Bill C-19

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures by
(a) providing a Labour Mobility Deduction for the temporary relocation of tradespeople to a work location;
(b) allowing for the immediate expensing of eligible property by certain Canadian businesses;
(c) allowing the Children’s Special Allowance to be paid in respect of a child who is maintained by an Indigenous governing body and providing consistent tax treatment of kinship care providers and foster parents receiving financial assistance from an Indigenous governing body and those receiving such assistance from a provincial government;
(d) doubling the allowable qualifying expense limit under the Home Accessibility Tax Credit;
(e) expanding the criteria for the mental functions impairment eligibility as well as the life-sustaining therapy category eligibility for the Disability Tax Credit;
(f) providing clarity in respect of the determination of the one-time additional payment under the GST/HST tax credit for the period 2019-2020;
(g) changing the delivery of Climate Action Incentive payments from a refundable credit claimed annually to a credit that is paid quarterly;
(h) temporarily extending the period for incurring eligible expenses and other deadlines under film or video production tax credits;
(i) providing a tax incentive for specified zero-emission technology manufacturing activities;
(j) providing the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) the discretion to accept late applications for the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy and the Canada Recovery Hiring Program;
(k) including postdoctoral fellowship income in the definition of “earned income” for RRSP purposes;
(l) enabling registered charities to enter into charitable partnerships with organizations other than qualified donees under certain conditions;
(m) allowing automatic and immediate revocation of the registration of an organization as a charity where that organization is listed as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code ;
(n) enabling the CRA to use taxpayer information to assist in the collection of Canada Emergency Business Account loans; and
(o) expanding capital cost allowance deductions to include new clean energy equipment.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Excise Tax Act , the Children’s Special Allowances Act , the Excise Act, 2001 , the Income Tax Regulations and the Children’s Special Allowance Regulations .
Part 2 implements certain Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) measures by
(a) ensuring that all assignment sales in respect of newly constructed or substantially renovated residential housing are taxable supplies for GST/HST purposes; and
(b) extending eligibility for the expanded hospital rebate to health care services supplied by charities or non-profit organizations with the active involvement of, or on the recommendation of, either a physician or a nurse practitioner, irrespective of their geographic location.
Part 3 amends the Excise Act, 2001 , the Excise Act and other related texts in order to implement three measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 implements a new federal excise duty framework for vaping products by, among other things,
(a) requiring that manufacturers of vaping products obtain a vaping licence from the CRA;
(b) requiring that all vaping products that are removed from the premises of a vaping licensee to be entered into the Canadian market for retail sale be affixed with an excise stamp;
(c) imposing excise duties on vaping products to be paid by vaping product licensees;
(d) providing for administration and enforcement rules related to the excise duty framework on vaping products;
(e) providing the Governor in Council with authority to provide for an additional excise duty in respect of provinces and territories that enter into a coordinated vaping product taxation agreement with Canada; and
(f) making related amendments to other legislative texts, including to allow for a coordinated federal/provincial-territorial vaping product taxation system and to ensure that the excise duty framework applies properly to imported vaping products.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the excise duty exemption under the Excise Act, 2001 for wine produced in Canada and composed wholly of agricultural or plant product grown in Canada.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Excise Act to eliminate excise duty for beer containing no more than 0.5% alcohol by volume.
Part 4 enacts the Select Luxury Items Tax Act . That Act creates a new taxation regime for domestic sales, and importations into Canada, of certain new motor vehicles and aircraft priced over $100,000 and certain new boats priced over $250,000. It provides that the tax applies if the total price or value of the subject select luxury item at the time of sale or importation exceeds the relevant price threshold. It provides that the tax is to be calculated at the lesser of 10% of the total price of the item and 20% of the total price of the item that exceeds the relevant price threshold. To promote compliance with the new taxation regime, that Act includes modern elements of administration and enforcement aligned with those found in other taxation statutes. Finally, this Part also makes related and consequential amendments to other texts to ensure proper implementation of the new tax and to ensure a cohesive and efficient administration by the CRA.
Division 1 of Part 5 retroactively renders a provision of the contract that is set out in the schedule to An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway , chapter 1 of the Statutes of Canada, 1881, to be of no force or effect. It retroactively extinguishes any obligations and liabilities of Her Majesty in right of Canada and any rights and privileges of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company arising out of or acquired under that provision.
Division 2 of Part 5 amends the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act to give force of law to the entire Nisga’a Nation Taxation Agreement during the period that that Taxation Agreement is, by its terms, in force.
Division 3 of Part 5 repeals the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act .
It also amends the Income Tax Act to exempt from taxation under that Act any income earned by the Safe Drinking Water Trust in accordance with the Settlement Agreement entered into on September 15, 2021 relating to long-term drinking water quality for impacted First Nations.
Division 4 of Part 5 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of addressing transit shortfalls and needs and improving housing supply and affordability.
Division 5 of Part 5 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act by adding the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and one other member to that Corporation’s Board of Directors.
Division 6 of Part 5 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize additional payments to the provinces and territories.
Division 7 of Part 5 amends the Borrowing Authority Act to, among other things, count previously excluded borrowings made in the spring of 2021 in the calculation of the maximum amount that may be borrowed. It also amends the Financial Administration Act to change certain reporting requirements in relation to amounts borrowed under orders made under paragraph 46.1(c) of that Act.
Division 8 of Part 5 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to, among other things, permit the establishment of a solvency reserve account in the pension fund of certain defined benefit plans and require the establishment of governance policies for all pension plans.
Division 9 of Part 5 amends the Special Import Measures Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that assessments of injury are to take into account impacts on workers;
(b) require the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to make inquiries with respect to massive importations when it is acting under section 42 of that Act;
(c) require that Tribunal to initiate expiry reviews of certain orders and findings;
(d) modify the deadline for notifying the government of the country of export of properly documented complaints;
(e) modify the criteria for imposing duties in cases of massive importations;
(f) modify the criteria for initiating anti-circumvention investigations; and
(g) remove the requirement that, in order to find circumvention, the principal cause of the change in a pattern of trade must be the imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing duties.
It also amends the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act to provide that trade unions may, with the support of domestic producers, file global safeguard complaints.
Division 10 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things, modernize corporate governance communications of financial institutions.
Division 11 of Part 5 amends the Insurance Companies Act to permit property and casualty companies and marine companies to not include the value of certain debt obligations when calculating their borrowing limit.
Division 12 of Part 5 enacts the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act . The Act prohibits the purchase of residential property in Canada by non-Canadians unless they are exempted by the Act or its regulations or the purchase is made in certain circumstances specified in the regulations.
Division 13 of Part 5 amends the Parliament of Canada Act and makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts to, among other things,
(a) change the additional annual allowances that are paid to senators who occupy certain positions so that the government’s representatives and the Opposition in the Senate are eligible for the allowances for five positions each and the three other recognized parties or parliamentary groups in the Senate with the greatest number of members are eligible for the allowances for four positions each;
(b) provide that the Leader of the Government in the Senate or Government Representative in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader or Facilitator of every other recognized party or parliamentary group in the Senate are to be consulted on the appointment of certain officers and agents of Parliament; and
(c) provide that the Leader of the Government in the Senate or Government Representative in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader or Facilitator of every other recognized party or parliamentary group in the Senate may change the membership of the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Division 14 of Part 5 amends the Financial Administration Act in order to, among other things, allow the Treasury Board to provide certain services to certain entities.
Division 15 of Part 5 amends the Competition Act to enhance the Commissioner of Competition’s investigative powers, criminalize wage fixing and related agreements, increase maximum fines and administrative monetary penalties, clarify that incomplete price disclosure is a false or misleading representation, expand the definition of anti-competitive conduct, allow private access to the Competition Tribunal to remedy an abuse of dominance and improve the effectiveness of the merger notification requirements and other provisions.
Division 16 of Part 5 amends the Copyright Act to extend certain terms of copyright protection, including the general term, from 50 to 70 years after the life of the author and, in doing so, implements one of Canada’s obligations under the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement.
Division 17 of Part 5 amends the College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents Act to, among other things,
(a) ensure that the College has sufficient independence and flexibility to exercise its corporate functions;
(b) provide statutory immunity to certain persons involved in the regulatory activities of the College; and
(c) grant powers to the Registrar and Investigations Committee that will allow for improved efficiency in the complaints and discipline process.
Division 18 of Part 5 enacts the Civil Lunar Gateway Agreement Implementation Act to implement Canada’s obligations under the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America concerning Cooperation on the Civil Lunar Gateway. It provides for powers to protect confidential information provided under the Memorandum. It also makes related amendments to the Criminal Code to extend its application to activities related to the Lunar Gateway and to the Government Employees Compensation Act to address the cross-waiver of liability set out in the Memorandum.
Division 19 of Part 5 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to restrict the use of detention in dry cells to cases where the institutional head has reasonable grounds to believe that an inmate has ingested contraband or that contraband is being carried in the inmate’s rectum.
Division 20 of Part 5 amends the Customs Act in order to authorize its administration and enforcement by electronic means and to provide that the importer of record of goods is jointly and severally, or solidarily, liable to pay duties on the goods under section 17 of that Act with the importer or person authorized to account for the goods, as the case may be, and the owner of the goods.
Division 21 of Part 5 amends the Criminal Code to create an offence of wilfully promoting antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust through statements communicated other than in private conversation.
Division 22 of Part 5 amends the Judges Act , the Federal Courts Act , the Tax Court of Canada Act and certain other acts to, among other things,
(a) implement the Government of Canada’s response to the report of the sixth Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission regarding salaries and benefits and to create the office of supernumerary prothonotary of the Federal Court;
(b) increase the number of judges for certain superior courts and include the new offices of Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick and Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan;
(c) create the offices of prothonotary and supernumerary prothonotary of the Tax Court of Canada; and
(d) replace the term “prothonotary” with “associate judge”.
Division 23 of Part 5 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to give instructions establishing categories of foreign nationals for the purposes of determining to whom an invitation to make an application for permanent residence is to be issued, as well as instructions setting out the economic goal that that Minister seeks to support in establishing the category;
(b) prevent an officer from issuing a visa or other document to a foreign national invited in respect of an established category if the foreign national is not in fact eligible to be a member of that category;
(c) require that the annual report to Parliament on the operation of that Act include a description of any instructions that establish a category of foreign nationals, the economic goal sought to be supported in establishing the category and the number of foreign nationals invited to make an application for permanent residence in respect of the category; and
(d) authorize that Minister to give instructions respecting the class of permanent residents in respect of which a foreign national must apply after being issued an invitation, if the foreign national is eligible to be a member of more than one class.
Division 24 of Part 5 amends the Old Age Security Act to correct a cross-reference in that Act to the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 .
Division 25 of Part 5
(a) amends the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act to set out the consequences that apply in respect of a worker who received, for a four-week period, an income support payment and who received, for any week during the four-week period, any benefit, allowance or money referred to in subparagraph 6(1)(b)(ii) or (iii) of that Act;
(b) amends the Canada Emergency Student Benefit Act to set out the consequences that apply in respect of a student who received, for a four-week period, a Canada emergency student benefit and who received, for any week during the four-week period, any benefit, allowance or money referred to in subparagraph 6(1)(b)(ii) or (iii) of that Act; and
(c) amends the Employment Insurance Act to set out the consequences that apply in respect of a claimant who received, for any week, an employment insurance emergency response benefit and who received, for that week, any payment or benefit referred to in paragraph 153.9(2)(c) or (d) of that Act.
Division 26 of Part 5 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things,
(a) replace employment benefits and support measures set out in Part II of that Act with employment support measures that are intended to help insured participants and other workers — including workers in groups underrepresented in the labour market — to obtain and keep employment; and
(b) allow the Canada Employment Insurance Commission to enter into agreements to provide for the payment of contributions to organizations for the costs of measures that they implement and that are consistent with the purpose and guidelines set out in Part II of that Act.
It also makes a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act .
Division 27 of Part 5 amends the Employment Insurance Act to specify the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers and to extend, until October 28, 2023, the increase in the maximum number of weeks for which those benefits may be paid. It also amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 to add a transitional measure in relation to amendments to the Employment Insurance Regulations that are found in that Act.
Division 28 of Part 5 amends the Canada Pension Plan to make corrections respecting
(a) the calculation of the minimum qualifying period and the contributory period for the purposes of the post-retirement disability benefit;
(b) the determination of values for contributors who have periods excluded from their contributory periods by reason of disability; and
(c) the attribution of amounts for contributors who have periods excluded from their contributory periods because they were family allowance recipients.
Division 29 of Part 5 amends An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) shorten the period before which an employee begins to earn one day of medical leave of absence with pay per month;
(b) standardize the conditions related to the requirement to provide a medical certificate following a medical leave of absence, regardless of whether the leave is paid or unpaid;
(c) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations in certain circumstances, including to modify certain provisions respecting medical leave of absence with pay;
(d) ensure that, for the purposes of medical leave of absence, an employee who changes employers due to the lease or transfer of a work, undertaking or business or due to a contract being awarded through a retendering process is deemed to be continuously employed with one employer; and
(e) provide that the provisions relating to medical leave of absence come into force no later than December 1, 2022.
Division 30 of Part 5 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to, among other things,
(a) require certain corporations to send to the Director appointed under that Act information on individuals with significant control on an annual basis or when a change occurs;
(b) allow that Director to provide all or part of that information to an investigative body, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada or any prescribed entity; and
(c) clarify that, for the purposes of subsection 21.1(7) of that Act, it is the securities of a corporation, not the corporation itself, that are listed and posted for trading on a designated stock exchange.
Division 31 of Part 5 amends the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) to, among other things,
(a) create regimes allowing for the forfeiture of property that has been seized or restrained under those Acts;
(b) specify that the proceeds resulting from the disposition of those properties are to be used for certain purposes; and
(c) allow for the sharing of information between certain persons in certain circumstances.
It also makes amendments to the Seized Property Management Act in relation to those forfeiture of property regimes.

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I would like to first say that, like so many Canadian women, I was both shocked and deeply worried by the news from the United States last night about abortion rights. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this morning that the leaked document was authentic, but that it does not represent a decision by the court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.

I also want to recognize that this decision is a decision for American judges, American politicians and the American people. However, having said that, and speaking here today as a woman, as a mother and as Canada's Deputy Prime Minister, it is important for me to begin by underlining our government's clear and determined commitment to protect a woman's right to choose. I want every single woman and girl in Canada to hear me say that here today.

Abortion is a fundamental right. Feminists fought for decades to secure it, and here in Canada we will not let it be undermined in any way. As part of Canada's feminist foreign policy, it has been a priority for our government to support the reproductive rights of women and girls around the world. We will continue to do so with greater determination than ever.

We cannot take any of our rights, including this fundamental one, for granted. In a democracy like our own, our rights are ultimately secured by the will of the people, as expressed by the decisions of their elected representatives: all of us here in the House. That is why it is so important for me to make this statement today and why all Canadians, especially all Canadian women who care about a woman's right to choose, need to be active and vigilant and need to speak out.

I am pleased to start today's debate on Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

I would like to begin by explaining the context of the current debate. When COVID‑19 struck for the first time, Canada suffered a tremendous economic shock. Three million Canadians lost their jobs and our economy shrunk by 17%. This gave way to the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Our main objective was to keep Canadians at work and to keep their employers afloat. That is why we provided unprecedented emergency help to Canadian families and businesses. It was a bold plan and it worked.

We have recovered 115% of the jobs lost in those awful first months, compared with just 93% in the United States. That means that more than three million jobs have been created or recovered. Our unemployment rate has declined to just 5.3%. That is the lowest level since Canada first began collecting comparable statistics in 1976. Our real GDP is 1.5% above where it was before the pandemic, with annual GDP growth of 6.7% in the fourth quarter of 2021, and a remarkable 13.9% on an annualized basis in February of this year.

The IMF projects that Canada will have the strongest economic growth in the G7, both this year and next. Last Thursday, S&P again affirmed Canada's AAA credit rating and gave us a stable outlook. This is in part thanks to the emergency support our government provided to rescue Canadians and the Canadian economy. It is thanks to the remarkable grit and determination that Canadians have shown over these past two years.

However, there are still challenges ahead. Inflation, a global phenomenon, is making things more expensive in Canada too. Snarled supply chains have driven prices higher at the checkout counter. Buying a house is out of reach for far too many Canadians.

Russia's illegal and barbaric invasion of Ukraine is directly contributing to higher food and energy prices, both here at home and around the world. We need to do better as a country at innovating and encouraging small businesses to grow.

We need to continue to address the existential threat of climate change, which is why, with the investments outlined in the budget and through Bill C-19, our government is focusing on growing our economy and making life more affordable for Canadians.

One of the pillars of our plan is investing in the backbone of a strong and growing country.

People need homes in which to live. The problem is that Canada does not have enough homes. Our budget contains the most ambitious plan ever put forward by a federal government to resolve this fundamental problem. Over the next 10 years, it will help us double the number of new homes built in Canada. To build the new homes Canadians need, we must make a great national effort that will demand collaboration from all levels of government.

That is why Bill C-19 contains measures aimed at investing in building more homes and bringing down the barriers that keep them from being built. For example, the bill provides for up to $750 million to help municipalities address public transit shortfalls caused by the pandemic. To increase the impact of this investment, the provinces and the territories will have to commit to match the federal contribution. This funding will also serve as a lever for the construction of new homes. The provinces and territories will have to accelerate their work with their municipalities to build more homes for Canadians.

We also need to make the housing market fairer, which is why Bill C-19 will legislate a two-year ban on allowing foreign investors to buy houses in Canada. We know that foreign money has been flowing into Canada to buy residential real estate. This has fuelled concerns about the impact on costs in cities such as Vancouver and Toronto, and across the country. Canadians are worried about being priced out of the housing market. By banning foreign purchases of Canadian housing for two years, we will make sure that houses in our country are being used as homes for Canadian families, not as a speculative financial asset class.

We will make all assignment sales of newly constructed or renovated housing taxable for GST and HST purposes. Bill C-19 will help seniors and people with disabilities live and age at home by doubling the home accessibility tax credit's annual limit to $20,000, which will help make upgrades such as wheelchair ramps more affordable.

A growing country and a growing economy also demand a growing workforce. With Bill C-19, we would make it easier for the skilled immigrants that our economy needs to make Canada their home by improving our government's ability to select applicants from the express entry system who match the needs of Canadian businesses.

We would also invest in the determined and talented workers who are already here by making it more affordable for people working in the skilled trades to travel to where the jobs are. This legislation would introduce a labour mobility deduction for tradespeople that would allow workers to deduct up to $4,000 per year for travel and temporary relocation expenses as part of an effort to reduce labour shortages in the skilled trades.

We would also introduce 10 days of paid sick leave for workers in the federally regulated private sector, which would support one million workers in industries like air, rail, road and marine transportation, banks, and postal and courier services.

The budget invests in the skills that Canadian workers need to fill the good-paying jobs of today and tomorrow, and it would help break down barriers and ensure that everyone is able to roll up their sleeves and get to work. Passing this bill is critical to that effort.

In addition, Bill C-19 will enable us to continue the work we are doing to maintain a sound tax system where everyone pays their fair share.

