interest rates rising 1%, 2% or 3% not being unrealistic, it would have a huge impact on our ability to support very important programs in our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak to the budget bill, because I have a lot of concern about the budget.

I will start with the amount of debt the government has added. The Prime Minister has added more debt to Canada than did all the prime ministers, together, since the beginning of Confederation. We are now at a debt of $1.3 trillion and the government has asked to raise the ceiling of that to $1.8 trillion.

People may wonder why that matters to me. The amount of debt that has been added to each Canadian is about $30,000. Let us think about this. That means for people who are watching, they will have to pay the government $250 a month every month for the next 10 years to pay off just what the government has spent so far. As we continue to spend, those numbers will go up. Let us think about in terms of a family. Partners and their children, everyone, will be paying $250 a month for 10 years. That is a lot of money.

There does not seem to be a plan. I asked the finance minister last night and she was unable to articulate a plan that would resolve this in the longer term. Nobody certainly expects an immediate adjustment, because we are trying to exit the pandemic, but where is the plan to exit the pandemic and restore the economy?

If we look at some of the substance in the budget, we will see that the Liberals have extended many of the programs that were put into place to help people during the pandemic, and that is great. The Conservatives always supported that. However, a lot of the programs had flaws and people were falling through the cracks. Those things were identified early on, even in April and May of last year. Therefore, I do not understand why the government has extended programs without fixing the things. Many people had start-up businesses. This was a clear area where folks who had unfortunately started up just prior to the pandemic or a few months in advance of the pandemic did not have the revenue to show for the previous year. If the government really wants to help people, why are these little holes in the programs not fixed?

It is the same situation for a lot of the women entrepreneurs. We have heard how disproportionately affected women were in the pandemic. We have seen the maternity leave issue. Women who were going to take maternity leave in the future but then had to stay home from work because of COVID were unable to get their maternity leave. The Liberals have not sorted that out in a whole year. The government knows about these issues and it needs to fix them. I do not understand why they were not fixed for the budget.

The member for Kingston and the Islands talked about the accusations that the Liberals were vote-buying and electioneering with this budget. It is hard not to think that is the case when we see money for everybody. Certainly, the Liberals will continue to give money away until they run out of the taxpayer money, and we are just about there.

I have looked at some of the promises in the budget. In particular, I want to talk about child care because that was flagged as a huge need. We have certainly heard that at the status of women committee which I chair. However, it is contingent on the provinces paying half. What if the provinces do not have the ability to pay? With the pandemic and the expenses they face, that may be the case. I asked the finance minister last night what the plan was if provinces could not afford to pay and she was not able to articulate a plan. It is very concerning when the person who is supposed to be in charge of the financial plan cannot say what it is.

We need to ensure that there is something to address the child care need because women have left the workforce and many of them will not return because they are unable to get child care.

In terms of some of the other things, this was put forward as being a growth budget. Again, last night when we looked at the estimates, I asked the finance minister about the plans for growth in the oil and gas sector and if she could point to measures that would achieve that. There was really nothing in the budget for that. It is the same for the natural resources sector. That is about 17% of our GDP. Again, there was really a blank space where there should have been some kind of a plan to grow that sector. This sector could really bring in revenue that would then pay for a lot of the social programs we are wanting.

I asked the same question about agriculture and where in the budget were the plans to spur growth in the agriculture sector. Again, there was no answer.

Therefore, this is not a growth budget. The only thing growing in this budget is the debt, and that is not what we need.

We really need to start to create jobs and get people back to work: the million jobs that were lost in the pandemic and those that will continue to be lost. We need to find help for the sectors that are struggling, and the tourism sector is well recognized as one that is struggling.

The government picked its favourite, Air Canada, and did something there, but nothing for WestJet, nothing for Air Transat and nothing for the other carriers. At the same time, the $1 billion for fairs and festivals is woefully inadequate for one of the hardest-hit sectors, which employs many people in the country. The plan needs to be realistic, and we need to appreciate that it could be a two-year recovery for the people in that sector.

At the same time, high-speed Internet is known to be a need across the country. In fact, it is essential to do business today. There is $1 billion in this budget for high-speed Internet, but I would point out that in the last few years $1.5 billion has been spent and that is a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed. This is something that the government is saying it wants to accelerate.