Our government knows that people who can buy expensive cars, planes and boats can also contribute a bit more. Canadians also know this. We were elected on this promise and we intend to keep it.

To this end, we are following through on our commitment to introduce a tax on the sale of new luxury cars and aircraft with a retail sale price of over $100,000. This tax will also apply to the sale of boats that cost more than $250,000.

Today, anonymous Canadian shell companies can be used to conceal the true ownership of assets including businesses and property. Through this legislation, our government would hasten the creation of a public and searchable registry of federally incorporated companies before the end of 2023, two years earlier than planned, to help counter illegal activities including money laundering and tax invasion. This would also help to prevent shell companies from being used to avoid sanctions, and would allow the tracing and freezing of financial assets. This effort is particularly pressing as Canada works hard with our allies through the new Russian Elites, Proxies and Oligarchs Task Force to target the global assets of Russia's elites and those who act on their behalf.

That brings me to the way that Bill C-19 would allow the Canadian government to cause the forfeiture and disposal of assets held by sanctioned people and entities, and to use the proceeds to help the people of Ukraine. Among our allies, Canada is leading the way on this work. We would be, with the passage of this bill, the first member of the G7 to take this important step. I can think of no better way to pay for the very expensive work of rebuilding Ukraine than with the seized assets of the Russian leadership that has waged this war.

In 2019, we introduced a national price on carbon pollution to make sure that it was no longer free to pollute anywhere in Canada. In provinces where the federal system applies, the proceeds are returned to Canadians and their communities.

For those living in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, Bill C-19 will change the delivery of climate action incentive payments from a refundable credit on tax returns to quarterly payments, starting in July of this year.

In Canada and around the world, climate action is now an economic necessity. Trillions of dollars can be invested in good jobs and the clean industries of today and tomorrow. Thanks to meaningful measures, the 2022 budget will enable Canada to benefit from the green transition.

One of these measures is the new Canada growth fund, which will help attract the billions of dollars in private capital we need to transform our economy at speed and at scale.

We will make zero-emission vehicles a more affordable choice for Canadians. We will build and expand the national network of charging stations for zero-emission vehicles. We will make new investments in clean energy. We will also help Canadians and Canadian companies benefit from the transition to a clean economy. One of the measures included in Bill C-19 consists in cutting tax rates in half for businesses that manufacture zero-emission technologies.

We recently introduced the 2030 emissions reduction plan, the 2022 budget and the bill we are debating today. The measures contained in these three documents represent a more sustainable economy for Canadians today as well as for future generations.

Bill C-19 will make a real difference in the lives of Canadians. It will help grow our economy, it will create good jobs and it will help us continue building a Canada where nobody is left behind. I hope all hon. members in the House will support the swift passage of this bill in the weeks to come.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to ask the minister a question that I have asked her before. It is one that we have not received an answer to. It is a question that I believe Canadians deserve an answer to. It has to do with the state of Canada's finances.

We have incurred the largest budget deficits in Canadian history. We have the largest debt that Canada has ever seen. In fact, our debt has doubled over the last six years. We have accumulated more debt over the last six years than all previous governments in Canadian history.

Canadians, quite rightly, want to know when the government's house will be brought back into order, so my question for her is a simple one, with a yes-or-no answer. Does she have any plan to return to balanced budgets?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, my answer is also a simple one. If Canadians want to understand the state of our public finances, they should look to the judgments of the objective analysts who are paid to make those assessments.

That is why it is a real pleasure for me to remind Canadians of the good news that last Thursday, S&P reaffirmed Canada's AAA credit rating, with a stable outlook. Why did it do that? It is because Canada has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Our budget showed a debt-to-GDP ratio that will continue to decline and a deficit that will continue to decline. In fact, our budget has been universally judged to be fiscally responsible, which it is.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, Terrebonne is a magnificent riding, and I hope you will visit us very soon.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her speech. We agree in principle with several of the measures proposed in Bill C-19. However, I have an important question to ask her.

On March 4, we sent a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister concerning the semiconductor shortage. Unfortunately, Bill C-19 contains no measures to address this serious shortage affecting many of our businesses. What we are seeing is a loss of expertise and jobs, and a number of businesses might have to declare bankruptcy or have already done so.

What do the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister plan do about this?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, and I am certain that Terrebonne is an excellent riding.

I would like to start by thanking the Bloc Québécois for raising today, during question period, one of the most important issues at present: the fundamental rights of women and young girls. It is important to highlight that. I want to thank them once again.

With regard to semiconductors, we are aware of the issue. We have had discussions with the Bloc, and I am certain that the member opposite knows that the budget contains measures to support the manufacturing of semiconductors in Canada.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, when we look at the budget implementation act, we see there are some modest changes to the employment insurance system. There is some tinkering with the paid sick day provisions too. However, neither get full implementation.

Canadians are still in need of widespread and ambitious employment insurance reform. There is still more legislative work to do to finally get the 10 paid sick days that were promised some time ago. We have the looming deadline of May 7 for a number of the pandemic benefits that have helped cover off some of the important things that Canadians have had to do during the pandemic, such as stay home with their kids when their kids are sick and stay home from work when they themselves are sick. Not having implemented those EI reforms and the paid sick days fully before having those benefits expire means there is a gap, and it is workers who are going to suffer for that gap.

I wonder if the government is considering an extension of those benefits until it completes those much-needed employment insurance reforms and a final full implementation of the 10 paid sick days.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for his hard work on behalf of working people in his riding and across the country.

I share his concern with working people, and that is why our government has focused so intensely on jobs. It is why when the pandemic hit, we were so deeply concerned about the three million jobs lost. It is also why in my remarks I underscored the significance of our historically low unemployment rate of 5.3%.

When it comes to the well-being of Canadians and Canadian families, well-being starts with having a good job. I agree with the need for 10 paid sick days. It is why we have that in this implementation act. I look forward to continuing to discuss EI.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance for opening her speech with a condemnation of the loss of women's rights that appears to be imminent in the United States.

I want to address the issue of the budget implementation act by starting with a fair statement. I have gone through the bill, and of course it is very long. I do not find any hidden, sneaky things that should not be in a budget implementation bill, as we experienced in 2012 with two budget implementation bills, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, that were disastrous. Then we had, in 2018, one sneaky thing that I lament, which was putting deferred prosecution agreements in the Criminal Code. That should not have been in a budget implementation act. It is hard to prove a negative, but right now it looks like there is nothing sneaky in this bill.

The main thing I want to ask the minister about is her reference to the climate crisis as an existential threat, which is defined as a threat to existence. It is a threat to the existence of a habitable planet. If we read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's April 4 report, we are currently on a trajectory to an unlivable world. This budget is not taking us away from that trajectory; it doubles down on it.

Would the hon. minister consider re-examining this bill and all bills in relation to the IPCC report?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, l will start by confirming for the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that all measures in the BIA are referenced in the budget text. I agree with her that climate change is an existential crisis, and I want to acknowledge the many years she has been working on this issue, at a time before it had the wide recognition and support it does today.

However, with the greatest respect and affection, which I hope she does not mind me publicly expressing, I disagree with her about the impact of this budget on climate change. This is a very green budget and it will help Canada and the world.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about the U.S. rolling back women's rights, and I was really disappointed today to hear the Conservatives yell out “no” to a unanimous motion to support women's rights in the House. Media are also reporting that the leader of the official opposition has ordered her members and senators not to discuss this matter.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister speak about leadership for women and women's rights in this country?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly can. The news from south of the border that we first heard last night has reminded us that at the end of the day, women's right depend, in a democracy, on elected representatives who are willing to stand up for them day after day after day. That is what this government will do, and I know other members of the House will as well.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, that was quite an introduction to my speech. It basically took all the oxygen out of the House.

Let me start by saying that this bill is effectively the budget implementation act, which would implement a portion of the last federal budget, budget 2022, which was tabled just over a month ago. Not surprisingly, after having given this much thought, considered it and looked at all the different elements of this particular bill, as well as the budget itself, we as the Conservative opposition have no choice but to oppose it. I will tell the reasons why.

When I spoke earlier to the budget itself, I highlighted the fact that there were a number of issues we took very seriously. One was that, contrary to expectations, it was not a growth budget. In fact, it was very much like the previous budget in 2021, which was panned by the Liberals' own former advisers, who said that the claims that that budget was a growth budget were actually profoundly wrong. In fact, it was a spending budget. It turns out this budget, budget 2022, is also a spending budget.

Why can I say that it is a spending budget? We know the figures, and the officials have confirmed them. There is somewhere in the order of $57 billion or $58 billion of new spending in this bill. That is not just carrying over from the previous year or established programs simply carrying those forward. This is, on top of that, $57 billion more that the government would spend.

I believe we need to place this all in context because the government took over some six and a half years ago in 2015, and over those six and a half years, and members will not believe this, spending has grown 53%. To put this into further perspective, just between 2019, so just before the COVID pandemic, and today, spending has increased by 25%, so by all measures this is a tax-and-spend Liberal government. Canadians should not be surprised. That is the reputation they have earned over many decades.

Is this a growth budget, which is what it was supposed to be? It was intended to be about fundamental changes that were going to improve the prospects for long-term growth for our country. About the growth we are seeing in the economy today, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that growth is actually “GDP inflation.” In other words, it is not organic or substantive growth that is generated by improving productivity within the economy that would improve our competitiveness on the world stage and the global marketplace.

For example, there was nothing in this budget about comprehensive tax reform, which would clearly position our tax system as being fairer, making sure the wealthy pay their share, and also position Canada to be competitive within the global marketplace. Such a tax system would attract investment from all around the world, because today Canada has a reputation of being a place people do not invest in. They shy away. It has too much regulation. Taxes are too high. There is no certainty that the investment will ever be approved, and it has a federal government that is not supportive of this investment, certainly not investment in our resource sector and certainly not investment in our oil and gas sector.

This is also not a growth budget because there is nothing in it about regulatory change or about regulatory reforms that would speed up the approval process for worthy projects. That just is not here.

There is nothing in this budget about interprovincial trade barriers, which have bedevilled governments for many, many decades. It is tougher to do trade among the provinces and territories than it is to do trade with some of our free trade partners around the world. What a sad comment on the performance of the government, which had nothing in the budget or in this bill that addresses that serious problem.

There is nothing in the budget that addresses Canada's lagging investment performance. In fact, Canada is at the bottom of the list of the 38 OECD countries when it comes to investment performance. Investors from around the world just do not see Canada as an attractive place to invest.

I want to hearken back to a comment that the finance minister just made. She made it seem like Canada's growth rate is the best in the world. There is nothing to see here. It is all great. “Don't worry, be happy.” In fact, she quoted the IMF, which said that Canada is going to have a good growth rate for a couple of years.

Do members know what the OECD has said? Canada ranks 38th of 38 countries when it comes to expected future growth of our economy over the next 30 to 35 years, between 2030 and 2060. Canada will be at the bottom of the list of the developed countries of this world. That is a failure on the part of the Liberal government. This is not a growth budget. The prospects under the government are bleak when it comes to future growth.

Second, let me address the issue of inflation. Inflation is the biggest challenge to Canadian families today. The affordability crisis stretches from coast to coast to coast. Yes, there are external influences that have driven inflation from around the world, supply chain challenges and spiking commodity prices, but the government has to take responsibility as well. Economist after economist notes that governments cannot keep spending and spending and pumping more money into our economy without paying a price, and that price is the inflation we see today, especially in our housing market. The housing affordability crisis is as severe as I have seen in my lifetime. It has never been so bad in this country. Right now, the government cannot give Canadians any hope that things are going to get better in the near to mid-term.

The problem is this. The Liberals had something in their budget called a housing plan. They said they were going to pump $10 billion into Canada to help ease the housing crisis, but $4 billion of that is simply a transfer from the federal government to municipalities across the country. It will not create one extra house in Canada. It will not build one extra house over the next few years. It is going to be used, purportedly, to help the municipalities improve their application processes, to make sure they are more efficient, more timely and speedier, so they can get more permit approvals out the door, but that is going to take years to manifest itself. I think we all in the House know that this is not a quick fix.

The other $6 billion from this $10-billion fund is going into a program that will allow first-time homebuyers to set up a savings plan where, over a period of five years, they can invest $8,000 per year for a total of $40,000 in an account that has tax-deductible investments into the fund and one can take money out tax-free. It sounds great, but it is only $40,000 and it is over five years.

Over five years, these families are going to be left far behind by a housing market that is raging out of control. To boot, that program is going to increase demand for housing in Canada even more as more Canadians take advantage of this. We are going to have a problem on the demand side and a problem on the supply side of housing in Canada.

The real challenge here in Canada is the housing crisis itself, and the inflationary aspect of it is a made-in-Canada crisis. Some of the elements that go into our home construction would be impacted by global forces, but for the most part, housing inflation in this country is a made-in-Canada crisis. We had the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem, at our committee not long ago and we specifically asked him if it was possible that some of the inflationary spending that the federal Liberals had done, the borrowing and spending, with record deficits and record debt, could be contributing to housing inflation. He admitted that yes, that was true. Housing inflation can be driven by excess liquidity in the marketplace.

It is not available to the Liberal government to simply wash its hands of the inflation crisis besetting our country and afflicting homes across this country. It has to take some ownership and responsibility for a crisis of its own making. It is not solely of its own making, I will be the first to admit, but it is significantly of its own making.

That was the cost of living, and of course it is going to get worse because on one side we have inflation. How do the Bank of Canada and Mr. Macklem fight inflation? He now has to increase interest rates. At committee last week, he admitted he was going to have to do that quickly and that the increases in interest rates would be significant.

Now we are between scourges afflicting families across this country: on one side, we have skyrocketing inflation, and on the other side, we have rising interest rates. Canadians who have mortgages that are due for renewal are going to be paying higher mortgage rates. That means higher payments, which in turn mean less disposable income for those families. That is the story and the legacy of the Liberal government.

I will go to the third problem that we see with this budget and this bill. The finance minister was expressly directed by the Prime Minister, just over a year ago, not to engage in any more new permanent spending. That was in the middle of the COVID pandemic, and the government I thought had realized that we could not keep spending. We need to discipline spending because, at the end of the day, we also have a duty to future generations of Canadians who have to pay back this massive debt that has been incurred because of the COVID pandemic and because of the government's reckless spending.

Instead, after receiving that clear directive, a year later what did the Prime Minister do? He gave the finance minister another mandate letter in which he purged any reference to eliminating new permanent spending. I do not know. Maybe the Prime Minister already knew that he was cooking up a coalition between the NDP and the Liberals, that it would cost taxpayers a lot of money, and then the government would have to borrow a lot of money to satisfy the NDP. I do not know that, but I do know this.

Shortly after the finance minister received that mandate letter, she started crafting her 2022 budget, which introduced a massive amount of new permanent spending, including a dental care program. In the last budget, it was a child care program. In the next one, we expect there will be a pharmacare program.

What was shocking to me, as a member of the finance committee, was the process when all of these requests were pouring in as we did our pre-budget consultations. There were stakeholders from across Canada. Five hundred written submissions came in, and many more witnesses were basically asking the government to fund this program or that program or to give them this subsidy or that subsidy. We asked the other members of the committee if we could at least go through a process of prioritization and triage all the requests flooding in, so that we could bring a critical eye to them to determine which ones were actually affordable for Canadian taxpayers and future generations, who would have to pay the bill.

The Liberals, NDP and Bloc said that they were not interested in prioritization. They wanted to take all the recommendations and send them up to the minister to see what she would do with them. What a reckless way of doing business. That is not the kind of country I want to live in. I want to live in a country that is fiscally responsible. I want to have a Prime Minister who actually thinks about monetary policy, not who shuns it and says it is something that does not concern him.

It is the monetary policy of this country that is requiring interest rates to go up because of the reckless borrowing and spending of the Liberal government. That is the permanent spending part of it. There is $57 billion of new spending just in this budget alone, and that will saddle future generations with an albatross. It is a huge indebtedness that they are going to have to pay back with rising interest rates.

The last point is taxation. The Liberal government often talks about having Canadians' backs and being there for the middle class. “Hear, hear,” they say, yet the budget is tax after tax. It is unbelievable. Look at the escalator on wine excise taxes, for example. It is unbelievable. The escalators automatically drive up the taxes on goods that Canadians purchase every single day. It is tax after tax. What is worse is the fact that with the dramatic escalation in the price of gas at the pumps, Canadians who already had a tough time filling up their tanks are now realizing, because we Conservatives are telling them, that on top of that gas price, they are paying GST, which means more revenues for the federal government but less disposable income for them.

We, as Conservatives, brought forward a proposal, because we are solution-oriented. We are problem-solvers on this side. We came forward to the Prime Minister and said that we could at least temporarily suspend carbon taxes and temporarily suspend the GST on gas so we could give Canadians a break. The Liberals said no.

Let me close by saying that there is no way the Conservatives, the official opposition and the loyal opposition, can support a budget bill that is irresponsible. I have a motion that I would like to table in this House.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-19, an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, since the bill fails, among other things, to address inflation, provide tax relief for Canadians and take immediate action to increase housing supply.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The amendment is in order.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, Public Safety.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to go to the central, core point that the government is apparently entirely responsible for the inflationary aspect of our current economy.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would say that my hon. friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is a little premature in his enthusiasm.

Has the hon. member thought about how much the Putin war is contributing to the rate of inflation with respect to oil, gas and commodities in multiple trillions of dollars? Has he thought about how the clogged supply chains, created largely by COVID, have contributed multiple trillions of dollars to increased prices? Has he thought about the pent-up demand created by COVID that created multiple trillions of dollars? Has he thought about the U.S. economy, which has an inflation rate considerably in excess of Canada's, and that being our major trading partner? Also—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, I have to allow for other questions.

The hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would be glad to answer the member's question. I do not know if he was in this House for the full speech I gave, because I acknowledged that supply chains do have an impact on inflation and that rising commodity prices around the world, exacerbated by the war in Ukraine of course, do have an impact, but I also mentioned that housing affordability and the housing inflation we are experiencing today in Canada are largely a made-in-Canada phenomenon. That is backed up by many economists, and I think he knows that.

Let us be fair here. I acknowledge that some of the inflation that we experience in Canada is a global phenomenon, but a lot of it is driven by the actions of the current government in borrowing and spending in a way that is irresponsible.

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

Madam Speaker, earlier today the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands was bragging about the parliamentary system, about the debate and other debates that would take place in committee.

What does not help, as we know, with the implementation bill is to have a 500‑page bill that amends 37 acts and includes three bills that have already been introduced. If ever anyone wants to kill debate, that is exactly how to do it.

I would like my colleague to tell me whether he thinks the Liberals are using their deal with the NDP to ram all this down our throats. I would also like him to tell me whether the Conservatives are happy with the fact that this new coalition is using the Harper method to get everything they want through us.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is seldom that we Conservatives are on the same page with the Bloc, but in this case I have to agree with the member. This is an omnibus bill that the Prime Minister promised he was never going to table in this House. That is exactly what he did.