Again, in terms of the priorities of the spending, there are some things that I think we need to stop spending on and other things that we need to divert to and accelerate, like high-speed Internet.

I was happy to see long-term care being addressed, and certainly that is important. In the area of seniors, the increases to OAS that we have long been calling for are appreciated, for those over 75 years of age. We have seen that during this pandemic the government did two carbon tax increases, and the cost of everything is going up: food, groceries, etc. Seniors are on a fixed income in many cases and are very hard pressed. While the government is busy spending, why only the 75-plus? What about the people between 65 and 75? I should point out to the Liberals that those people do vote, so that could be a consideration for them.

The other thing I see here is a top-up for low-wage earners. To me, that looks like a basic guaranteed income that just was not called a basic guaranteed income.

Of course, in this long budget bill, the omnibus budget bill that the government always promised it would never do, the government has decided to sneak in something about the Elections Act, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the budget. What happened was that, in the last Parliament, Bill C-76, a bill to change the Elections Act, tried to introduce measures to make it an offence to say false things about a candidate or a public figure, but the court struck that down as being a violation of people's freedom of speech.

Instead of challenging the court's decision or respecting the court's decision, the government has decided to take the sneaky approach and stick it in a 720-page budget bill, and put the provision in there that this would take effect on any election that occurs within six months of the coming into force of this budget. Well, that certainly sounds like the Liberals are intending to have an election in the next six months, does it not? This is just more evidence that the Liberals are desperate to have an election and that they do not keep their promises, because this is an omnibus budget bill.

At the end of the day, when we look at the measures in the budget, what did we get for it? I have just a few questions that remain.

First of all, I do not see the plan to exit the pandemic. We thought maybe the vaccines would be it, even though that has been badly bungled. Now we are saying, “Well, you know what, even if you get the vaccine you might still be able to transmit COVID and might still be able to get it, so you are not going to get your freedoms back there.” I really do not have a lot of confidence that the government is going to give back Canadians' freedoms, and if it does, that it would restore the economy. Because there is no growth plan in this budget and there are no adequate sector supports defined, there may be nothing left to reopen to, if the government does not address this. The government has to come up with a plan to address the unsustainable debt. We cannot continue to operate in this way.

Finally, the government needs to stop the war on freedom of speech of Canadians in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member referenced the question that I had asked previously. However, I found it fascinating that in her follow-up response to my question on what this budget had promised, she said that it seems as though there is “money for everybody in here”, as though it is a bad thing to create a budget that strives to take care of all Canadians and make sure that everybody is reflected in it.

I will rephrase my previous question and put it to the member in a much simpler way: Whom would she like to see not being taken care of in this budget?

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly the member opposite would know that the Conservatives have supported to assist people to get through the pandemic.

However, the government failed to close the borders adequately from the beginning, when it still allowed planes in from China, Iran and Iraq, and learned nothing from that. I was the shadow health minister. I read the pandemic plan. Border control is number one. The next thing we know, the variants came, but the government still allowed people in from the U.K and South Africa. Then the next wave came along, with India and Pakistan. Again, the borders were not closed. Then there was the bungling of the vaccines.

With all of these things, that is what is dragging out the pandemic recovery that is needed. People do not want a government handout. What they want is their jobs back and to get back to work, and that is what the government should be focused on.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Like many people, she is concerned about returning to a balanced budget. However, there are some in our society who are not paying their fair share. I am thinking of all those companies and people who send their money to tax havens.

Bill C-30 has some specific measures to deal with tax avoidance. The government is presenting them as a major effort to counter tax avoidance but, in reality, these measures are just highly specific, minor tweaks related to ongoing cases. What are the member's thoughts on the fight against tax havens?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the good question. It is very important for everyone to pay their fair share. I think that the Liberals do not have a good plan for recovering money from the wealthiest people.

When we look at the measures the Liberals have taken when they tried to raise taxes on the 1%, they actually got less tax revenue overall. That did not work out. They have done nothing that I can see to follow up on the paradise papers and the Panama papers and all the different lists of people who are definitely sheltering things offshore.

Clearly, rules exist but are not even being enforced. We probably need more stringent rules to prevent other people from hiding their money.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear my colleague speak about the importance of child care. I know she has worked very hard on supports for families and for women in particular. It plays an important role in that committee. She talked about the idea that a universal child care program is something that we need to make sure the provinces are onside with. She will know that Premier Kenney in my province has already said that he is not onside with it, despite the Royal Bank, chambers of commerce and all kinds of advocates saying that child care is probably the best way to get our economy back up and running.

In Alberta, we have not even spent the money in our budget for child care. What does the member think would be the solution to provinces that are not willing to put in child care for their populations, knowing that it is so important? I know she knows it is so important.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a great question that is from my colleague. It is a big fail for the Liberal government to announce that it is going to have this big child care thing without even checking with the provinces first, when it has made it contingent on the provinces participating. Clearly, this is just an empty promise, then.

What we ought to do is make sure that the federal government can do something that does not require the provinces necessarily to intervene. There are a number of different ways we can make child care more affordable. A lot of people who are paying for child care, if they could get all that money back, then not only have we made child care more affordable for them, but we also have all the people who are working in the child care sector who are paying taxes and all of the businesses associated with that. There is a revenue stream there.

I would argue that getting more women into the workforce and getting them all working is going to generate the revenue to offset having quality child care and having a variety of solutions that will work—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We can take just one more short question.

The hon. member for Prince Albert.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member has been working tirelessly on Line 5 and the jobs in Sarnia. Did she see anything in this budget that would actually be there for the people of Sarnia in those jobs if Line 5 was to close?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question from my colleague, who works hard on the Canada-U.S. committee. There is nothing in this budget. In fact, not only is there nothing for oil and gas and for natural resources, but there is no contingency in this budget in case Line 5 does shut down. That will certainly drive the costs of everything up, including fuel that the government uses.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this House on behalf of my constituents of Edmonton Mill Woods.

In the lead-up to this budget, the longest lead-up ever, as we went over two years without a budget, there were dozens of news stories and trial balloons talking about how innovative this budget was going to be. We heard time and again about how this budget would be a stepping stone for the Liberal government to build back better, whatever that means. Instead, at 739 pages and nearly a quarter of a million words, the longest budget in the history of our great country is also the greatest disappointment.

There is no plan to deal with inflation. There is no plan to make the dream of home ownership more attainable for Canadians. There is no plan to create new jobs and economic opportunities for families and young people across this country. Instead, we are left with a budget that says so much, proposes so little, and leaves Canadian jobs, productivity, and economic growth behind.

Let me start by looking at the full picture. In my riding of Edmonton Mill Woods and right across Canada, there are countless families and businesses on the brink of losing everything. The jobs numbers that came out earlier this month revealed that another 207,000 people across Canada had to come home and tell their family and loved ones one of the most difficult things to hear, that they had lost their job.

To be clear, Alberta’s economic problems didn’t just start because of this pandemic. The Liberals' Bill C-69, which many people called the “no more pipelines” bill; Bill C-48, the tanker ban; and general disregard for the energy sector have driven away billions of dollars of investment and, with it, thousands of Canadian jobs. The government has failed to produce a plan for one of Canada’s largest economic sectors, the energy sector.

There are some things in this budget that we and our Conservative team are in favour of. For so many Canadians who continue to struggle throughout this pandemic, the budget does have the extension of emergency programs that our Conservative team supports, measures like the wage subsidy, rent subsidy and other recovery benefits, but there are still issues that remain with some of these programs. My office has heard from so many Canadians. It has heard repeatedly from small businesses that opened just before the pandemic or during the pandemic, which have been left behind by these wage subsidy and rent subsidy programs. When asked about it, the Liberals continue to repeat what everybody already knows, that small businesses are the backbone of our community, yet they continue to do nothing to rectify this issue, leaving many small businesses, and the Canadians employed by them, behind.

One thing that I know would bring jobs to Alberta and to Canadians from coast to coast is pipelines. Our natural resources sector accounts for nearly two million jobs and nearly one-fifth of Canada’s GDP. There are mentions of pipelines in this budget. They talk about a vaccine pipeline, a talent pipeline, an innovation pipeline and a PPE pipeline, but no mention of a pipeline to carry our natural resources. Once again, the Liberal government continues to ignore our energy sector, which will be instrumental in our economic recovery coming out of this pandemic. Instead, we continue to import oil from the likes of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, where there are much lower environmental standards and horrific human rights records. Talk about a failure.