Do members know how ridiculous it became? This is a budget, a money bill. It is about money, but there is a provision in here that creates a new Criminal Code offence for activity that takes place on the moon. It is true. If we look at this bill, we will see that there is a specific provision that creates a new Criminal Code offence for activity that takes place on the moon or on a shuttle that is travelling to the moon. That is how crazy the current government has become.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to circle back to the hon. member's comments about housing and the housing market.

We have heard a lot of discussion, particularly from my Conservative colleagues, but also from elsewhere in committee, on the role that government expenditure may play in the housing market. Prior to the pandemic and prior to quantitative easing, we also saw astronomical increases in housing prices over a long period, including when the hon. member was around the cabinet table.

We know that private capital is also playing a significant role. There is a significant domestic investor presence in the Canadian market that is eating more and more of the housing stock, and after outbidding Canadians on their dream home or what they were hoping might be their starter home, they then rent it back to them at extraordinary high prices.

I wonder if the member might want to take some time, perhaps for the first time, to talk about the role of private capital and domestic investors in the housing market, and the affect they are having on prices in the housing market.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think what my hon. colleague from the finance committee is signalling is a concern over the financialization of housing in Canada, where people see housing as simply being an investment to be profited from rather than a roof over a person's head. I do share his concern that, if we are not sensible about this, it is going to cost Canadians significantly.

However, I do take issue with his assertion that, under the Harper government, somehow housing prices also spiked. No, that is not true. Housing prices were very stable during the Harper years. We a had a slight appreciation in value over time, which is what Canadians expect. They want to see a return to stable house prices in Canada. We, as Conservatives, are capable of delivering that.

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

Madam Speaker, these Liberals continually promise the moon to millennials, especially when it comes to housing affordability, but their new savings account for first-time homebuyers is not in this bill. The things that are in it either make the problem worse, or they do not help at all.

In Bill C-19 itself there is an assignment of sale that would only give more revenue to the government, which would be allowed to charge GST on a second unit, and that is simply going to raise the price of housing. There is also a ban on foreign ownership. I thought that the original policy was so full of holes that it was like Swiss cheese, but they left the biggest loophole to the government. What was that? It would essentially allow the government to choose if and when the actual ban ever comes into place.

Can the member please comment on a few other things that are in the bill or the budget that the Liberals have promised but do not deliver on?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the thing the Liberals do not deliver on is affordability. They do not deliver on their promise to fight inflation. In fact, do members know what happens with the Liberal government? The biggest beneficiary of inflation and the affordability crisis is government revenues. Every step along the way, it gets another piece of the action.

This new legislation would allow the government to now charge GST on the assignment of real estate contracts. Therefore, if somebody buys a house, but is doing it on spec, and finds another buyer who is prepared to pay more, they can say, “Hey would you like to buy this? I will sell you the contract.” Well, is the government not going to take a piece of the action on that as well?

It does on gas. It does on carbon taxes. It is all the GST layered on everything that Canadians buy. At the end of the day, Canadians are the ones who pay the price, and the big beneficiary is the Prime Minister, who continues to bring in more and more government tax revenues and then spends that money wildly. That is unacceptable, and Canadians are going to call him on it.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for Abbotsford.

I wonder if he was disappointed, as I was, in reading the budget to see nothing additional for adaptation, particularly after what happened in his riding in Abbotsford. There is nothing additional on flooding. I wonder if the member has any thoughts on that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the parliamentary secretary that he should show some respect in the House and not heckle.

The hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is one of the best questions I have ever heard from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. It was a great question.

Abbotsford, and in fact southern British Columbia, suffered the most significant rain and flood event, certainly in my lifetime, this past November. It drove home the reality that our weather resiliency and climate change resiliency are not anywhere close to being up to snuff. Our dikes failed, we had massive flooding across the Sumas Prairie, and many other communities in southern British Columbia, such as Princeton, Keremeos and Merritt, were impacted by infrastructure that was not up to snuff. We need to invest more in adaptability to make sure that our country is climate resilient. She may be surprised to hear—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but the time is up. I allowed a bit of extra time.

Before we start the time, I want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretaries, because there was quite a bit of back-and-forth, that they should wait until it is time to ask questions before they decide to have their voices heard in the House.

The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.

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

Madam Speaker, I would seek the consent of the House to share my time with my esteemed colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have consent to share her time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Madam Speaker, I may not be able to say that I had time to study all 500 pages of Bill C-19, but I have a few comments.

There is a lot of talk about work, workers and the importance of employment. I wanted to know what the government had put forward for workers, whether it had an ambitious agenda and vision, and whether it was able to do something tangible to support workers and improve their conditions. After all, at the end of the day, labour is an important part of the economy.

Based on my analysis, I find that the sights are set too low when it comes to workers. I will provide a few examples. In the last budget and in the Minister of Labour’s mandate letter, the government promised legislation to prohibit the use of replacement workers under the fundamental right to associate and to bargain. There is nothing in this bill to indicate any intention or action in this area. What happened with that?

Another issue is fair employment. I do not know if anyone knows this, but the Employment Equity Act was passed in 2018. Currently, in federally regulated businesses, there is differential treatment based on employment status using “orphan clauses”. The Act was passed in 2018, but there is still no plan or vision to move forward with this. What is going on there?

Recently, we passed Bill C-3 here in the House to give workers 10 days of paid sick leave. That legislation will come into effect at a later date fixed by order-in-council, but we still have not found anything yet.

Climate change is one of the reasons we opposed the budget. We want to see an end to fossil fuel production and a just and fair transition to green or clean energy. What is there for workers?

Last week, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said that Natural Resources Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada were not prepared to support a just transition to a low‑carbon economy for workers and communities. It is serious: There are more than 200,000 workers, and there are no plans or measures to support this just and necessary transition.

I would also say that the government is abandoning health care workers by firmly refusing to increase Canada health transfers, as Quebec and the other provinces are calling for. If we want quality health care, we must rely on these workers. To do this, Quebec needs the necessary subsidies to match the expenses so it can better support the health sector.

I looked everywhere in the budget and found only one paragraph on employment insurance. This is where workers are being totally abandoned, even though comprehensive EI reform had been promised. Once again, the government missed an opportunity to act. In one paragraph of the budget and in Bill C-19, the government announced the extension of pilot projects that provide up to five additional weeks of EI benefits to seasonal workers. That is it, nothing more.

The Minister of Employment's mandate letter clearly states that she is to work on modernizing employment insurance by the summer of 2022. The Prime Minister himself said that he asked the minister to focus her energy on building a more equitable system by June 2022. On January 1, she indicated that this was likely to happen.

Right now, workers everywhere, in all regions of Quebec and Canada, are struggling to qualify for fair and accessible benefits. There are serious shortcomings that need to be addressed. We know what the issues are, we know what it will take to fix them, yet there is still a delay in implementing the changes that are needed.

Surely we do not need to be reminded that the EI system is a social safety net that protects workers who lose their jobs. It also protects them in the aftermath of life events, as the minister said. For example, sickness benefits are still capped at 15 weeks when they promised to extend them to 26 weeks. We are being told that this may not happen in July, as first thought, because the computer system will not be ready. They are abandoning people.

I am quite surprised and disappointed that the orange team did not leave its mark in the budget when it comes to workers; it clearly lacks teeth.

All unemployed workers' groups and labour groups support employment insurance reform. More consultations are on the books. Consultations have been going on for years. When will the government get on with it? This is a broken promise at present.

EI reform is important for workers. I meet with workers, unemployed workers' groups, community groups and civil society groups to look at the economic and social realities in some regions. In regions where the seasonal industry holds a predominant place in the economy, five extra weeks in the event of job loss is not enough. There is the issue of the spring gap, which is when a worker does not have enough weeks of benefits to cover the period between the end of the job and when the job resumes. We could tell workers to go work somewhere else, but that is not the answer; rather, we have to support the seasonal industry when it comes to tourism, the fishery. We know that major sectors are affected. A region's economy depends on that. It is not by once again carrying forward a five- to 10-week pilot project that we are going to to give the regions the capacity to support their economy and give workers the capacity to maintain good jobs and experience. We need to protect the vitality of the regions.

The inequities in the EI system for women and young people are another example of needed reforms. The current rules are outdated and significantly discriminate against them. All kinds of criteria regarding hours of eligibility need to be changed. I think the government needs to send a clear message that EI reform is a priority. It is a priority for workers and for the economy. This program is a social safety net that is very much needed, but what the government is doing is very disappointing.

I want to mention the little note about reviewing the Social Security Tribunal and creating a multi-stakeholder tribunal. All the better, since workers have been calling for this for 10 years.

Since I have just 30 seconds left, I want to conclude by saying that workers are in dire need of support. The Liberal government must send a very clear message in its budgets and financial policies that we are counting on them. If we are counting on them, then they need support and they need it now.

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the overall assessment the member tries to portray regarding the image of the government. Virtually from day one, we have seen a government that is very supportive of workers in Canada. I can talk about things such as labour disputes, contracts that were signed shortly after we had taken government and changes in labour laws that were very well received. We have had changes in our EI program. We have provided literally hundreds of millions of dollars to training programs. We have seen legislative and budgetary measures in the past, including today, that are advancing workers, including in the area of the just transition.

I think the member is looking for a way to try to justify voting no on the legislation, from listening to the content of her speech. I am wondering if she would reflect on what I have just said. How can she advocate that the government has not been listening to and working for workers?

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

Madam Speaker, I am a fan of action. I am not saying that everything is bad, but I just pointed out that there are some big files that the government is not even working on.

I am not the one saying this. We are hearing this from workers. A just and fair transition is not a pipe dream. The government will have to allocate resources. When a door is closed in one industry, another door needs to open. That is the reality.

I am sorry, but the government and the Liberals should at least have the decency to admit that they made a commitment to reform EI back in 2015 and have yet to follow through. It is another broken promise.

Meanwhile, the government waits for a crisis or a pandemic and then improvises some emergency measures. What we need are safe, predictable measures, and the government has failed in that respect.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, we agree on the urgent need for EI reform. I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to talk a little more about what kind of reform she thinks is needed to create a good EI system, for example, the number of hours required to be eligible, the level of wage replacement or other things she thinks make up a good system.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that my colleague knows very well what the answer is, since the entire labour movement, including the Canadian Labour Congress, Quebec's four central labour unions, and several other unions, such as the unemployed workers' associations, have raised a number of issues.

Furthermore, on our initiative, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities conducted a study on this subject, so I think that the solutions are known.

However, what I find unfortunate and do not understand is how the NDP, when it signed its pact with the Liberal government, could fail to consider the fact that the central labour unions told all the candidates during the last election that EI was a priority for the unemployed workers' associations.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Thérèse-De Blainville talked about measures that would help workers and help our industries. We heard about labour market impact assessments, temporary foreign workers and anti-scab legislation. These are measures that would not cost a penny.

We know that the government is too cheap to help workers. The member for Winnipeg North had to go all the way back to 2015, 2016 and 2017 to tell us the last things that the government did for workers.

How can the government be so cheap that it will not help workers even when it does not cost a penny?

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

Madam Speaker, I believe it is a matter of political choice. Take, for example, the anti-scab legislation that has been part of the Quebec Labour Code since 1977. It is now 2022 and the federal government still does not have such legislation. Adopting provisions for fair treatment is a choice.

Does the government really value the right of association? Does it value just and fair working conditions? Those are questions for the government, because having to look back 20 years does not give us a good idea of what it will do tomorrow.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the House for granting its consent, which gives me the opportunity to say a few words today. I hope to use this time to make some relevant remarks.

Let us get one thing straight. The member for Winnipeg North tacitly accused my colleague of finding excuses, false reasons and pretexts for voting against Bill C-19. Let me be perfectly clear. We will be voting in favour of the principle of the bill. We will work hard in committee to rework the bill, but we will vote in favour of its principle.

Incidently, I would encourage my colleague not to applaud me too quickly. I would be concerned. Several things need to be addressed. The only reason we are voting in favour of the bill is to amend it, and quite extensively in certain areas.

Let us talk about the process first. We are dealing with a bill that is a real juggernaut. It is a thick tome of some 500 pages with about 60 measures that amend 37 laws, along with several concurrence amendments. The summary alone is eight pages long. This is a bit of a kitchen-sink bill. It includes budgetary measures, non-budgetary measures, minor measures, as well as apple pie measures, as we say back home. At the same time, it also includes much more substantial things. I think a distinction should have been made between minor legislative amendments or small measures and much more substantial and profound measures that should have been examined separately. It includes measures to update certain things, as well as provisions from three bills that presumably would have died on the Order Paper.

That is the issue we have with this government and this parliamentary culture. We are constantly having these tomes forced on us and have to live with “all or nothing”. We have to agree with it all or reject it all. What we call a parliamentary monarchy is a bit of a paradox that way. We are told that, in this system, Parliament is the ruler. However, we are still in a system where, as the word “monarchy” implies, transparency is sorely lacking and where, all too often, a parliamentarian's purpose is to rubber-stamp mammoth bills, legislative monstrosities, like the ones that have been surreptitiously foisted on us.

What it boils down to is that the Bloc Québécois opposed the budget statement. As everyone knows, we voted against the budget. However, we are prepared to live with the principle at this point. I said “principle” because we are not ready to commit to supporting it to the full extent, unlike a certain other opposition party. We will see what happens next, when it is studied in committee, but we are willing to live with the principle because we think that many of the bugs that were in the budget are not in this bill. For example, the budget announced massive oil subsidies, including for carbon capture. There was also the issue of small nuclear reactors, and the budget contained major conditions and major intrusions on the health care systems of the provinces and Quebec. Fortunately, none of that is in this bill.

In addition, there are a few urgent measures that have been mentioned and on which we agree, particularly with regard to EI. My colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville explained that well, and there are some significant grey areas that were well clarified in the last speech.

There are also some measures that look interesting on paper and several that require closer inspection. One that I find particularly interesting is the obligation for federally regulated pension fund managers to disclose climate-related information. That is a first step towards what we call green finance, which is an important issue for my colleague from Mirabel. What we need to do is reorient our banking and financial systems toward supporting the energy transition instead of the energy of the past, fossil fuels. That calls for political will.

Some things look interesting on paper. One of those is aerospace, which is a very important file.

Bill C‑19 includes a tax on select luxury items. This was already in budget 2021, which reads as follows:

... it is also fair to ask those who have prospered in this bleak year to do a little more to help those who have not. That is why we are introducing a luxury tax on new cars and private aircraft [manufactured after 2018 and seating up to 39 passengers] worth more than $100,000 and pleasure boats worth more than $250,000.

Here is another excerpt:

If you've been lucky enough, or smart enough, or hard-working enough, to afford to spend $100,000 on a car, or $250,000 on a boat – congratulations! And thank you for contributing a little bit of that good fortune to help heal the wounds of COVID and invest in our future collective prosperity.

When we read that on paper, there is no problem. The Bloc Québécois is fine with the wealthy contributing more. The division of wealth takes political will as well. It is too bad there is not as much will to combat tax havens, but that is another story. The Bloc Québécois agrees with the division of wealth because it is a social democratic party. We have no problem with that.

Now, the problem is that, unfortunately, the devil is all too often in the details. The way the bill is written, all new aircraft designed after 2018, including planes, helicopters or gliders with a maximum capacity under 40 seats, including corporate aircraft, will be subject to the tax. Aircraft usually used for commercial activities, like the ones equipped for carrying passengers or designed exclusively for transporting goods, are excluded.

As I was just saying, the Bloc Québécois agrees in principle. The idea of a tax on luxury items and luxury jets sounds good.

However, we do have major concerns about the negative impact of the tax. As described in Bill C‑19, it is a tax on the Quebec aerospace industry. I can say that we have had various meetings with the aerospace industry, which is a key sector. The late Jean Lapierre used to say that aerospace was to Quebec what the auto sector was to Ontario.

Quebec is the third-largest aerospace cluster in the world, after Seattle and Toulouse. These three clusters are in three different countries. Canada is the only country with such an important cluster that does not have an aerospace policy, and Bill C‑19 does nothing to fix that.

I want to come back to the luxury tax. We have had meetings on this. I have had meetings with several industry players. Both the unions and the companies, including Bombardier, are concerned about this, as are the associations that represent small and medium-sized businesses in the industry. Obviously, when we think of aerospace, Bombardier immediately comes to mind, but there are a lot of very innovative, powerful and dynamic SMEs in the greater Montreal area, especially in Longueuil and on the north shore. There are a lot of them. Everyone is worried. Generally speaking, workers' associations can hardly be said to favour seeing the bosses line their pockets and not getting a share of the income and wealth, so when workers' associations, SMEs and large companies are in agreement, it is a sign that there is a real consensus on the fact that this tax must be reviewed and reworked. As it stands, it will fundamentally harm an industry that has not gotten the policy it deserves.

Last November, my colleague from Mirabel and I issued a statement. We would have liked to see the government get involved in aircraft salvage. North America is a huge aircraft graveyard right now. Given that Airbus has announced that it intends to accelerate aircraft recycling by creating partnerships with several regions in the world, we would have liked to see Ottawa hurry up and seize this opportunity.

We therefore reluctantly support this bill, but the Bloc Québécois will be extremely active when studying it in committee in order to fix its many problems.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comment with regard to supporting the principle of the bill and it going to committee. We look forward to having an ongoing discussion on the aerospace industry, which is an industry we are all concerned about. We know how prominent the province of Quebec is in that industry worldwide, but the province of Manitoba also has a very healthy aerospace industry. I do not think it will be affected as much by what is being proposed, but yes: Let us have that dialogue in committee and see what we can come up with.

I would ask the member to provide his thoughts on the difference, let us say, between a $350,000 luxury boat and a $350,000 light aircraft or private aircraft. Does he distinguish a difference in terms of the value of taxation potential or whatever it might be?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member raised many points and I wonder which one to respond to and how. Like the 500-page bill, there are both good and not-so-good aspects. Let me try to summarize.

I recognize that Manitoba has an aerospace sector, as do other provinces. However, it cannot be denied that this industry's main hub is in the greater Montreal area. Trying to make this distinction, or watering down this interpretation, plays into the fact that there is no aerospace policy or concrete strategy.

With regard to that aircraft, the problem with this tax is how it is applied. Why does it apply to the aircraft, not the travel, and why is it based on criteria that often focus on the number of seats? That creates problems.

We spoke to Bombardier, which estimates that the impact on its cash flow could be in the range of $50 million to $150 million per quarter. That is huge. The government is carving up our cherished aerospace industry. It took generations to build, but the government's actions will destroy it all in just a few years.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot will have two minutes and 48 seconds the next time this bill is before the House.

It being 5:30 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 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to participate in debate on the Budget Implementation Act. It is an act that comes at a time when the country is facing a lot of challenge.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if I might wait until a few members—

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

Order, please. Could we ask hon. members to take their conversations outside the chamber and into the lobby?

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and participate in the debate on the budget implementation act today. I might start just by saying that I am wearing this flower to mark MS Awareness Day, as many members, indeed perhaps all members, were doing today in the House, which I think is a great thing.

We are discussing the budget implementation act at a really challenging time for the country. This will not come as news to members in the House, just as it will not come as news to people across the country who are living that very experience, but I think it is important to talk a little more about some of the issues that people are facing. As we come, hopefully, out of the pandemic, our lives are still very much affected by what we have gone through and what we continue to go through.