Perhaps the biggest failure, and the focus of my speech today, is the government’s failure to take inflation seriously. Canada’s inflation rate in April was 0.6%, or roughly 7% on an annualized basis. For the average family in my riding of Edmonton Mill Woods, that means the inflation tax is going to take nearly $6,500 out of their pocket this year. This has been seen right across the board, as Canadian consumer prices are climbing at the fastest pace in a decade. The average family will pay nearly $700 more in groceries this year because of inflation. Everything from meat and vegetables to cereals and bread has increased by about 5%. Gas prices are continuing to increase dramatically. As Bloomberg reported last week, they have increased more than 60% in a year.

Perhaps the most explicit case I can make here is with lumber prices, which have increased by 300% over the last year. As Kevin Lee, the CEO of the Canadian Home Builders' Association, points out, this drastic rise in lumber costs will add tens of thousands of dollars to the average price of a home.

This leads me to another area of failure in this budget, which is the lack of any semblance of a plan to address overwhelming housing affordability issues in Canada, which has pushed the dream of home ownership further out of reach for far too many Canadians. Prices across Canada are skyrocketing, with young families who were saving for their first home at the beginning of this pandemic even further behind than when they started.

This has led to feelings of hopelessness. A poll from the Royal Bank of Canada released last month revealed that 36% of non-homeowners under the age of 40 have given up on ever buying a home and 62% of respondents said they expect the majority of people will be priced out of the market over the next decade.

What is the government doing to address this concern of people being left out of the market? The hallmark of this budget’s efforts on housing affordability is a 1% tax on foreign owners of vacant housing, which will simply be seen as a very minor inconvenience for wealthy foreign investors who have seen their investments appreciate by 42% this past year. This will not solve the problem at all. Instead, the current government should be focused on the root of the problem, which is the shortage of supply right across Canada.

As a recent Scotiabank report points out, Canada has the lowest number of housing units per capita of any G7 country. If Canada set the modest goal of simply catching up to the United States, Canadian builders would have to complete an extra 100,000 homes. To catch up to the U.K., it would require an extra 250,000 homes. To put these gaps in perspective, we have had an average of 188,000 home completions in the last 10 years.

I believe this serves as a perfect microcosm of the government’s philosophy. When it identifies a problem, it does not address the root cause. Instead, it takes a small reactive step, creates a new government agency or program for it, and then dumps millions, if not billions, into it.

The budget introduces another $101 billion in new spending, pushing our debt-to-GDP ratio to over 50% over the next few years. What are we getting out of this increased spending and debt? The budget predicts that the growth rate will slow steadily starting in 2022, all the way down to 1.7% growth in 2025.

As Robert Asselin, the former policy and budget director to Bill Morneau and policy advisor to the Prime Minister, said of this budget, “it is hard to find a coherent growth plan.... [S]pending close to a trillion dollars [and] not moving the needle on…growth would be the worst possible legacy of this budget.” While the budget is entitled, “A Recovery Plan for Jobs, Growth, and Resilience”, there seems to be much concern about whether or not it will deliver on jobs or growth.

The budget has no investments to address the structural problems that have plagued productivity and our ability to compete on the global stage. There is no plan to address the unprecedented level of investment that is fleeing Canada. There is no plan for regulatory and tax reform to help us win on the global stage. There is no comprehensive innovation strategy to ensure Canadian tech start-ups keep their job-creating investments here at home.

This budget is not meant for the growth of the economy. I believe Canadians are looking for hope that things will soon get better and they will still have a bright future to look forward to. They want their jobs and small businesses back. They want their lives and communities back. They want the hope of being able to afford a house. Simply put, they want to return to normal and live the Canadian dream.

This budget fails to deliver. There is no growth plan. It is not meant for the people of Edmonton Mill Woods, Alberta or our future generations. It is a failure. That is why we will not be supporting it.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton Mill Woods for his speech, which gives me an opportunity to ask him a question about the environment and natural resources.