If we look at our health care system, for instance, the effects of the pandemic are still very real and very much at work, even for those who are not in hospital as a result of the pandemic or with COVID-19. A lot of Canadians, either themselves or their family members or friends, are trying to access medical services and are finding it difficult to do so. Our health care professionals are simply exhausted after having spent the last two years working so hard to try to save the lives of Canadians who have been affected COVID-19. They are now trying to address the backlog of medical procedures, diagnostics and other types of care that have accumulated over the course of the pandemic, while our hospitals were full with extraordinary numbers of people sick with COVID-19.

We are facing real challenges on the health front, not only trying to figure out how to deal with the problems that still exist, but also, I hope, and it is certainly the case for New Democrats, how we can create a silver lining in all of the pain, hurt and challenge in health care. We are trying to figure out how we come out of it with a stronger public health system that would serve Canadians well into the future and be run more efficiently in terms of finding ways to save money, not by cutting services to people who need them but by exploring new ways that contain efficiencies in them to deliver services to people who need it.

I am speaking, of course, of pharmacare and having a proper national pharmacare plan that could save money while serving more people. There are a number of studies to show that this is very much possible. When we look across the world, we note that Canada is one of very few countries with public health care on a national level that do not have a national drug policy and a national drug insurance plan. I do not think it is a coincidence that we also pay among the highest costs for prescription drugs. It is because we are not mobilizing our purchasing power through the power of a national prescription drug plan. That is one example.

Another example is investments in things like dental care. We know that good oral health helps prevent other kinds of health issues that could occur down the line. Investing in something like a basic dental care plan means investing in the future and heading off health problems that would not only make a difference in the lives of Canadians by increasing their health and reducing their sickness, but would also help avoid human tragedy and cost less in the long run. We know that when we allow health problems to get to the point of crisis, they are far more expensive to fix. That is happening in health care.

In the economy, we are facing a whole other set of problems. We have talked a lot over the last couple of years about people being out of work, as they were, and about their needing support from the government while they were out of work. Now we are in a phase in which there are still people struggling to get into the workforce. We could go out and talk to them.

There are people who are trying to maintain their business. I am thinking of folks like the independent travel agents, an industry that is made up of about 80% women, who are still trying to hold their business together and deal with their clients, and who are not getting paid because they do not get paid until well after the trip has been taken. There is still a lot of uncertainty with travel rules, and not just in Canada but across the globe, that are still making it difficult for people to travel and therefore difficult for people in that industry to make their money.

The tourism and hospitality industry is a really important industry in the Canadian economy. The numbers from before the pandemic show that very well, and the people who have the skills and the training and the networks to be able to deliver good service to Canadians within that industry are people we still want to have available to work in that industry when the pandemic is truly behind us.

They are going to need some ongoing support to be able to do that, just as people in the arts and culture industry need help.

In December, the government spoke about arts and culture workers. A solution was even negotiated with the Bloc Québécois.

However, we have yet to see a program that provides financial assistance to people working in the arts and culture sector, just as we have yet to see financial assistance for those working in the tourism and travel sector.

There is still a lot of work to do, coming out of the pandemic, for people who are still suffering negative economic consequences.

At the same time, unemployment has gone down significantly. We hear from employers that they are looking for people to work. We have this awkward situation of some people being in very difficult personal economic circumstances because their kind of work, the kind of work they are trained for and have experience with, has not come back, even as there are employers in very different industries who cannot find people to work in their business.

I would say, even though I am still trying to give a bit of an overview of some of the problems we are facing, that there is definitely a role for the government there. It is why the reforms to employment insurance are so important right now. They are important, in part, to be able to provide financial assistance to people who are still struggling. I think we need some supplementary income assistance programs beyond employment insurance reform, but certainly those reforms are very important to have in place, just as they were over the last number of years, in order to support people.

There is also a role for government to get involved in hooking up those people who are struggling to find work with the employers who are looking for workers, and to provide the training that has to happen to transition people from one sector into another.

That is true because of the ongoing economic consequences of the pandemic, but it is already true and it will be more and more true as the changing climate changes and affects our economy and the workers who are at the front end or on the front line of that transition. They are the people most at risk of falling through the cracks. I do not think we really believe, and I certainly do not believe, and I do not think my colleagues in the NDP believe, that the banks are going to somehow slip through the cracks, or that big, multinational investors are going to get forgotten and not know what to do and be left on their own to figure out how to find their place in a changing world.

They will be well served. They are well served, in fact too well served, by institutions that should be looking to serve all people, including the workers who are on the front line. That is why we are going to continue to be a voice to say we cannot just be happy that the banks and the big institutional investors are taken care of, thanks very much. We have to make sure that the people who work for them and who produce the wealth that those companies enjoy are also taken care of in that transition. That is not just because it is morally important, and it is, but also because that is how we are going to help those other employers who also want to have successful businesses and who also represent Canada on the world stage of business, who need talent to be able to carry on their enterprise successfully.

There is a real role, and I think there always has been, but ever more so now, for the government to get involved in training and making sure that the right kinds of training are available to particular workers for particular employers and making that strong connection, so that we are not just saying to workers, “Well, let us wait until you lose your job to help you find a solution. Then we are going to direct you to some general training where there are some signals that there is some promise and hope for you in a particular sector, and then you will do the training and if you do not get hired, that is your problem.”

What we want is a government that identifies the employers who are really looking for work, who have a promising work forecast and a good business plan, and says we are going to work with them to find the workers they need for their business to succeed.

We are going to have them do the training knowing that there is a good job on the other end of that training, so that both employers and workers can transition. Whether that is transitioning out of the pandemic or transitioning through the economic challenges of climate change, we are going to make sure that Canadian businesses are successful and that Canadian workers have the opportunity to share in that success.

That is part of the economic challenge. That is what we call the workforce issues that we are facing as a country, but we are also facing those challenges in the context of high inflation, which is really putting the pinch on households. I talked about the importance of supporting workers through that transition, both with training and with income, so they are not leaving their family in the lurch while they try and get that training for the promise of that new job. It is all the more important because inflation is eating into the household budgets of Canadians even as we try to navigate these very challenges.

I do not think I need to talk a whole lot about the inflation problem in the sense that it has been and no doubt will continue to be very well examined in this place. I will not go over all of the issues that have to do with inflation, but the point that I want to try and add, and I feel a duty to do so because we do not hear much about it except from this side of the House, is the role that corporate profiteering has been playing in inflation as well.

There have been some studies out in the last month that suggest up to a quarter, 25%, of the inflationary pressure that Canadians are experiencing in their household budget, has to do with price increases that go above the increase in costs that companies are experiencing. It is not just a matter of companies passing on the increased cost to their customers. We are talking about huge profit growth.

The general number prepandemic was around 9% for profit booking overall in Canada. It has gone up to 16%. That is the profit, which means that is what is left over after costs are subtracted from revenue. That means that in some industries, some companies certainly are making a lot more money. It is not just that they are passing on their costs. It is that they are spying an opportunity to make more money on the backs of Canadians who have already been through hell in the last few years and are still going through a really difficult time.

That should also be the focus of people in this place, not just the actions of government and not just what government has done that may have contributed to the problem, but what government has not done to get a handle on the situation.

That is nowhere more true than in the housing market. That is true in the housing market over the last two years, but it is also true in the housing market for decades. Under governments of both stripes, both Liberal and Conservative, we have seen incredible increases in the cost of housing.

I heard a Conservative MP in response to another speech I made in this place not that long ago try and downplay that. They said there have always been increases in the cost of housing, that it is quite normal and it is not that bad. I would call that “goldfish politics”, and I think it is important for Canadians not to buy into it.

Canadians are well served when they and their politicians have long memories about what has happened. If we look at the trend line for house prices, they have increased significantly in this century year over year. That has accelerated in the pandemic and there are reasons for that. Some of those reasons have to do with those very companies that I was talking about, which have been amassing a fortune and trying to figure out how to put that money to work for themselves by making more money, finding that the real estate market is a great way to do that.

That is why it makes sense for the government to step in and say that when we are talking about the residential housing market, we can treat it that way only up to a point. Individual Canadians are not well served; our economy, as a whole, is not well served, and we are not well served as a country when we allow the places that we depend on for shelter and to build our homes to be treated as an asset commodity. More and more, that is what has been happening.

The numbers tell the story. Something like 25% of CMHC mortgages in the last year or so were for investment properties. That is a record number. It has never been like that before, and it calls for a response from government. It is the government that sets the rules for the CMHC around its mortgage insurance policy.

I think we have to ask why, in this context, we would be content to allow investors to get the same treatment to de-risk their mortgage investment as somebody buying their first home. That does not make sense. I do not think it was captured 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago, because investment activity did not play the same role that it is playing in the market today.

Given what has changed in the housing market, we have to be asking those questions. We have to be asking why it is that somebody can produce the same amount of cash up front for a down payment for their eighth home as they do for their first home, and whether that makes sense or whether we are going to ask them to do more in order to temper the effect in the market. It is hard to move housing prices down. It is a difficult policy area, but it is why it is that much more important that we get to work on it.

We are seeing the role of real estate investment trusts grow in the market. It is fundamentally unfair to say to Canadians that if they are going to buy their first home they are not just going to compete with the family down the street, or somebody from across the city who is thinking about changing neighbourhoods, or maybe somebody who just got a job in their city who is coming from another Canadian city. They are going to compete with some corporate entities in Canada that have some of the deepest pockets, that want to beat them on the bid and then that want to rent it back to them at extraordinary prices. That is not a fair competition. It is not a competition at all, in fact. Canadians cannot be expected to compete with deep-pocketed corporate investors to buy homes. That is ridiculous, so we have to find ways to change the rules of the market so that Canadians are not put in this impossible position anymore. It is getting more and more impossible.

The good news is that these things are doable. Whether we are talking about changing the terms and conditions for CMHC mortgage insurance for investors, escalating the amount that people need for down payments on subsequent properties, or having a moratorium on real estate investment trust activity in the market, these are all things that do not cost the government a dime. They are not going to be enough on their own because we have to address the supply side of housing, but targeting the investment activity that has been driving up those prices is a thing that the government can do to temper the rise in house prices over time, and that does not require spending money. That is a real virtue. Governments should be looking for solutions to problems that do not just throw more money at them. There are enough problems where we do need to invest in order to get to the solution.

On the supply side, we need to invest. There is no way to augment housing supply in Canada without significant investment. When it comes to climate change, we are going to have to make some serious investments. There are regulatory things we can do that do not cost money, either, but we are kidding ourselves if we think we are not going to have to make substantial investments in Canada's infrastructure in order to successfully transition to the low-carbon economy that we need.

There are times when public expenditure is part of the answer, and there are times when the government can pursue policies that can make a real difference and do not cost money. There are times to pursue policies that save money. Pharmacare, as I said earlier, is an excellent example of that: It is not about spending no money. It is about spending out of the federal government's budget, instead of other governments' budgets and Canadians' own pockets, to spend less overall. However, there are things we can do to combat the financialization of the housing sector that has created a completely unfair competitive landscape for Canadian families bidding on homes that will not cost the government money.

Here we are. We are in this time of transitioning, we hope, out of the pandemic and transitioning, unfortunately, into a far less certain future with respect to the climate and the economic uncertainty that will also generate. It is a time when we are going to need more public involvement in the economy, as far as I am concerned, to do that well and to make sure we do not leave people behind.

I have already spoken to the budget proper. I want to spend a bit of time talking to some of the measures in the budget implementation act: an act that unfortunately does not have sufficient ambition. There are a number of things in here that are good. They are a step in the right direction. I do not think the budget has an appropriate level of ambition, so it is perhaps no surprise that the budget implementation act also does not have the appropriate level of ambition, but it is certainly the case that it does not.

I was just getting to the act. I am sure that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is getting up for unanimous consent—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is the hon. Minister of Seniors rising on a point of order or a question?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am tabling government responses to Questions Nos. 394 to 408.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to indulge the hon. member by seeking unanimous consent to extend his period for questions and comments by another 10 minutes, with the proviso that the extra 10 minutes be allotted exclusively to Conservative members to ask questions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is not a point of order we are prepared to accept.

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

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

Madam Speaker, when I think of budgets, I cannot help but think of priorities. At the end of the day, there are many wonderful aspects to the budget that will have a profoundly positive impact on Canadians. One that I am very much encouraged about is the issue of child care. However, there is something I think Canadians and the NDP also talk a great deal about, and the member has made reference to it, which is the idea of a national dental plan. It is important that we recognize that it is being done in a staged fashion, with children being recognized first. It is an area that I think is long overdue.

Would the member provide some thoughts on that component going forward, as well as on how important it is that we continue to do what we can in the health care field, specifically with respect to pharmaceuticals?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity to speak a bit more to the importance of dental care. One of the things to keep in mind, and I had the opportunity to speak about it earlier, is the health effects of getting good and timely access to appropriate dental care. We have heard stories in the NDP caucus about folks who felt embarrassed or overcame some sense of shame about the state of their teeth to go to a job interview, but then felt that they did not get the job because they did not present the way they would like to, or did not meet the expectations others had of them with respect to what their mouth should look like to get a job. It impacts people in the pocketbook, and it speaks to their sense of dignity.

I look forward to the day when people in this country have experience with this dental care plan and have had the virtue of seeing friends, family and people in their neighbourhoods get timely access to the dental care they have not always had. They will see the difference it really makes in people's lives. I believe that, once we have had some experience with that, Canadians will not want to go back.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear my friend across the way talk a great deal about housing, but not in any way talk about the problem of supply. The main reason we have such high housing prices in this country is there is a greater need for homes than is met by the current supply, and all of his proposals involve creating more challenges and barriers for investors.

An alternative option is to create incentives to make it easier for investors to invest in new home construction and to encourage those investments, because while there are many people who want to invest in housing, there are so many barriers in place that make it hard to bring new construction online. Those barriers are not just at the federal level; a great number of those barriers are in place at all levels.

How can we address the housing challenges and costs if we do not address the supply problem? If we do address the supply problem, does it not make everything so much easier afterward?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think the member must have had to go to the washroom during the section of my speech when I said the measures I was talking about today specifically would not be adequate without having a way to address the supply issue. I do not believe that simply making it easier for developers to create more expensive homes is going to get us out of this problem. I think we need targeted investments because we need suites that people can afford to live in. That is why we need co-operative housing. That is why part of the deal that the NDP cut with the government included investments in co-op housing, and we can see that in the budget. That is why we believe we need to be building social housing units where the rent is geared to income. Those are also ways of relieving some of the strain on the housing market.

I would be very happy to have a debate on what we can do on the supply side as well; I just could not fit it into the 20 minutes.

Incidentally, the member will note that I did not say no to his request; rather, it was another member who said no to his request. I would have been glad to take him up on it.

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

Madam Speaker, as my colleague said, teeth are important for digestive health and self‑esteem.

We are not against dental insurance. What we are asking for is a right to opt out with compensation for provinces that want to implement their own insurance plan.

Does my colleague think it would be possible to include this provision in Bill C‑19?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the NDP has always been clear that, for historical and cultural reasons, Quebec can exercise the right to opt out with compensation. That has been part of our plan all along.

The answer is, without question, is yes.

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

Madam Speaker, I really wish we were in the House talking about an NDP budget, because in listening to the member's speech, many Canadians will understand that a totally different view would be happening in this country if we had that.

My question to the member is specifically around housing and non-market housing. I am working with many constituents in my riding who have lost their homes. They cannot rent, because they are getting renovictions. We have a lot of people moving to my riding, buying houses and pushing the market up so high that people cannot even dream of buying homes within their own communities anymore. What we do not have is affordable housing: market housing that would let them have places to be safe.

Could the member speak about how the government could do so much better if it would actually take action?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will start with one specific example. A lot of co-op housing and other non-market housing was supported by the federal government under operating agreements for decades, but those operating agreements were tied to mortgages. When those agreements started to expire under the Harper government, they were not renewed. There was a promise by the Liberals to renew those agreements, but they were never renewed under the same terms and conditions. I do not think it was a success.

Part of the problem is that investors, in some cases, are moving in on those very properties. When a board comes to the conclusion that it cannot manage that non-market housing with lower rents in the absence of federal operating funding, it makes the housing a ripe target for something like a real estate investment trust to get a bunch of units on the cheap. It throws a bit of money into them to fix them up and then rents them out at much higher prices that displace all the residents who were there.

That is just one example of where poor federal policy, under both Liberals and Conservatives, has contributed to the depletion of affordable non-market housing units. Keeping those units is part of addressing the supply problem. If we are losing more units than we are building, we cannot get ahead.

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

Madam Speaker, in the member's speech obviously housing was a very attractive topic that I want to dive into, but he also talked about labour. I am particularly interested in changes in this budget implementation act around seasonal workers and employment insurance.

I do not know if the member is prepared to comment on it, but we went through a period, under the previous Harper administration, where seasonal workers and routine unemployment were treated as sort of recidivism: It should not be allowed and should be punished. It seems to me that division 27 of the act is opening up again the idea of regional unemployment pockets, where the length of the weeks one could get employment insurance would reflect regional unemployment, but I am not certain because we have not gotten it to committee yet to study it.

What is the member's take on division 27 of this act?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, we are in the early days of studying this bill, but my initial impression is that it is extending a pilot program that was meant to help cover off some of those gaps that exist. The issue is that we actually have a fair bit of experience with this pilot program now, so the question is: Why can we not get to a permanent solution? We have a solution that is kind of de facto permanent, as long as the government is willing to continue extending the pilot program, but seasonal workers are in places where that is the established work culture and the work is just not available outside of the working season.

I come out of the construction industry, where workers say, “Make hay while the sun shines.” We do, but I do not know why we cannot get to the point where we can offer these workers a little more certainty about what their lives are going to look like by making permanent a program that the government very clearly has been willing to extend indefinitely.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, tonight I have the privilege of speaking to Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Last week, I spoke about the budget and about the importance of balancing programs and spending to meet Canadians' needs while being fiscally prudent. I also spoke at length about the importance of the budget's housing initiatives. Today, I would like to touch on some of the areas I was unable to cover last time.

We have three indigenous communities in Kings—Hants: Sipekne'katik, Glooscap and the Annapolis Valley First Nation. Whenever I visit a community, the first issue raised by the chief and the council is the importance of increasing the housing supply and of funding renovations to existing housing. I am very pleased to see $4 billion in investments in this budget. This is historic and significant.

Kings—Hants is also Atlantic Canada's agricultural heartland. We have the largest concentration of farms, including the biggest supply-managed sector east of Quebec. Budget 2022 outlines the government's commitment to providing fair and equitable compensation to supply-managed farmers with respect to CUSMA in the fall economic update.

I want to compare that to those in the previous Conservative government who did not show consistent support for the system, including the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, who has suggested that the supply-managed agricultural sectors and the system are responsible for food inflation. The pandemic has highlighted the importance of national capacity and we, on this side of the House, will support our supply-managed farmers.

I neglected to mention at the start that I will be sharing my time with the member for Surrey Centre.

I want to highlight the nearly one billion dollars' worth of initiatives for the agriculture sector, particularly through an environmental lens, that are being made available in budget 2022. There is nearly $400 million for the on-farm climate action program, and we are tripling the agricultural clean technology program.