My colleague talked a lot about oil and gas, but there are other natural resources, including the sun, wind and bioheat. Simply by transforming forest resources into bioproducts, we can create thousands of jobs, and it is good for our health as well.

There are 15,300 premature deaths in Canada every year, the cost of which is equivalent to 6% of the GDP. If we are going to talk about money, let us talk about it as part of the bigger picture.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question on support for our energy sector and the different types of energy sectors there are across Canada. The fact is that we do not have to shut down one industry to support another. We can continue to support the different aspects of our Canadian energy sector.

The oil and gas sector has improved its global greenhouse footprint significantly now that it is running much better environmental processes. The new technology of carbon capture and storage is something Conservatives believe we could have invested in to help improve things and create jobs in a way that would be better for the environment. Unfortunately, the Liberal budget did not deliver on that.

[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 find it interesting that Conservative members continue to say there is no plan. If one reads the document, one will find there are many different measures within it to continue to support Canadians through the pandemic and beyond.

As the Prime Minister often references, we are learning from what occurred during the pandemic in order to build back better. There are ample examples of it, and I will reference a specific one. For the Prairies, we are now talking about a prairie diversification fund, which will be far greater than the western diversification fund Stephen Harper had years ago.

Does the member not agree that having a prairie investment fund and advocacy for the three prairie provinces is a positive step forward?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that, even just yesterday, our shadow minister asked the government about its plan, how many jobs it would create and when the budget would be balanced. The government had no answers to any of those questions. The unfortunate thing is that Liberals can call it a plan, but they really do not have the answers to very basic questions.

What we need is a plan to create jobs, especially in Alberta. The Liberals' policies, such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, and their overall disregard for the energy sector have hurt investments. Thousands of jobs have left. We need a plan to bring those jobs back. We need to bring investor confidence back, and this budget does none of that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives of course do not talk about the fact that hedge fund operators around the world are pulling out of Alberta because Jason Kenney is refusing to get serious about an environmental plan. On the other hand we have the Liberals, who promised us two billion trees. We are still waiting on those.

As well, they have this great renovation plan. I love it. It is the best plan since 1992. It is five thousand bucks. Thirty years ago that was also the plan. One would get $5,000 to fix their house and make it energy efficient. What is $5,000 going to get someone today? A person could not build a deck for $5,000.

I did not know Justin Trudeau was so old that he lived in the pre-economy of the monies of 1992. How much does my hon. colleague think a $5,000 investment is actually going to do to save the planet?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I will remind to the hon. member about the use of other hon. member's given or family names.

The hon. member for Edmonton Mill Woods.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is part of the problem with the government. It makes a lot of announcements. It talks about how many billions of dollars it spent. It actually has thrown a lot of money around, but the problem is actual results.

How many jobs have been created, and how much has this helped the environment? Liberals just do not have the answers because they have not done the studies or had have proper follow-through on these answers.

If we think about it, one would figure that any organization that has increased its spending, and the government has considerably increased its spending, would increase its auditing as well. This is because one would want to make sure the spending one has done has ticked the boxes and is getting results. With the government, audits of its spending have actually gone down, so there is less transparency and fewer results. We need more results and fewer big announcements from the government.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would just like to thank everybody who lives in the riding of Huron—Bruce for their tremendous work over the last year and a half in combatting COVID. The rates in Huron County and Bruce County are some of the lowest in Ontario, and may be some of the lowest in Canada.

This is because of everybody, not just one person. Everybody's efforts have made the difference. I thank them. We are all proud of everyone's efforts. That is likely the best news of this speech.

When I look at this budget, I think maybe we could call it the “lack of vaccine” budget. Here we are. Just a few days ago, we had our May long weekend. We are near the end of May. We are in Ottawa today. Sparks Street should be full. The markets should be full. The patios should be out. The restaurants should be busy. There should be kids here on class trips, coming on tours. The hotels should be full.

Why are they not? By and large, the reason, and this is just the microcosm of the entire Canadian economy in the service industry, is that we did not have vaccines quickly enough and we did not have enough of them. That is the reality of why we have spent so much more than we ever would have thought we would have needed to spend.

In the process, the Liberal government, in its lack of action, has decimated tens of thousands of people's equity in their business, their savings and equity in their home. That is the truth. There is no bank manager in the country who would argue that fact.

Maybe someone who sells four-wheelers as a business has had the best year of all time. However, certainly for those in the service sector, this has been a humbling experience, to say the least.

The Bank of Canada, and this is unprecedented, has purchased over 250 billion dollars' worth of bonds. Who would have ever thought that we would be doing this? Who would have ever thought? A high of $6 billion a week, currently around $3 billion or $4 billion a week. Clearly, we cannot sustain this at all.

We all know there is inflation. We could go up and down the streets in our communities and see the homes for sale, going for $100,000, $200,000 or $300,000 over the list price. I talked to a builder the other day. A two by four that is 16 feet long, I think he told me it was $28. It was $7.50 last May. To the member for Timmins—James Bay, $5,000 to spruce up a home is not going far.

The printing of money, the Bank of Canada buying, is creating inflation. The other day I saw some commentary about how, compared to the U.S. dollar, ours is looking pretty good. The U.S. is probably printing more than we are right now. I think last week I saw the fed bought $92 billion in the United States. The Canadian dollar is doing well against the American dollar, but if we look at it as a Canadian dollar and what could be bought, we can buy less.

What the government has tried to do is it has tried to help. I believe the government has tried to help people, but maybe in the wrong ways. This inflation has cost the very people it was trying to help the most, the ones in the service industry, the ones earning an hourly wage who maybe do not have benefits. In Ontario, the province I am from, that wage is $14 to $15 an hour. The last year and a half has made that $15 an hour more like under $10 an hour. Certainly, if anybody had any hopes of buying a home or a condo, almost 40% to 50% has been added to what people thought would reasonably have to be paid.

For a country that had 75% ownership, when Europe has about 25%, in short order we have almost taken away the opportunity for the middle class to ever own a home. That is a shame.

For the ultra-wealthy, the people who have multiple homes, investments and all sorts of apparatus to accumulate wealth, this has been the absolute best time of all time. If we think about it, the last two or three years should have been the opportunity to raise up everybody. The Prime Minister, his finance minister and the party have diminished the middle class and the poor working class. That is an absolute fact. People are now in bidding wars for rental properties, not to buy a home, but to rent. It is not sustainable and will probably go down as one of the darkest moments of the government.

I live in a rural community, a hard-working, resilient rural community, and I have been mystified for the last five or six years as to how the government continually gets it wrong in rural Canada. Money for rural infrastructure is a pittance compared to what urban centres receive. Rural areas do not carry the burden of so many people, but they also have the biggest burden of protecting the most precious resources. In my area, Lake Huron has fresh water. For rural infrastructure, water, sewage, culverts, bridges, just name it, there is not enough money.

Members do not have to think I am biased. They can talk to the mayors or CAOs of Huron County or Bruce County and they will say it is not enough. It is a bidding war to even get it. By the way, the way it works is backward. One has to pitch it to the federal government, it picks over the bones, then says it is approved, but does not even tell the MPP or MP for the area. It should be the other way around. It should be that the federal government allocates money to the provinces, the provinces pick their priorities based on what the mayors and wardens tells them and then they approve the projects. This is just common sense. We have been doing this now for six years and it does not work.

As for low-income and social housing, forget it. Members can talk to any community in my riding, Saugeen Shores, South Huron or Goderich. They apply, apply and apply and it is never approved. No one has to take my word for it because the mayors call me to complain.

Then there is strategic infrastructure. We are going beyond my riding, looking at other areas and what rural areas produce. In my area there are soybeans, corn, red meat, all those different things, and we are constantly under the pressure of not having enough capacity at the ports and other areas.

As for broadband, the SWIFT project was working. The minister changed it and what a mess. We had consistent funding for rural projects and they were starting to work. Now it has changed and what a mess.

There is a chronic labour shortage throughout Ontario, which is certainly exacerbated in my riding. We need workers. We need to motivate people to get to work. We need to speed up the process of bringing in new Canadians to work in our sectors, such as, for example, meat processing. Just name it and we need it.

God bless the trade minister, but she has made a mess of trade, in my opinion. The U.S. is running roughshod over us. Everybody thought that when Trump was gone, Biden would be Canada's best friend. We do not need friends like Joe Biden, the way he has treated us with buy America and softwood lumber tariffs.