I would be remiss not to mention the fact that the Minister of Environment and his department are working closely right now on offset protocols. They will be available and will be a boon for our agriculture sector, particularly in the prairie provinces, which have done a really good job on soil sequestration. There is an opportunity to reward that work and continue to encourage farmers to apply those practices and do even more. I think this is going to be a really important program in the days ahead.

I also want to talk about the importance of some of the wetland preservation programs that were in budget 2021 and reaffirmed in this budget. We will continue to roll those out to reward farmers who are doing tremendous work in sequestering carbon through carbon sinks on farm. This is going to matter across the country and indeed right in my backyard of Kings—Hants.

We know that labour is a major issue across the country. This is a reflection of the fact that the economy is very strong right now and that we have been there to make important investments. Indeed, I believe Statistics Canada reported that in the last quarter of 2021, nearly 900,000 jobs needed to be filled.

This budget really focuses on the importance of immigration, and our Minister of Immigration and my colleague from Nova Scotia provided a levels report to the House earlier in the year. We are focused on making sure that Canadian businesses and our communities have new immigrants to drive the important economy that we are seeing right now. By and large, I think all parties and all members of the House support that. It is extremely important, but it is not necessarily the case across all western countries.

We in Canada need to continue to promote immigration as an important element for supporting not only community diversity, but also our economic growth. I give credit to the government for its focus in this budget on that element.

Specifically, the budget allocates money for an agriculture-specific labour strategy. This was part of the platform the Liberal Party had in the 2021 election. Whether it is the seasonal agricultural worker program or otherwise, these programs are going to make a difference. I know they make a difference in Kings—Hants, but in places such as southwestern Ontario and Quebec they will as well.

I believe I am running out of time, and perhaps—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Yes, we are out of time. The hon. member will have four minutes and 25 seconds the next time this matter is before the House.

It being 6:22 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 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

The member for Kings—Hants has four minutes and 25 seconds left.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will carry on right where I left off, which is talking about how I think it is extremely important, as it relates to health care, that this budget makes clear that we will be working with provinces and territories on foreign credentialing. I know there have been a number of examples in my home province of Nova Scotia, where there are individuals who have come to our province, who want to be able to practise in their particular field of health and have not been able to do so. Yes, we have to work with provinces and territories and colleges to balance public trust in our system, but also to make sure that this process can be expedited, such that if there are people who want to help practise and help support our health care system, they are taken care of.

I also want to talk about tax credits. We had tax credits for CCUS, which is carbon capture, utilization and storage. What I would say to the House is that in 2050, there undoubtedly will still be an oil and gas sector in the global context, but estimates by the International Energy Agency suggest that the number of barrels per day will go from about 100 million down to around about 25 million, give or take.

I think we all, as parliamentarians and indeed as a country, have an important reflection to make when it comes to whether Canada is going to be a part of that market, the 25 million barrels of oil a day. I, for one, as a parliamentarian, feel that yes, we have a responsibility, but in a carbon-constrained world in which there is going to be less demand on that side, we have to make sure that our GHG intensity per barrel is as low as possible.

We took some criticism in the House on our decision on Bay du Nord, but that project was approved because it has some of the lowest emission intensity per barrel of oil in the world. We have to make sure that if we are going to be working with industry to reduce emissions in order to be able to meet our emission reduction targets, we also have to be positioning the sector to be the lowest-emitting oil and gas sector in the world, such that our products can continue to be competitive in the days ahead. I tip my cap, then, to the government on the CCUS tax credit.

Critical minerals, if we are going to be able to get to our climate targets, are going to play an extremely important role, from batteries in EV vehicles to potash to a whole host of different minerals that play a role in that. Canada has so much potential, and the fact that we had $3.8 billion toward the development of a critical mineral strategy is a really extremely important piece, as is the 30% tax credit for exploration in the country.

I think we have a tremendous opportunity on a global stage to be there and to make sure we have a role. I was in Saskatchewan, as I have mentioned. I sat down with the Saskatchewan Mining Association, along with our Minister of Natural Resources. They pointed to this as being extremely important.

The last thing I will say is on the importance in the budget of economic growth, which the Minister of Finance made very clear in the budget document. The budget implementation act talks about a number of the measures that are important in that domain. I fully support that from where I sit here in the House, particularly the Canada Growth Fund, the recognition that we need to continue to drive innovation; 15 billion dollars' worth of capitalization; the innovation and investment agency, which is focused on attracting foreign capital to the country to drive the future economy and our future prosperity; and, finally, more money for the superclusters. In our neck of the woods, in Atlantic Canada, the ocean superclusters do tremendous work. These are all really important initiatives.

I also want to emphasize the importance of reducing interprovincial trade barriers and harmonizing certification between provinces and territories to improve labour mobility. A recent Senate report noted that our economy's GDP could grow between 2% and 4% if we focused on this area.

World-class wine production is a growing sector in my riding of Kings—Hants. However, in many cases it is easier for these producers to export to Europe than to other provinces, so I was pleased that the budget mentioned working on this with the provinces and territories.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comments about Canada's critical mineral potential were spot on. Quebec has a lot of potential there too.

The budget includes a very nice map of the minerals located in Quebec, but it says absolutely nothing about ensuring that processing will happen here, which would be consistent with the Government of Quebec's strategy.

Can the member tell me if his government has already taken steps to make sure these minerals are processed in Quebec, or will minerals be extracted here and then sent off to Toronto for the value add?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

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

The Government of Canada is working with the Government of Quebec on issues from housing and environmental initiatives to natural resource development and essential critical minerals.

I know our government will work with the Province of Quebec and every other Canadian province.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kings—Hants for his talk about the CCUS. I have the only working carbon capture and storage facility, on a coal-fired power plant that produces energy for Saskatchewan. I am so glad to hear he has been to Saskatchewan, and I would invite him and arrange for him to have a tour of the CCUS facility, so he actually understands what it truly means to capture that CO2 and put it in the ground.

My question is a very simple one. Is it the industry we want to kill, or is it the emissions?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think I was very clear in my remarks that there will be a role for Canadian oil and gas in the days ahead. I have mentioned the fact that the global markets are changing and that countries around the world are focused on a transition to a lower-carbon economy. We need to be serious about reducing emissions associated with the production of fossil fuels. That is going to be driven by innovation, similar to what the member has suggested with some of the CCUS innovation that is happening in his province of Saskatchewan. I think the ERP actually represents an important opportunity for Canadian industry to recognize that we have to reduce emissions.

CEOs with energy companies in Canada understand that. We as parliamentarians need to understand this is part of an important transition to fight climate change, but also to be on a competitive footing in the days ahead in global markets.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question around the Canada disability benefit.

We are approaching a year since the benefit was initially introduced in this House, and the disability community was expecting to see it in budget 2022.

Why is the Canada disability benefit not in budget 2022?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know this has been part of the discussion throughout the budget process that is under way here. I will say that I think this government has stepped up to try to provide important social supports across the board.

Members have to recognize that this is budget 2022, but we were elected in 2021 for a four-year mandate. Notwithstanding the fact that I know many members in this House, including this one, understand the importance of supporting individuals with disabilities, this was just the first budget of a four-year cycle, and I suspect we will be working as a government to address some of the challenges and opportunities that the member has highlighted.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kings—Hants for his speech. He is a member that I have a great amount of respect for.

That being said, when the member mentioned a tip of the cap to carbon capture and storage, we need to be honest: If we want even a 50% chance of staying below 1.5°C and ensuring a livable planet, we need to do our fair share. That means, as scientists have told us, that we need to leave 86% of Canada's proven fossil fuel reserves unextracted. To do so means investing in workers.

I wonder if the member would be open to commenting on the importance of the implications of taking that same $7.1 billion, in a new subsidy, and instead investing that in workers and a just transition for them.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I have great respect for the member opposite as well. I take the view that we look at the transition in an energy context in a low-carbon economy. This is not easy. We are talking about Canada: As rich and as powerful a country as we are, we are still going to need that energy in the days ahead.

We may differ in terms of our approach, but I really believe that we need to be focused on emissions reduction. We need to be investing in the technologies that are going to help make Canadian industry competitive for the product that is still going to be needed in the days ahead, notwithstanding the significant transition that we will be taking.

As it relates to a just transition, I am not a big fan of the word, as our Minister of Labour has talked about. I really think that it is important to focus on giving the skills and tools to develop a workforce for the future. We have 900,000 jobs in this country, and there are workers, regardless of whether or not they are in the oil and gas sector, who have skills that will be used across it. I think it is all about skills development, because those folks are still going to be important for whatever type of energy future we have in the days ahead.

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

Before we continue, I want to remind everybody, as I do a couple of times throughout the day, to keep questions and answers as short as they possibly can to make sure that all members and all parties have an opportunity to ask a question and get a response as well. The more we do that, the more we get in.

Continuing debate, the hon. member for Surrey Centre.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here today to speak on the topic of Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Over the past two years, we have faced unprecedented challenges. There is no part of our lives that was not impacted in some way by the coronavirus pandemic. Challenges were both personal and collective in nature. “Budget 2022: A Plan to Grow Our Economy and Make Life More Affordable” contains significant investments in key areas that would help Canadians continue to recover from the detrimental impacts of the pandemic.

Despite the challenges we have faced, Canada has emerged stronger. Because of our government's response to the pandemic, we are able to maintain the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio relative to our G7 international peers, with one of the fastest recoveries. We have the strongest job recovery in the G7, having recuperated 112% and maybe even 115% of the jobs that were lost since the peak of the pandemic, and our unemployment rate is down to 5.5%. This nearly matches Canada's best unemployment rate in 50 years, which we saw in 2019 when the unemployment rate was 5.4%.

The targeted investments in budget 2022 are designed to support people, economic growth and a clean future for everyone as we continue to navigate pandemic recovery. Through these targeted measures, this budget would help make it easier for Canadians to buy a home and move forward on dental care, help Canadian businesses scale up and grow, ensure that wealthy corporations pay their fair share, invest in a clean future, and help Canada become a world leader in producing electric vehicles.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight just a few of the many important investments outlined in this budget that are particularly impactful for my riding of Surrey Centre. These include important investments in housing, immigration, health and dental care. Regarding housing, we know that access to safe and affordable housing remains an incredible challenge for far too many. This is an issue that constituents raise with me often. Access to safe and affordable housing is one of the biggest concerns faced by many residents in the lower mainland. This region has some of the highest housing prices in the country, and as our population continues to grow, we need more homes to meet the demand.

Surrey Centre has been a recipient of significant investments through the rapid housing initiative over the past few years, including $16.4 million under the major city stream to support the creation of affordable housing units for the new Atira Women's Resource Society facility. I had the opportunity to tour the Atira site currently under construction with the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister a couple of weeks ago. This modular housing apartment will provide approximately 44 new affordable units. Owned and operated by Atira Women's Resource Society, this supportive housing complex will serve women experiencing, and at risk of, homelessness, including indigenous women, trans and two-spirited women, and women who are struggling with substance abuse, mental health and spiritual wellness. The $16.4 million funding also assisted Atira to create more units, including next door, where now dozens of units are there to help women in need.

Our government has also invested in the Foxglove supportive housing complex in my riding, which I had the opportunity to visit with the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion recently. This complex includes a total of 130 units: 66 are supportive housing, 34 are for complex care and 30 are shelter beds.

Housing is a complex issue, and I am pleased to see that budget 2022 contains significant investments to address the many layers of challenges with housing that we face and would help expand access to housing in our communities.

This would include doubling the construction of new homes over the next 10 years. Budget 2022 provides $4 billion over five years to CMHC to launch a new housing accelerator fund. This fund aims to remove barriers and help municipalities build housing more quickly. It would target the creation of 100,000 net new housing units in the next five years.

Budget 2022 also contains investments to help Canadians buy their first homes, including by introducing the tax-free first home savings account and doubling the first-time homebuyers' tax credit, and introducing a multi-generational home renovation tax credit that provides up to $7,500 in support for constructing a secondary suite in a home for an additional loved one. This would help keep seniors at home longer, and give them better, safer, more comfortable places to say.

The tax-free first home savings account would help thousands of Canadians save, tax free, up to $40,000 to buy their first home. This is on top of their RRSP options, thereby giving Canadian families up to $15,000 or $20,000 in tax savings.

As members may know, immigration is an issue very near and dear to my heart. I have one of the busiest constituency offices in the country and receive hundreds of immigration files each month. Budget 2022 proposes investments to make our immigration system more efficient. Applicants currently face long waits and delays with processing times. Our government has already begun to address these issues and I am pleased to share with everyone that we are continuing to do more.

Budget 2022 proposes $187 million over five years, and $37 million ongoing, for IRCC to improve its capacity to respond to a growing volume of inquiries and to invest in the technology and tools required to better support people using those services. The budget also proposes $386 million over five years, and $86 million ongoing, for IRCC, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and CBSA to facilitate the timely and efficient entry of a growing number of visitors, workers and students.

I also recently introduced a private member's motion, Motion No. 44, to expand pathways to permanent residency for temporary foreign workers. Budget 2022 contains a number of proposed investments relative to Motion No. 44 to improve the temporary foreign worker program.

Throughout the pandemic, employers have found it challenging to find workers. As demand grows for the TFW program, we need to make changes to meet the needs of the system and ensure that TFWs are protected and have health, safety and quality of life while they work and contribute to our communities. These proposed measures include millions of dollars in funding for increasing protections for workers, reducing administrative burdens for trusted repeat employers and ensuring employers can quickly bring in workers to fill short-term labour market gaps.

Health care, pharmacare and dental: Our health care system is vital to the functioning of this country. Our government made significant investments, more than $69 billion, to lead a coordinated federal, provincial and territorial response to fight COVID-19 and protect the health and safety of Canadians, with more funding to be rolled out in the future. This additional funding includes a $2-billion top-up, plus $45 billion to the Canada health transfer to the provinces and territories.

Budget 2022 proposes initiatives to attract more health care workers to rural communities and to support access to mental health resources with $140 million for the Wellness Together Canada portal, as well as $100 million for the substance use and addiction program to address the opioid crisis.

Finally, I would like to highlight the $5.3 billion over five years to provide dental care for Canadians with family incomes of less than $90,000 annually. It starts in 2022, with those under 12 years old, and expands to cover people under age 18, seniors and persons living with a disability in 2023, with full implementation by 2025.

There are far too many other important issues that budget 2022 proposes investments in for me to cover in the 10 minutes I have today. On that note, I will end with the hope that we can work collaboratively to pass this bill and begin the important work of getting these programs to Canadians as soon as possible to make life more affordable from coast to coast to coast.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the concern I have is that every initiative across this level of government right now that is focused on increasing housing supply has no details on how increasing housing supply is actually going to lower prices or make housing affordable for Canadians. This line of thinking and these concerns have been raised by economists and many other schools of thought over the past several weeks. I share that concern.

If taxpayers are paying to increase housing supply, what guarantee is there, based on the government's program, that the supply will become more affordable for Canadians?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill. I have worked with her for several years on various committees.

When it comes to housing, the biggest challenge we have in this country is supply. The second part is getting into the housing market the first time. I have seen our government build a national housing strategy and invest over $70 billion into it. We are now seeing the fruits of those labours. Particularly in my riding, I have seen 330 new affordable rental housing units being built across from my office. I have seen three announcements for rapid housing initiatives. I have also now seen ways that young people can save tax-free after this bill passes so they can buy their first homes.

These are on top of the $4-billion home accelerator fund that will help municipalities that are committed, because this is a multi-level approach. Those that are committed will get a carrot instead of a stick in order to build more houses and double the housing output this country needs to grow.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned a housing program that was in the budget. The budget does actually include a few interesting investments in housing.

The program that gives municipalities $4 billion to accelerate the construction of 100,000 housing units is actually very frightening for Quebec. The last time we went through this, when the national housing strategy was launched in 2017, it took three years of negotiations before a single penny was actually spent on it. There is no way around it. If the federal government decides to negotiate with the municipalities, it will have to go through Quebec City, because the feds do not deal directly with the municipalities. Quebec City and Ottawa will have to reach an agreement. It took three years last time. During that period, money was flowing to Toronto and Vancouver, and no money was being spent in Quebec.

Instead of planning to do this with the municipalities, would it not have been simpler to send the money directly to Quebec City, so that those who know what the needs are can reach an agreement with the municipalities?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny to hear that coming from the Bloc members, who usually want everything to go to the provinces, but when negotiating with the provinces, as they just said in their own question, it takes three years to implement those deals, as opposed to when it goes directly to the municipalities. If we ask any municipalities, they want funding directly to themselves. They do not want to be brokered through a province that has its own political motives.

This is a great initiative. Cities will make a plan and send it to the federal government, and the federal government will approve it. If they have results, they will get the money; if they do not perform, they will not get it.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the questions I have around the implementation act is about the fact that, again and again, we hear the government promise to address the issue of clean drinking water on first nations reserves, and we continue to see that pushed further and further away. I see it is mentioned very briefly in this implementation act, but I have also heard the Minister of Indigenous Services talk about capacity, saying that once first nations have the capacity, we will get them their clean drinking water.

Does the member agree with the NDP that clean drinking water is an essential human right, that every person in Canada should have it and that the urgency of this issue needs to be addressed today, if not sooner, rather than five years away?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a fundamental human right to have clean drinking water, and this side of the House definitely agrees with that. I can assure the member that every drinking water advisory that was there in 2015 has been resolved, particularly in our province of British Columbia, but there are new drinking water advisories that are coming to the front, and for those we are working tirelessly day and night. I know that no one works harder than our Minister of Indigenous Services to make sure that everyone has clean drinking water immediately on those sites.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

I want to focus my remarks today on the acceptability of the government's budget and the budget implementation bill in two key areas. Number one is affordability as the larger issue, but specifically housing affordability as well as energy affordability. Number two is addressing climate change.

In the first half, I want to talk about housing supply, which is a hard truth that I really do not think anyone in here wants to talk about. No government has been successful in addressing the supply-side issue in Canada. The number of houses that the government is purporting to be able to build and all the money that has been put into building houses by the government have actually seen housing prices increase by 30% in a very short period of time. It is sort of a perverse environment, where we are seeing housing prices increase and become more affordable. I am sitting here looking at some of the pages in the House of Commons and wondering how they are going to be able to buy a house. How are they going to be able to afford this?

What this budget does not address, and what nobody is addressing in the House, is that having “taxpayer-subsidized savings schemes to boost down payments”, and I am quoting from an article in The Line written by Jen Gerson, “will double first-time buyers' tax credits and create more buyers' incentives”. All this does is address the demand side of things. It does not actually address pricing. What this does is just say that we are okay with the existing prices and the unaffordability of housing in Canada, and that we are just expecting that first-time homebuyers in Canada will somehow try to take on that level of debt to buy a home in Canada.

That is just not on the table for a lot of people. Not only is it not on the table for first-time homebuyers, but it is also not on the table for somebody who has been in a 10-year marriage and has just divorced. How is either of those people going to get back into the housing market at this point in time?

The reality is that nobody in this place wants to see housing prices go down, so what we are left chasing here is policies that try to get people into the housing market at what is probably an overvalued housing bubble that has been fuelled by very questionable policies on interest rates and whatnot in the past.

What we have in this budget, and I am sure everybody is going to hate my saying this, is incentives to keep juicing demand, as opposed to actually looking at the supply side and the affordability issue. For that reason, I have serious questions, given the severity of the housing affordability crisis in Canada, about the government budget's ability to do that. It is a huge problem. What are we saying to young Canadians right now? We are telling them not to worry because we are trying to make it easier for them to save up, when they are already not being paid in the same way their parents were and they are facing huge levels of inflation and high levels of housing prices that have been unseen. That is crazy. Why is no one talking about this?

This is highly problematic. I would just encourage members of all political stripes here. I wish we could have an actual conversation about ways to address some of the underlying problems with Canada's housing market. We have an entire generation of people who are aging, whose retirement is dependent upon paper gains in their real estate. They do not want to see their housing prices go down. That is their retirement. How are we addressing their retirement? We have told them, as a society, that this is a good thing. We have told them to depend on this, and now we are saying that housing is a problem.

Without addressing that issue, we are never going to fix this. This budget does not do that. We are just going to keep skating by while housing prices increase or until we have some sort of catastrophic failure, either of which is not good for the Canadian economy or for anybody in Canada who is trying to find a place to live.

The other issue I want to raise, which is near and dear to my heart as a member of Parliament in Calgary, particularly north central Calgary, is the inability of the government to match its so-called climate change solutions with incenting and providing low-cost, readily available low-carbon alternatives to high-carbon consumer products and practices. What I want to speak about specifically is the government's inability to both incent and provide alternatives, which it assumes are there with its policies, to the people I represent and how that impacts their lives and perversely makes achieving our climate change targets worse.

For example, in Calgary Centre North there are a large number of people who would love to take public transit to downtown Calgary, myself included. I prefer to take public transit. It lets me work more. I get stressed easily and do not like to drive when I do not have to. I would love to do that, but the reality is that for me to take a 20-minute bus ride from where I live in north central Calgary to downtown, it is 20 minutes at the best of times by bus, but sometimes it could be an hour or even two hours on a snow day. There is no light rail transit that goes from downtown Calgary to my part of the city, which has one of the highest levels of under-serviced potential transit ridership in western Canada, based on the ridership numbers I have seen. What that means for somebody like me is that I still have to gas up my car to get to meetings downtown. I am paying $100 or more for a tank of gas, but I am in a privileged position. What are people supposed to do if they are not making my income? They do not have the option of getting on a public transit line; they have to fill up their vehicle to go to work or get their kids to school.

Therefore, all the increase in carbon energy, which has been affected not just by the price on carbon but also by supply-side failures, means that people are paying more for carbon, not that they are using less of it. This is part of the problem with the inflationary pressure we are seeing in Canada.

The budget could have started to address some of these issues, for example in how the government is allocating transit funding, both from a capital development perspective and from an operating perspective. It is using a formula that is just not realistic, with respect to where the money is going. I believe it is 30% population-based and 70% based on existing transit ridership. What about parts of the country where there is no public transit? We would love to have public transit, but the government has not allocated transit funding there. That is the first problem, that we do not have the transit to use. It is not that we do not want to use it; it is that it is not there, so we are still filling up our tanks with gas.

The second problem is this. It is not just about funding allocation, but about how the federal government uses its convening role as a funding partner between the provincial governments and the municipalities to see transit projects built. The green line, the LRT project I was talking about earlier, has failed in Calgary. Although the funding was announced nearly 10 years ago now, virtually nothing has been built. The project has decreased in scope to a quarter and has ballooned in cost four or five times what was originally projected. That is a bad investment with respect to how this management works. The federal government should put boundaries around funding to make sure these developments actually get built. People cannot afford to keep having taxes increase, prices increase and lack of supply of goods, housing and energy increase, while not addressing those core, fundamental issues. From that perspective, this budget is a huge missed opportunity.

I wish I had an hour and a half to get into all of the issues around the amount of money that is spent, which puts Canada into debt, but just on those two issues alone, this budget is not addressing them. It spends so much and it disadvantages Canadians. I hope the government can get it right. Until then, it does not have my support.

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

Madam Speaker, it was not that long ago, a few years back, when we could get a litre of gasoline at 88¢. At that time, the government was being criticized by the Conservative Party, which was saying that Alberta was collapsing and everything was going so bad because the price of gas was so low. Today, we are being criticized because the price of gas is so high. I wonder if the member can provide her thoughts with respect to the whole concept of the world pricing of oil and to what degree Canada really has an impact on the world price of oil.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague misunderstood. I was eviscerating the government on the fact that there are no substitute goods for carbon energy, to a large extent, across Canada to ensure that the price on carbon makes carbon pricing elastic. It is inelastic right now.

The second thing is what the government has done, and we have criticized the government for it. Canada still needs carbon energy. That is just the reality. We cannot argue with that; we need it right now. With the policies the government has, all that is happening is an offshoring of our jobs to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and it is raising the cost of energy because we do not have a stable domestic supply.

There is a lack of investments or a prevention of investments in energy infrastructure. I am not saying that we should not be looking at ways to provide alternatives, but that has not happened and the government fails to realize it. I think there is a record of policy failure over several years, and this budget does not rectify that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to see my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill in the House again. It has been a while, and we miss hearing her during our debates.

One section of Bill C‑19 has to do with the luxury tax. I agree on the principle: Those who benefited more during the pandemic can and should contribute to helping those who struggled a bit more.

However, this section includes a measure on private aircraft. When we talk about privately owned aircraft, we think of well‑off people with means, but that is not always the case. Private pilots are often enthusiasts who spend a tremendous amount of money on their hobby because it is expensive. They often have to get together as a group to buy a small plane, and even then it will cost far more than $100,000, which is the threshold for the luxury tax.

Does my colleague think that this luxury tax may have been designed without any consideration for the reality of people who enjoy recreational aviation?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think there are a lot of people in my riding who would get really mad at me if I started talking about private aircraft right now, because they can barely afford their cars.

I would just say this. This aspect of the budget does not address the broader issue of income inequality, rising unaffordability in Canada and inflation. It is window dressing. The systemic issue of housing affordability that I addressed in my speech and the cost of energy are two very fundamental issues that the government has not addressed from a realistic perspective, and I think that is very unfortunate.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about housing affordability. She said it was a huge problem and I agree with her. I think everyone would agree with her. However, I listened carefully and she offered absolutely no solutions. She just said we should talk about this.

I am wondering what her solution would be. Would she agree with the NDP that we need to get back into the affordable housing game through the federal government and build 500,000 units of affordable housing just to catch up to where previous governments have left us over the last 30 years?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, again, how do we do that? That is what needs to be asked. On what land do we do this and for how much? Who gets those units? There is a much greater supply issue than that. Will those units be allowed to be Airbnbs or sit vacant?

Those are the fundamental questions that no one wants to talk about, of any political stripe. If we do not get to the heart of those questions, we are never going to address the affordability crisis in housing in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, and other measures. For my constituents, budget implementation acts are the mechanisms for Parliament to approve the spending outlined in the government's annual budget. In other words, it is when rhetoric meets reality.

My constituents were hopeful that budget 2022 would provide much-needed relief and address the key challenges facing Canadians, such as the labour and housing supply shortages and, of course, the rising cost of living. Instead, budget 2022, while indeed making many promises, fails to meaningfully address critical issues facing Canadians. It has piled more debt onto the backs of taxpayers, and has raised taxes while failing to address tax evasion. Bill C-19 is very long, yet it somehow manages to leave out most of the things the Liberals promised to do. Imagine that. Why did the Minister of Finance table a budget that makes so many promises if she had no intention of implementing them at this critical time?

During my time, I am going to talk briefly about the labour market, Pacific economic development, housing and some local issues.

On the labour market, it never ceases to amaze me how many businesses in my riding need employees right now. I see “help wanted” signs on billboards across my riding, on window fronts, in newspapers and on company vehicles. There is a significant shortage of skilled workers throughout not only my riding and province, but our entire country.

We all know Canada's population is aging. In fact, we have known this for a long time. For years we have been warned of a coming “grey tsunami”. I would argue today that the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this point. It means that more people right now are exiting the workforce through retirement, with fewer people entering to replace them.

Budget 2022 makes lots of promises about labour shortages and attracting new skilled workers, but when I looked at Bill C-19, I saw only two of the nine different commitments made in the budget.

The first one in Bill C-19 is the amendment to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that commits to increase the number of permanent residents accepted each year. While this sounds great on the surface, what this budget does not do is address the other side of this problem. If we are increasing the number of skilled immigrants coming into this country who want to buy homes and use their capital, we are only making the housing supply shortage worse. The government never addressed this key fact. The permanent residency point only conflates the housing problem that we are facing.

The second point is that, while I support tax recognition of up to $4,000 a year in travel and relocation expenses, as outlined in Bill C-19, this will not add new workers to Canada's labour force, nor will it provide the skills training for Canadians who seek a promotion or a new career.

One commitment that could have been included, which even the Liberals have talked about, is foreign credential recognition. Many skilled workers who enter Canada come here under the pretense that they will serve as doctors or nurses or work in skilled health care fields. The current government, which does not work with the provinces, does not address that issue. This is an easy way we could solve part of the doctor and nursing shortages that my province is so acutely facing at this moment.

Another important promise missing from Bill C-19 is the opportunities fund supporting people with disabilities. This is a segment of our workforce that does not get enough attention. It is a segment of our workforce that wants to find purpose in the work they do. The government made a promise to work with them, but it is obviously not a priority because it is not in Bill C-19. I would encourage the Liberal members of the House to push their government to include the promises on workers with disabilities. That is very important.

Third, the government made multiple promises regarding temporary foreign workers, but they are also excluded from Bill C-19. I raise this point because I come from an agriculturally rich area of the country. In fact, the riding of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, the riding of Abbotsford and the neighbouring riding of Chilliwack—Hope have the highest farm gate sales in the entire country. The greenhouse growers, dairy farmers and fruit growers are all calling for more temporary foreign workers to help meet the food security challenges that we are facing. The government could have done that and it failed to.

Turning to Pacific economic development, last August the government launched the department of Pacific Economic Development Canada. This agency was touted as a long-term partner dedicated to supporting B.C.'s economic development on the ground and in our communities. Indeed, it came with a lot of fanfare and big announcements, but almost a year after it was launched, Pacific Economic Development Canada has not opened its new office in Surrey. It is still in the old western economic development office in downtown Vancouver, and it has not fulfilled any of its promises to serve rural Canada.

I mention this today because, as everyone in the House knows, the one thing I have spoken about most is disaster recovery and emergency management. Pacific Economic Development Canada and, by extension, Community Futures, which I believe is the most efficient government organization, could be doing a lot more, so I encourage the government to fund Community Futures to help address labour shortages and business capital shortages for the many people in rural British Columbia. It could have gotten this done.

Finally, on Pacific economic development, what irks me the most is that when I went through the estimates, I found out that PacifiCan will receive just $48.44 on a per capita basis for every citizen in the province of British Columbia. Members can compare that with Ontario, where the agency will receive $55.14 for every citizen, and Quebec, where it will be $67.85.

Why is British Columbia being underfunded again? Why now, especially when our province has faced unprecedented challenges, is the government not empowering an organization in the government or Community Futures to do the work that we need to do right now to help people who are facing some critical situations? It is not fair to British Columbian taxpayers that we are underfunded. In fact, it kind of sets the stage for the argument that the Laurentian elite do not care about British Columbia.

I will turn to housing. Last year, as the opposition's shadow minister for housing, I highlighted the failure of budget 2021 to address the critical supply shortages, money laundering and foreign investment that have contributed to the high cost of homes. On this side of the House, we have said over and over that supply is the biggest factor in skyrocketing home prices. We are not alone in this. There is industry consensus, and CMHC has been saying the same things. We are not keeping up with demand.

The government claims it is finally addressing the issue of foreign investors flooding Canada's real estate market, doing so through its temporary ban on foreign non-residents purchasing residential properties. However, Bill C-19 is very vague on the details. It says that temporary residents are exempt from this ban. We are left to wonder what this government means by temporary residents. Could wealthy foreign families still buy real estate through their children who come to Canada as international students? The loopholes are just astounding.

In the months leading up to the budget, we heard a lot from the Liberals about how they heard Canadians and how they would address the housing crisis. The Liberals made grand promises in this budget, including a housing accelerator fund for 100,000 homes, a direct payment to those struggling to afford a home, doubling the first-time homebuyers' tax credit, a new savings account and increased funding to tackle homelessness. However, the previously mentioned ban on foreign buyers and a tax on house flipping were the only items included in Bill C-19. They are not even including their primary promises in this bill. Canadians just want an affordable place to call home, so when we talk about rhetoric and reality, all we are seeing from the government is rhetoric on housing. It is not even doing what it says it is going to do.

In conclusion, from this budget my constituents were hoping for a commitment to improve infrastructure, which was wholly ignored by the government; a partner to support much-needed economic development in B.C. after devastating floods and wildfires; a substantial increase in our housing supply; and a plan, which I did not have a chance to talk about, for the backlog at Passport Canada that is stopping people from travelling right now.

With that, I would like to wrap up my comments today by moving a subamendment to Bill C-19. I move, seconded by the member for Bay of Quinte:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following:

“, and fails to combat tax evasion.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The subamendment is in order.

Continuing with question and comments, we have the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, one of two things is happening, as this is the second or third time that Conservatives have moved amendments to amendments. Either somebody is not doing their homework in properly preparing their amendment before introducing it or Conservatives are intentionally adding more votes to our vote count in order to burn more time. I will let the public be the judge of that.

My question to the member respects his comments around housing, and that we are not doing anything about housing. All I heard him do, which was very similar to what I heard the previous speaker do, is complain, rather than offering some solutions.

I would like to hear what the member thinks we should be doing. I heard him be very critical about one program, and that he does not think it is going to be successful, but can he offer some ideas as to what we should be doing to deal with the housing crisis?

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

Madam Speaker, what I actually said at the very beginning of my speech was that Bill C-19 “is when rhetoric meets reality.”

I pointed out very clearly that all of the promises made by the Liberals, even some where we might find consensus in the House, were excluded from Bill C-19, including all of their commitments to address the supply-side crisis we are facing in this country. In addition, Bill C-19 does not even include their signature program of a new savings account.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's intervention in the House today was very interesting, and I listened with attention.

The member comes from British Columbia, and of course, I am a member from Alberta. They are arguably two of the provinces that have dealt the most with the climate crisis in recent years, with fires and flooding in my province and flooding in his region just recently.

One of the things I have always wanted to do in this place is to ensure that we have a robust climate strategy, and as an Albertan, the best way we can do that is ensure that there is support for Albertan workers to transition to a green, future economy. I wonder if the member feels that what we saw in this budget implementation act meets that desperate need to support workers as our economies transform.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Edmonton Strathcona raises an important point.

In Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon and throughout British Columbia, when we are talking about climate change right now, we are talking about climate resilient infrastructure. I do acknowledge the $5 billion allocated in the fall economic statement from the government, but as I have said in the House and before, in my home town of Abbotsford alone, which is part of my riding, just to upgrade the diking system could cost upwards of $3 billion. This region of the province, and in our country, has the highest farm gate sales per capita. We have a critical sector of our economy that needs infrastructure investments to stop or manage future floods and other disasters such as those we experienced in 2021.

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

Madam Speaker, oil subsidies figure prominently in this economic statement and in the budget. In this context, what concerns me is the energy transition. How can we promote the electrification of transportation?

Is my colleague satisfied with the measures that are in place? Would he like to comment further?

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

Madam Speaker, what we need to do in British Columbia is support the construction of infrastructure such as a rail system for the public. We need a lot of public transportation to help our economy and families, who are paying too much for gas right now.

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

Madam Speaker, it is great to see everyone. I wish all my colleagues a wonderful and productive day. The sun is shining outside, and warmer weather is close at hand. I think we are all happy about that.

I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Milton.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak on Bill C-19 and the measures in the bill that would continue to drive the Canadian economy forward by leveraging the inherent strength and resiliency of all our citizens, create good-paying middle-class jobs, and ensure a bright and prosperous future for all Canadians, including the wonderful residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge, who I have the privilege of representing.

As many of my colleagues know, I am an MP who is focused squarely on the economy, competitiveness, job creative and fiscal prudence, backed by my entire educational and professional career in the field of economics and working in the global financial markets literally throughout the world. It is the economy for me.

At the same time, I am a socially progressive person who believes fundamentally that we as a society must always ensure that human rights, women's rights and the rights of minorities and the most vulnerable are always protected. As a father of three beautiful young girls, including a seven-month-old, I will state this in reference to what we are seeing transpire in the United States, where I lived and worked for several years and where I have many friends and family. A woman's right to choose is simply not up for debate. A woman's right to reproductive health services is not up for debate. We must always ensure that women across Canada, from coast to coast to coast, have full access to the health services they need. Protecting and promoting women's rights is something we must always stand for, full stop, non-negotiable.

The Canadian economy is strong, characterized by historically low unemployment and strong economic growth. The future is truly bright. I am the chair of the Liberal auto caucus and in the last two months we have secured, as a government working with industry and our partners, more than 13 billion dollars' worth of investment in Canada's auto sector, maintaining and creating more than 16,000 direct jobs.

The auto sector is something near and dear to my heart, since my time in New York City working for a rating agency. At the rating agency, I was actually in charge of the global auto parts coverage, and worked in tandem on the global OEM manufacturers, visiting Wolfsburg Volkswagen in Germany, Peugeot in Paris, Fiat in Turin, Hyundai in Korea, and Japanese manufacturers as well. It is an industry I am very well versed in, and something I have been watching for many years, including during the 2008-09 recession.

It is great to see our government working hand-in-hand with industry, leading the charge, so we can have a vibrant industry here in Canada. It is also good to see the ongoing transformation to electric vehicles, for which Canada is uniquely positioned, both on the human capital side and on the natural resource side.

Turning to Bill C-19, tradespeople and skilled trades build and maintain the critical infrastructure we utilize, and we are dependent upon them on a daily basis in the communities where we raise our families. In my youth, I worked at a pulp and paper mill in northern British Columbia. I spent a few summers there. It was a phenomenal experience, and I learned a lot from the hard-working Canadians who work in our resource sector.

Much like in other infrastructure, be it refineries, pipelines, chemical plants, major infrastructure projects, people who work in the trades travel. They travel quite a distance for what are called “turnarounds” or “shutdowns”. I remember experiencing that. They also travel for permanent relocation.

With that, I am very happy to see, and I was very happy to advocate for, the labour mobility deduction of $4,000 in Bill C-19. It would allow these skilled trades folks to offset some of the costs associated with this travel. It is a well-needed measure that I again advocated for, and it is great to see it in the BIA, Bill C-19.

My riding is home to the training centres and the headquarters of LiUNA 183 and the Carpenters Local 27, and the individuals from these two unions, day in and day out, toil, sacrifice and build without a lot of fanfare. They build our infrastructure and communities. I salute them, and I am proud to be their representative in Ottawa. I will always have the backs of all of them and all the great skilled trades people across this country.