How is it that Canada has a beef trade deficit with the United Kingdom? There are those who do not think we are getting treated poorly. We are getting treated poorly. We have a pork and beef deficit with the European Union. That is not fair trade. That is not a fair partner.

I would love to talk about our borders. What a mess the government has created at our borders. Port Huron is about an hour and a half from my hometown and I know there are a lot of business people awfully disappointed with how they have been treated at the border in an arbitrary way. It is not the officials. It is not the hard-working men and women who work there. It is the mixed messages they receive from the health minister and the public safety minister.

It is not a good situation. If they cannot fix it, we will do the heavy lifting. I am saying we are prepared to do it. They let Line 5 go to this state when in Huron—Bruce and many other ridings we need it. We need it to dry our crops and heat our homes and it is willy-nilly with the current government. I know the Liberals send out the resource minister and he has some things to say, but behind the scenes there is no way the message is getting drilled home to the United States. If they want to shut us down, they are going to shut us down.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to begin, there are so many different items listed there that are just factually incorrect. I guess I will go to the one that I know the best from my time as a municipal politician in Ontario and from working at the federal level.

The member's description of how money is allocated for infrastructure is just wrong. It does not work like that at all. The feds set up different funds of money that can be applied for, but the projects have to be prioritized by the province. The province has to sign off on them first. I know that with infrastructure projects in my own riding alone. First the provinces sign off on it and give their blessing and then the federal government will review the project to make sure it meets the criteria. That is just how it works.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just in the definition right there, it shows the member does not know. If he walked down the aisle and talked to the infrastructure minister, it would be that the provinces have to go on their hands and knees to her and then she maybe does or maybe does not approve it based on the priority.

How could they go through that many steps and then have her say it does not meet the criteria? It has taken months at that point. If it does not meet the criteria they should not be allowed to apply for it. If the member wants to, as a former mayor, he can come on down to Huron—Bruce and I will let him talk to all the mayors.

You can come on down and bring your Miller Genuine Draft and we will go down and have a chat with all the mayors and they will tell you that you are wrong.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I just remind the hon. member to direct his speech to the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for alerting us to inflation and the risks there too. I wonder if he has any comments about interest rates rising to combat inflation and what that will do to the debt-servicing costs for the federal government.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is going to be out of this world, and it will be more than anything they could spend money on.

What else costs a lot of money? It is raising a family these days, and the proposal the Liberals have for day care is ridiculous. People who are pregnant today will never receive the big $10-a-day day care. Their kids will be in SK. If they have a one-year-old child today, there is this big promise of day care for $10 a day, but their kid is going to be in grade 1, so big deal. If the Liberals really want to do something, help the poor families today.

I talked to my neighbour who pays $2,000 a month for day care and $2,300 a month for rent. How are people getting ahead on that? If the Liberals want to help somebody, help him and his wife out and put it to $10 and give them a chance.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for such an excellent speech. I really do not know where to start. He has really pointed out the incompetence of the Liberal government and there is so much to talk about here, but I would like him to focus on one thing he brought up about the quantitative easing, the printing of the money.

I wonder if he could comment on the Liberal inflation tax, which we are all starting to see. I am getting complaints about groceries and the cost of living. It is happening a lot quicker than any of us would have thought. Could he please talk about the secret inflation tax that the Liberals are putting in that Canadians are unaware of?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to inflation, if they want to talk about something, how about OAS to seniors age 75? How about 65? Who has been hit the hardest? It is seniors on a fixed income, and the Liberals are offering $500 if they are over 75. My parents are 73 and 75. They laughed. How can my mom not get it and my dad does? I have had more calls on this 75 business than on anything.

Regarding inflation, seniors are hit on gas, groceries, rent, heating. They are getting hit literally every which way. Only the guys across the aisle would be oblivious to this, they would be the only ones. If we talk to any real Canadians out there, they will tell us they are getting hit hard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I am just curious if the member can tell us what a “real Canadian” is.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I think we are in the debate category there. Members are trying to extend questions and comments. That is what they seem to be doing.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion.

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 will ask for a recorded division, please.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:12 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-30.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #123

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by another 12 minutes for a total of 53 minutes.