Budget 2022 focuses on three main goals: investing in creating economic growth and innovation, continuing to invest in Canadians, and investing in the ongoing green transition.

We all know quite well that we must act with all levels of government and all stakeholders to make housing more affordable for Canadians. With that, we know we cannot have a growing and strong economy and a diverse and talented workforce, particularly for newcomers coming to Canada, without more homes. We will act, and we are acting.

First, we will allow Canadians who intend to purchase their first home to help them save via a tax-free home savings account. Second, we will increase the supply of housing by launching a $4-billion home accelerator fund to support and incentivize municipalities to build more homes faster. We must break down the red tape, and we must break down the barriers to getting more shovels in the ground and boots working. Third, we need to protect buyers and renters by introducing a homebuyers' bill of rights and bring forward a national plan to end blind bidding. We will also ban foreign buyers from owning non-recreational residential property for two years.

I am one of the representatives in the city of Vaughan, along with the members for King—Vaughan and Thornhill. The city of Vaughan and the York region are home, frankly, to the largest number of home builders in the province of Ontario and, really, in the country.

The joke goes that infrastructure projects in Ontario all seem to touch the city of Vaughan because of the many infrastructure participants there in one shape, form or another, such as names like Greenpark Group, Deco Homes, The Remington Group, Empire Communities, Sorbara Group, Gold Park Homes, TACC Construction, Cortel Group, CountryWide Homes, Canvas Developments, Fernbrook Homes, Royal Pine Homes, Arista Homes and Caliber Homes. Those are from just doing a quick search, and I probably missed about another 10 names.

These are all home builders who are based in the York region in the city of Vaughan. They are entrepreneurs. They came to this country as newcomers. They worked hard and toiled, and they build. They build the communities that we live in. They sacrificed. They employ, directly, tens of thousands of Canadians and, indirectly, many, many more.

Their goal is simple, which is to ensure that Canadians have a home, to create memories for them and their families. We need to build. That is what we will be doing, and that is what these individuals and these firms do. We will work with them and we will work with the municipalities to ensure that we increase the supply of new home construction across Canada and more than double housing construction over the next 10 years.

On my last topic, I am a strong believer in our free market economic system and in competition. Competition leads to innovation and, yes, disruption as well, but competition in our free market and our capitalist system has brought with it the highest standards of living and pulled literally billions of individuals across the globe out of poverty.

However, competition can be eroded. When anti-competitive practices take hold, and with that, I have long advocated for changes and the strengthening of Canada's Competition Act to ensure that business practices do not hold back innovation and competition, it can be detrimental to the interests of consumers and employees. We must hold back on that.

With that, I am pleased to see, in Bill C-19 significant amendments to the Competition Act, which I know are highly technical, but they are very important. They include a proposed criminal offence for so-called wage-fixing and no-poaching agreements between competitors; an explicit prohibition against drip pricing; private access to Canada's Competition Tribunal for abuse of dominance claims; an increase in administrative monetary penalties; an expansion of the scope of the competition bureau's evidence-gathering powers pertaining to section 7; an expansion of the list of factors that may be considered when assessing the prevention and lessening of competition for merger review and non-criminal competitor collaborations; and the amendment of the definition of anti-competitive act for abuse of dominance.

Competition is the essence of our free market and capitalist system. It is wonderful to see the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, along with the Minister of Innovation and their teams, collaborating and working in unison to ensure that anti-competitor practices are both disallowed and that the Competition Act be modernized, which we will need to continue to work on fo the penalties to be updated.

There is nothing more important to someone like me than to see healthy competition that leads to innovation, job creation and a growing and strong middle class, and there is nothing that makes me angrier and makes me speak out more than when I see anti-competitive practices take hold in any markets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's intervention today and his attendance at the occasional finance meeting, where we can discuss housing inflation, among other things.

He mentions, specifically, the so-called foreign buyers ban in Bill C-19. The minister has to, first of all, identify a particular property that falls outside the many loopholes and exemptions the government has given for all sorts of people, but if they legitimately find it, the minister has to go through a provincial court process, which can take years, and the ultimate slap on the wrist is $10,000.

Does the hon. member think that taking up court time and years of process to have someone who has violated the law of this country be fined $10,000 is sufficient? Does he think it should be much higher than that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and friend from the riding of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, where they produce a lot of beautiful wine.

I will say this: We need to provide incentives to build and increase the supply of housing in Canada. We are going to be doing that, but we also need to restrain and lower the number of purchases being undertaken by foreigners. We need to have a plan for Canada's housing market to put Canadians first. That is what we are doing. We need to ensure middle-class Canadians and first-time homebuyers have the first opportunity to purchase homes here in the country where they live, work and pay taxes.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague is interested in the housing issue, but it is the construction of homes that is the urgent issue. Supply and demand is a game. The problem is that the supply is inadequate, and this is causing prices to skyrocket. That is the case in major centres, but all too often we forget that this is also happening in the regions and rural areas.

Could my colleague take action to ensure that the funding does not all go to the Toronto region, as is often the case in the Canadian economy with government projects?

Could he take action to ensure that remote and rural regions get their share of the pie and ensure that supply increases in the regions?

We want to address the labour shortage, but the first problem is that people cannot find housing.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for his question.

I will say this: Housing is an issue from coast to coast to coast. We will act in the interests of all Canadians, be it urban, rural or semi-urban. In whatever category and whatever city, we will work with all our municipal partners and all our provincial partners to ensure that housing gets built, to get shovels in the ground and to increase that supply, which we know we need to do. Supply has not kept up to the need for several years. We need to make those adjustments very quickly.

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

Madam Speaker, my question to the member is really on the idea of non-market housing. In my riding, I look across the large region of North Island—Powell River and I am hearing again and again from people who have nowhere to live. I am talking to people with professional jobs: good, decent-paying jobs who are living in RVs because they simply can find nothing else to live in.

Our market is hot. People are buying up houses so rental units are gone, and they are gone quickly because people are selling them at an outrageous profit. We need non-market housing. We need it for low-income families. We need it for moderate-income families and also for folks who are making good incomes but cannot afford anything else because the rent costs are going up startlingly, as well.

Can the member talk about when the government is going to get serious about non-market housing so we can actually see people be able to afford to live, and young people able to afford houses in the future?

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

Madam Speaker, on the affordable housing front, our government has put forward, since 2015, a $70-billion-plus national affordable housing program that deals with exactly what the member referenced and asked about, which includes housing for co-ops and housing for seniors, for lower-income Canadians and for vulnerable Canadians. We have done that.

In my riding, for example, we actually completed a rental housing unit with 240 units that was done in partnership with York Region and the City of Vaughan. We are making strides on that front, and the $70-billion-plus national housing strategy for affordable housing is bearing fruit.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, it is a real privilege for me to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, which is very important.

It is a privilege to speak in the House today to Bill C-19, the Budget Implementation Act. Budget 2022 plots a course forward for our country: our destination is a greener, cleaner, fairer, more equitable country with more well-paying jobs and more affordable housing for all Canadians.

I have heard before that in order to know where we are going, we must first know where we came from. Today, May 5, is Dutch Liberation Day, for my fellow Dutch Canadians. I know there is more than one Dutch diaspora individual in the House. My dad arrived here in Canada as an infant with his parents and siblings almost 70 years ago. He texted me today that the exact day that he remembers is October 15, 1953. My dad, Joe, is on his way to Ottawa today, so we can all go to the Dutch heritage event tonight.

His family settled in southwestern Ontario and, like many Dutch immigrants, took to farming and agriculture to support themselves and to build a new life. Much like the contributions from Canada's proud Ukrainian diaspora, it is a fact that Canada is a strong farming and agriculture nation because of our roots that include so many of Dutch heritage.

On this Dutch Liberation Day, l would like to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts and contributions from the Canadian Armed Forces in World War II, who led the liberation of Holland. On my run this morning, I saw some beautiful tulips poking their colours through the green stems, and I was reminded of the gift from Holland and Princess Juliana commemorating the significant role that Canadians played in the liberation of the Netherlands and in providing Princess Juliana a safe haven during the birth of her daughter. The Dutch still remember us today for those proud efforts, and every year the Dutch royal family and people of the Netherlands each send 10,000 bulbs to Ottawa. If people venture out in town, they will see them coming up now.

Like many of my colleagues, I have had the chance to discuss budget 2022 with many diverse groups and stakeholders in Milton, and I am incredibly grateful to represent such an engaged community. I could not do this work without the expertise and perspectives of my neighbours in Milton. I had the chance to consult with the Chamber of Commerce, Milton's Downtown Business Improvement Association, housing advocates, small and medium-sized businesses like Sargent Farm, Fix Automotive, DSV, Lumberville, La Rose Bakery and so many more, as well as with child care operators and parents who are thrilled that our government has signed deals with every province and territory across the country for universal country-wide early learning and child care.

Before I move on, I would like to thank my local stakeholders, in particular the Milton Community Resource Centre, Advancement of Women Halton, Community Living North Halton, the Muslim Advisory Council of Canada, the YM-YWCA and so many others for contributions to this program, because they engaged early. We worked together to ensure that local priorities were heard, and indeed they are reflected in our national universal $10-a-day early learning and childcare program that will help families get back to work and continue their careers. It will build new jobs in the sector and ensure that kids get the best possible start.

On the subject of early learning and child care, I also want to acknowledge the work being done across the country to ensure that our early learning and child care programs include physical literacy, in particular Active for Life. I am so proud of our government's support for Active for Life's building capacity and resilience through physical literacy and active play projects. It received over $428,000 to continue ensuring that kids get the best possible start.

I will move on to something that is very, very close to home for me: that is co-op housing. Budget 2022 rapidly commits to building new affordable housing for Canadians. This includes additional affordable housing units that are urgently needed in our communities, particularly for those who are experiencing or are at risk of homelessness. It ensures that more affordable housing can be built quickly. Budget 2022 proposes to provide $1.5 billion over two years, starting this year, to extend the rapid housing initiative. This funding is expected to create at least 6,000 new affordable housing units with at least 25% of the funding going toward women-focused housing projects.

Finally, something new and very personal for me as I mentioned, budget 2022 also commits to a new generation of co-operative housing development in our country. For generations, co-ops have offered quality, affordable housing to Canadians while empowering their members through inclusion, personal development and security of tenure through their community-oriented model of housing. I do not mind saying I am a proud co-op kid. I am a product of a co-op: The Chautauqua Co-op in Oakville. My mom and dad moved there in the early eighties and when my parents divorced, my mom moved back into Chautauqua Co-op. I lived there until I was 26, and through university as well.

Co-op housing did not just put a roof over our heads. Co-op housing also put a guitar in my hand and made sure that I took guitar lessons. I went to summer camp. My mother could afford to send me to the canoe club. Co-op housing literally got me to the Olympics.

The community was far more than just a safe place to live: It was also a security blanket. My mom lost a job at one point, but we did not have to worry about losing our home. I am so proud that this government is committing to a new generation of co-operative housing in this country.

To be a bit more specific, budget 2022 proposes to reallocate $500 million of funding, on a cash basis, from the national housing co-investment fund to launch a new co-operative housing development program aimed at expanding co-op housing in Canada. This program would be codesigned with the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada and the co-operative housing sector. Budget 2022 also proposes an additional $1 billion in loans to be reallocated from the rental construction financing initiative to support co-op housing projects.

One of the proudest days of my co-op life was in 2017, when my co-op paid off our mortgage. Our co-op is mortgage-free, so that means that we have the ability to keep rental costs, which we call “housing charges” in the co-op housing sector, extremely low for families. When we take profit out of housing, we actually make it affordable. It is a remarkable concept.

Back in 1984, Canada was building lots of co-ops, but since then co-op construction has been in decline. Budget 2022 commits to a new generation of that. The Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada has said that this “federal budget [represents] a turning point, as it acknowledges the unique value of co-operative housing and commits to its expansion.” That is something I just could not be more proud of.

Finally, I will close by acknowledging the heartbreaking and ongoing tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls in this country. Today is Red Dress Day. We are all wearing that on our lapels, but we are also wearing it on our hearts. The systemic racism and gender-based violence against indigenous women and girls and 2SLGBTQ2+ people is a horrific national tragedy, and it underscores the work that we as a nation still must do in order to accomplish the meaningful transformative change that is necessary to help end these despicable events.

While there is still a lot of work to do, it is important to highlight the work that we have done, and that we continue in, alongside Canada's indigenous peoples to address these historical injustices. In budget 2022, the government expanded on these commitments and laid out an additional $11 billion over six years for continued support for indigenous children and families, and to ensure that indigenous communities have resources necessary to continue to grow and shape their own futures.

Included in these investments is $275.3 million to address the shameful history of residential schools and western colonialism that were so utterly devastating to indigenous peoples and their cultures. This money would go to documenting, locating and memorializing burial sites, allowing for the appointment of a special interlocutor, supporting and encouraging community-led responses, supporting document digitization, and commemorating and memorializing former residential school sites.

Our government is also committed to eliminating barriers that prevent first nations children from being able to access the services and supports they need in order to thrive. Jordan's Principle, which helps ensure that those children have access to the cornerstones of health care, as well as the social and educational services they need, when and where they need them, is a key part of this work. That is why this budget proposes $4 billion over six years, starting this year, to make sure that Jordan's Principle has the resources to provide these necessary supports to first nations youth.

It is important issues such as this that this government will continue to fully support as we acknowledge the ongoing national tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls with Red Dress Day. I know that our government will continue to work alongside indigenous peoples every day to address historical injustices, support nations and their communities in their rebuilding efforts, and accelerate self-determination and self-government.

I will now be pleased respond to any questions or comments my colleagues may have about this important bill.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his speech. We used to work together on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I am glad he is not on the committee anymore because he made me do push-ups. He forced us to do physical activity. There is a reason he is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Sport. Seriously though, it was a pleasure to work with him.

Obviously, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage discussed culture and the challenges facing the cultural industry during the pandemic. There is a tax measure in Bill C-19 that involves extending the period for incurring eligible expenses and other deadlines related under film production tax credits. That is great. I am completely in favour of that.

However, does my colleague agree that the scope of this measure could be expanded to include more than just film production? The pandemic was definitely hard on film production, but other sectors could also benefit from this kind of generosity from the government.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drummond for his question and for the opportunity to practise my French with him today.

I hope to have another opportunity to practise my French with him as we talk about films over a beer or another drink, although we will try to do a little exercise before we grab that drink.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his insightful thoughts around co-op housing and the experience he has had. That is a very important thing for us to hear in the House.

The question I would have is around the funding of all this. We know that the government has a burgeoning amount of deficit and debt that is accumulating for generations as we go forward. I look at my own personal situation, with three children and two grandchildren, and somebody is going to have to pay for this. I guess the question is this: Does the member opposite have a major concern with that? What is the plan going forward, and how does he think we are going to actually fund all of these wonderful examples that he has given today?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his engagement on the health committee that we are on together.

On the topic, I will pick two expenses that the member highlighted, things that he highlighted as expenses rather than opportunities. When we build housing for Canadians that is truly affordable, we give them access to the economy. We give their children opportunities to play sports, to learn new things and to engage, and it actually ends the cycle of poverty. I cannot think of a better investment in Canada's future than ensuring that we end the cycle of poverty.

Oftentimes in this House we speak about poverty reduction. I am more of a fan of poverty elimination. I do not think that in 2022 there needs to be poverty in Canada. It is not an inevitability, and we need to provide transitional housing or housing at a low cost. We have a $15 minimum wage in Canada, and that is not a wage that supports the ownership of a home, so there need to be solutions.

There are other programs, like early learning and child care, that actually pay for themselves in the sense that they get people back to work. When people go back to work, that is a revenue prospect for the federal government. As a young person, I have ultimate confidence in making sure that this country is viable going forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Milton for his performance in the soccer game last night against the interns. He kept us in the game, as did the Minister of Justice in goal.

I want to give the member an opportunity to talk more about co-op housing. It is something the NDP has been pressing for for years and years. It is nice to see the government finally coming back to this. What do we need to do in the future to have more of this?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, budget 2022 commits $1.5 billion over the coming years, which will build 6,000 new co-op units. That is more co-op units than this country or any province has built in decades, and that is a turning point, as Tim Ross, executive director of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, has said.

This is a turning point for Canada. I appreciate that the member opposite and the NDP have been pushing for this for so long. I am glad they did, and I am glad we are here now with a solution for Canadians going forward. More people will be able to afford where they live and be able to engage in our economy.

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

Madam Speaker, to the member across the way, I appreciate that.

I am pleased to rise today, not only as the member of Parliament for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, but also as the critic or shadow minister for indigenous services on behalf of the official opposition, to speak on the budget implementation act, Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the 2022 budget.

As I am sure many colleagues already know, I am a Conservative with libertarian leanings, and one of the predominant concepts of libertarian thought is the natural harmony of interests. It is predicated on the idea that individual interests are harmonious, in so far as acting in one's own interests furthers the interests of the community. In other words, it is the free market.

Another pillar of conservativism and libertarianism prompts groups to work out conflicts because of the benefit of joint prosperity. Farmers benefit from the prosperity of merchants. People benefit from competition between those merchants, and the resulting wealth creates jobs and opportunity.

In a system where everyone benefits, interests will naturally align. Only when government begins to hand out rewards based on political pressure do we find ourselves involved in an unresolvable conflict between groups that must contend for their piece of the budgetary pie.

That brings me to my first point of contention with Bill C-19. Rather than support indigenous people to achieve economic freedom from centuries of political oppression at its worst, and apathy at its best, the government has chosen to inflate the very bureaucratic system that purports reconciliation yet does everything it can to stymie it with the broken “Ottawa knows best” approach.

Recently, the first nations financial management board, a top-notch, indigenous-led financial organization that supports economic development for indigenous communities, wrote a letter to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. In that letter, the executive chair, Mr. Harold Calla, summed up the situation, using the example of housing. He stated:

While the budget makes significant investments in new housing, it does nothing to change the failed systems for getting homes built nor [does it] change the pay-as-you-go systems that [purport to] support First Nations housing.

Before I continue to quote more from Mr. Calla, I want to let the House know that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain. I apologize for not kicking that off. I appreciate the help from the table in front of me for reminding me about that.

As I mentioned, rather than tackling those systematic inequalities that keep indigenous people in poverty, poor health and without adequate housing, the budget simply throws money out, hoping the problem goes away.

Mr. Calla continued:

Building homes on-reserve is possible when homeowners have access to employment income, and economic development that creates employment can be one of the sources of stable, long-term jobs. Securing private sector financing is the key to moving away from the status quo of proposal-based government funding. To our team at the Financial Management Board, this is what systemic change and a new nation-to-nation relationship can look like.

Rather than pitting groups against each other, the government could solve the housing crisis for indigenous communities by, number one, listening to indigenous communities; two, not haemorrhaging money into a broken system; and three, getting out of the way of the free market.

Bill C-19 is not a responsible budget. This is a budget that, as I have said, simply pumps money into a broken “Ottawa knows best” system. This budget does nothing to empower indigenous communities to make decisions for themselves. Rather, it simply grows bureaucracies in Ottawa.

Again, one of the first pillars of libertarianism that students of political science are introduced to, although they may not know it at the time, is summed up neatly in the famous quote from Lord Acton: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Of course, at the time, the English parliamentarian, historian and writer was referring to the absolute power of popes and kings, but he might as well have been referring to the Indian Act and those government structures put in place to support it.

I will concede, thankfully, that in a parliamentary democracy, legislation is never absolute, and bad laws can be cast into the dustbin of political history, but that does not negate the fact that the Indian Act, like the absolutionist powers of historical Europe, suppresses the individual liberty of indigenous people and hampers their sustained economic growth.

I will take a moment to respond in advance to the government's retorts to the House about not taking advice from Conservatives, to say that successive Canadian governments have had the opportunity to raise indigenous people up, but chose instead to keep them down through the paternalistic policies of broken systems.

As we all know, Canada is in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis and in desperate need of economic recovery. It has serious geopolitical issues abroad. Now is not the time for the Prime Minister to grant himself even more power and be less accountable to Canadians.

We all share in the shame of the discriminatory historical policies that enshrined a broken, paternalistic system that limited indigenous rights, freedoms and prosperity. However, it is the government that continues to inflate and support those very structures that sustain the broken system that the Liberals promise to fix every election.

My second point of contention is that the budget has unleashed an avalanche of uncontrolled spending while failing to present a fiscal anchor and failing to present a plan to control inflation. We cannot simply keep printing money and seizing the earnings of Canadians to pay for bigger prices and more government spending.

For the first time in over 31 years, prices are up 6.7% compared to a year ago. More and more people are barely making ends meet as the pinch of inflation is making everything in their daily lives more expensive. Families are spending more on groceries. Gas is costing workers more, and home heating is shrinking seniors' savings. There is an affordability crisis here in Canada, and after seven years of Liberal out-of-control spending, Canadians are facing record inflation. The budget does nothing to address this, and it also does nothing to tackle skyrocketing house prices.

It is hubris to think that this government can make houses cheaper by continuing to spend even more money on its so-called priorities, but in fact it may create a shortage of housing that will undoubtedly cause prices to rise even higher as demand outstrips supply. We can say that, whether it be a physical house itself or the materials to build it, governments will never be able to replicate the free market.

A more sustainable, long-term approach to affordable housing would include reducing government red tape and making it easier, faster and ultimately cheaper for homes to be built. There are a number of non-taxpayer-funded initiatives that could support affordable housing, and it starts through the creation of socially responsible investment instruments, mandating federal tax laws to favour investments in affordable housing, and working with the provincial and municipal governments to unshackle the barriers to land use.

Now, a growing number of working Canadians simply cannot afford more of the tax-and-spend agenda of this government. They want real action to fight the cost-of-living crisis and an outline of a clear commitment to control inflation.

My third and final critique of Bill C-19 is that while our financial liability to government debt increases, the government's obligation to the taxpayer decreases. In the last month, my constituency office has been inundated with calls for passports. People cannot get through to Service Canada on the phone and are waiting days with no answer. Some constituents have reported that they stood in line for hours, only to be turned away at the end of the day, even though some public servants had no one in their lines. With the pandemic coming to an end and the anniversary of the 10-year passport, the increase in demand for passport renewals should have been pretty easy for the government to predict. The government expects Canadians to pay their taxes. Well, news flash, Canadians also demand services for those taxes.

Now, small businesses pay their taxes, and their ask has been pretty clear: Prioritize red tape reduction and ensure that the cost of doing business does not increase by tackling inflation. The Liberals have failed to bring forth a budget that prioritizes either request.

Farmers, as we all know, pay taxes. They are struggling to keep up with inflation, and the increased cost of fertilizer due to the war in Ukraine is really causing hardship for these farmers. By 2030, the rising cost of the carbon tax will take over $1.1 billion from farm families, which could be used to upgrade machinery and adopt more sustainable practices. To add insult to injury, the Liberals have chosen to spend $30 million just to administer carbon tax rebates to businesses and farms.

Canadian manufacturers and exporters continue to face high inflation rates. Supply-chain disruptions resulted in losses of more than $10.5 billion and critical labour shortages, with 81,000 vacancies. Budget 2022 fails to do enough to address those issues and many others.

These are just a few issues on which the budget fails to meet the needs of everyday Canadians, and they are why I cannot support this budget.

Milton Friedman once mused that if you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there would be a shortage of sand. We need less government liability, not more. We need more economic freedom, not less. Unfortunately, this budget delivers on neither.

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

Madam Speaker, today, May 5, is Red Dress Day, and many of us will be wearing red dresses on our lapels. It is a time to reflect on its significance. It is the day we recognize hundreds of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and the impact that has had on our society.

Within the budget there are many measures to deal with the issue of reconciliation, an area the member did not talk about. I wonder if he can express, from his point of view, the significance of May 5 being Red Dress Day, the importance of reconciliation and how this budget ultimately does take that into consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for that important recognition and comment. He is right that today is Red Dress Day. We had a debate yesterday in the House until midnight regarding murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, and a lot of emotions were being shared in this chamber. We also talked about other campaigns. In my speech yesterday I talked about Red Dress Day, the Moose Hide Campaign and many others, all of which raise awareness of these very important issues.

Obviously, with a budget, things are not always terrible. There is money to address some of these issues, and I thank the government for that. However, at the end of the day, when we are talking about economic and fiscal reconciliation, that is where the budget falls short.

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

Madam Speaker, since my colleague is the critic for indigenous matters, I would like to point out that there was an excellent article this morning in Le Devoir about indigenous homelessness in urban areas. I am assuming he did not read it, but that is not what is important.

This is known to be a big issue in Montreal. Money was allocated to combat homelessness during the pandemic because it was becoming a growing problem in cities.

Unfortunately, there has been no solution to indigenous homelessness. Some money has been allocated but it is not fixing the problem. There have been deaths in Montreal in recent years, and I imagine the same is true in Toronto and Vancouver.

How does my colleague propose that we solve this crisis? Even if the money is there, it is a particular problem that Canada has not been able to resolve.

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

Madam Speaker, my friend from the Bloc is absolutely right. Housing is a major concern for indigenous people, first nations and those who are off reserve specifically, which I think his question referred to. There is a major problem with access to affordable housing.

There are some solutions we can talk about, such as incentivizing municipalities to speed up the process and costs associated with accessing building permits. In many cases, obtaining a building permit, whether it is for a private investor trying to build rental housing or for the government itself, and trying to access funds from provincial and federal governments to build housing on a municipal level can be quite time-consuming and costly. That all factors into the price, so when we are talking about affordable housing, we need to reduce the barriers and red tape.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the budget contains $300 million this year, $600 million next year and $1.2 billion the year after, for a total ongoing commitment of $1.7 billion thereafter, to provide dental care to some 6.5 million Canadians: the children, seniors, people living with disabilities and low-income families with no dental insurance now.

My hon. colleague talked about being unable to afford things. I was in the House when the Conservatives wanted to increase military spending in this country to 2% of GDP, which would add about $26 billion every year to our budget.

Does he think that spending $1.7 billion to bring dental care to 6.5 million Canadians is less of a priority than spending $26 billion a year? Can he explain to us why he thinks we can afford the military but cannot afford dental care given those numbers?

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

Madam Speaker, of course dental care is an issue. In every community, people are trying to access it, and I think we need to do a better job of that. The feds need to work better with the provinces to figure out a solution to that. However, there are priorities every government must manage. First we need a strong economy in order to fund those programs, and at this point our economic anchors are being eroded away.

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

Madam Speaker, as always, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on the budget implementation act and the impacts this legislation will have on the constituents of Souris—Moose Mountain and Canadians across the country.

It is disappointing, but not surprising, to see yet another budget that is full of exorbitant spending that will do almost nothing to benefit those who live in rural Canada. One need only look at the news these days to see how divided our country has become. It is thanks to policies like those contained in this omnibus budget that those divisions are continuing and widening under the Prime Minister. This is the same Prime Minister who promised he would never do an omnibus budget bill, although it is reflective of his understanding of and statements on financial issues: He believes the budget will balance itself and that monetary policy is not a priority.

When looking at the overall picture of the Liberal government’s spending, the numbers are concerning to say the very least. In just over six years, government spending has increased by 53%, yet Canadians are worse off than they were when the Liberals first sought power in 2015. It is unconscionable to both me and my constituents that a government can spend billions of dollars, racking up our national debt in the process, and still have no meaningful impact on improving the lives of Canadians.

This reckless spending will need to be paid for at some point in time, and it will fall onto our children and grandchildren to foot the bill. My daughter will have a second child next month, our second grandchild, and unfortunately our future grandson will have this enormous debt to pay off over his lifespan. In fact, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's national debt clock, as of yesterday, had debt per person at $31,345.01. This is the escalating legacy that the Liberals are leaving behind, despite their false assurances that Canadians are happy and prospering under their leadership.

On top of an ever-climbing national debt, Canadians are also dealing with out-of-control inflation, which is driving up the cost of living across the board. Instead of using this budget as an opportunity to give Canadians a much-needed break, the Liberals chose to spend money launching new programs that stand to benefit a few rather than help the many who need it.

For example, on April 1, the Liberals had an opportunity to provide Canadians with some relief from the carbon tax, yet instead they chose to increase it, taking more money out of the taxpayer’s pocket and putting it into government coffers. As I have said before in the House, it is “dyspocketnesia”: taking from one pocket and putting it into the other, and then forgetting why it was done. This is not what my constituents want, need or deserve.

I would like to spend some time talking about the impact of this budget on the energy industry in my riding, especially as it pertains to emissions and the future of energy production in Canada.

A large number of my constituents work in the energy sector, and thanks to the government, many are experiencing deep concerns about their careers in the longer term. As many members are aware, the Liberal plan to phase out coal-fired power is well under way, and while the Liberals believe they are supporting this transition adequately, I can tell members first-hand that they have completely dropped the ball and workers and communities are being left behind.

Since I became a member of Parliament in 2015, one of the issues I have advocated for time and again is the use of carbon capture and storage technology, or CCUS, to reduce emissions while also extending the life of the power plants it is used on. It took seven years for the government to listen. Just imagine the amount of emissions that could have been captured in those seven years if we had acted earlier, not to mention the jobs that would have been created.

The 2022 budget does create a new tax credit for CCUS expenses, but the credit does not cover enhanced oil recovery, which to me is a huge oversight. For those who may not know, carbon capture serves to decarbonize the energy sector by permanently locking liquefied CO2 into the rock formations of spent oil wells.

On a number of occasions, I have had the privilege to tour the Boundary Dam site in my riding, which captures CO2 using amides. BD3 takes the captured CO2 and either stores it two kilometres below the earth’s surface or sells it, transporting it 50 miles away where it is stored and enhances the oil recovery at the Whitecap Weyburn injection site. This utilized enhanced oil recovery continues to impress me, as does the level of knowledge and innovation that has gone into developing this technology. This is on top of the reduced emissions, which border on making BD3 CCUS carbon-neutral.

The fact is that if the Liberals had included enhanced oil recovery in their tax credit, it would have brought much-needed jobs and investment into Canada, especially during a time of change and uncertainty in the energy industry. Unfortunately, those huge investment dollars are going south to the United States, where they have the 45Q investment tax credit. I have asked multiple cabinet ministers over the years if it is the industry they want to kill or the emissions, and of course the enthusiastic answer I get every time is that it is the emissions. The exclusion of enhanced oil recovery from this tax credit tells me this is not the case.

Canada still requires the use of fossil fuels and will for some time as we move into the future. Instead of allowing CCUS and EOR to function as tools that would help lower emissions, while simultaneously producing the energy that Canada needs at the lowest possible emissions intensity, the Liberals have chosen not to support the innovative work and projects that are happening right here in our own country.

Furthermore, a white paper produced by the International CCS Knowledge Centre states, “[enhanced oil recovery] results in a 37% reduction in CO2 emissions per barrel of oil produced as compared to conventional oil production.” The numbers are there and the technology is there, but the Liberals have yet again chosen not to support the energy industry by picking and choosing which parts of CCUS fit their green agenda, regardless of how this might impact Canadians.

In the last month alone, I have seen multiple groups travel from my constituency to Ottawa and advocate on behalf of the people and communities that will be drastically impacted by the transition away from coal-fired power. According to the Coal Association of Canada, the transition will eliminate approximately 42,000 jobs from Canada’s labour force and take many billions of dollars out of Canada's economy each year. While I understand that the Liberals will try to justify this by saying that they are providing funding for these communities through their just transition initiative, I am here to tell members that they have patently failed the hard-working Canadians who will be affected by this major industry shift.

One of the groups that came here shared a study that was conducted for the Town of Coronach, in my riding, regarding the negative impacts the transition will have on the community. The economic consequences are alarming, indicating a $400-million loss in GDP, a 67% loss in population and an 89% loss in household income.

While the Liberals will claim that the just transition initiative is going to create new, green jobs to replace those that are lost, the fact is that those new jobs would not be in rural areas. This means that the people of Coronach, and those in other rural communities who are in the same boat, will need to consider uprooting their lives to find work elsewhere. In what world does this show a just transition for those who have been contributing to Canada’s economy for their entire careers?

On top of these startling figures, the federal Liberals have only dedicated approximately 3.5% of transition funding to economic development activities that would ensure affected communities remain viable post-2030. Instead, they have invested the funds into community infrastructure such as roads, waste water and parks, which are built by businesses from bigger, urban communities from outside the riding.

If the Town of Coronach stands to lose 67% of its population, what good are the parks? What good are roads if there is nobody left to drive on them because the Liberal government decimated the local workforce? There will be nobody to pay taxes for the upkeep of this infrastructure or to maintain it. It will just deteriorate.

Another sector that is essential for my riding is agriculture. Shamefully, the word “farmer” was only mentioned 11 times in the 280-page budget, and there were no new measures that would have provided support to our agricultural producers. Recognition of the need for food security does not exist with the government. Instead of giving farmers a break, the Liberals increased the carbon tax on April 1. The carbon tax alone takes almost $1.1 billion from farm families that could have been used to upgrade equipment and adopt more sustainable practices. As a reminder to my colleagues across the floor, farmers are small business owners. They cannot afford an ever-increasing carbon tax on top of things like inflation and skyrocketing gas prices.

In conclusion, I know I speak for my constituents when I say that the people of Souris—Moose Mountain have had enough of a government that pretends to take of care them while doing nothing to make their lives easier. Our country has never been more divided thanks to a government that disregards anyone who does not agree with it. Canadians deserved a budget that would give them a break, but instead they are facing uncontrolled government spending, higher taxes and a rising national debt.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's intervention today. At the beginning of his speech, he said that the response to spending and investing in Canadians was, in his words, “no meaningful impact”.

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree, because if we compare Canada with other countries, we have one of the best responses in terms of taking care of our citizens and in terms of looking at the death rate per capita, for example.

I am wondering this. Could the member explain to the House, and perhaps give a couple of examples of other OECD countries that fared much better than Canada did?

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

Madam Speaker, as the member has indicated, around this country, we see where the economy is going.

I recognize the member is from the Kingston and the Islands area, but the unfortunate part, and the reality, is that a lot of Canadians do not understand rural Canada. They do not have a clue. Although the member might believe that rural Canada is where he is, a population of 50,000 is not rural Canada. I would invite the member to come to my riding. I would be happy to bring the member to my riding and show him what real rural Canada is about.

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

The Islanders are not going to like that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the parliamentary secretary that he had his opportunity to ask a question. If he has anything to add, he needs to wait until it is time and I recognize him.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to my colleague's speech on carbon capture strategies in the oil and gas sector. I always thought the Conservatives liked to position themselves as defenders and custodians of the public purse.

Two of the big carbon capture projects under way in Alberta are costing more than $2 billion, and 57% of that is coming out of the public purse. Low-carbon oil is therefore not cost-effective without government support.

I have a hard time understanding how a Conservative could advocate government support for an industry that does not need it. Could my colleague explain?

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

Madam Speaker, once again, I would be more than happy to have the member come out to Souris—Moose Mountain. I would take him to CCS, so he could actually see what is going on.

There are many people at the CCS Knowledge Centre. I would be happy to introduce them, so the member could learn a little more. Ultimately what we are talking about is carbon capture. We have a power plant, BD3, that is capturing all the emissions. It captures 98% of the sulphur. It takes that sulphur and produces sulphur dioxide that it either utilizes or sells. It captures the CO2 by using amines to capture it and inject it into the ground. The power plant injects it into the ground two kilometres below where we are. On top of that, it can then sell that emission to help reduce the emissions for oil-intense companies. They would utilize that to further reduce, by 37%, their emissions.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned before, I spent much of my youth in rural Saskatchewan, as well as Wynyard.

I just want to talk a little about aging. Aging in rural Canada is happening at a rate as fast as, if not faster than, the rest of Canada. Aging in place is very important. I just want to ask the member a question. There are some aging in place items in the budget, such as the multi-generational home renovation tax credit, the home accessibility tax credit and the homebuyers' tax credit, but each of these requires persons with disabilities to have disability tax credit eligibility.

I wanted to know if the member feels this is fair. Does he feel these will be adequate tax credits for people living in rural Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, the member is right. She points out things that are very important as the population ages and as we see disabled people within this country having multiple challenges in order to move forward.

The member mentioned the issue of home renovation tax credits that were there. That is a huge issue, because the reality is that, with the way it is set up, the government has not even put in place people who can assess whether they need those renovations. A disabled person who knows they need to put in new windows cannot even touch that until such time as somebody has come, which is taking forever because those people are not available.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.

Today, I am so proud to speak in the House to Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, to highlight some of the measures that would move Canada forward. This is a key piece of legislation that is important for Canada's economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

In my speech today, I want to focus on certain priority areas for my residents in Brampton South that I believe this budget responds well to. These are the issues I have heard through consultation, as well as at the doorsteps of my residents. I heard that we need to confront the challenges before us while continuing to build a stronger Canada. All Canadians want clean air, good jobs and a strong economy. Budget 2022 lays out our next steps to build a clean economy that will create good-paying jobs, middle-class jobs and concrete actions.

Last week, the Prime Minister was in Windsor to announce the recent $3.6-billion investment by Stellantis to retool and modernize its two plants in Windsor and Brampton. This means good new jobs in an innovative sector. These historic investments will create thousands of new jobs, specifically with the return of a third shift at both plants, and transform the plants into flexible, multi-energy EV assembly facilities ready to produce electric vehicles for the future. This government will help more Canadians drive zero-emissions vehicles by continuing to provide rebates for Canadians, rebuilding charging infrastructure that drivers can rely on, and supporting critical mineral projects for Canadian-made EVs and batteries.

Budget 2022 reiterates the $9.1-billion commitment presented in the emissions-reduction plan as we continue to deliver for Canadians and the economy. A key element of this plan is the electrification of public transit. Recently, the Canada Infrastructure Bank finalized an investment of $400 million to the City of Brampton for up to 450 zero-emissions buses through 2027. Brampton Transit is a great partner in this work. It is another great example of how we are building a greener city and healthier communities.

Since the start of this pandemic, the federal government has introduced significant investments to support Canadians and communities. This government is continuing with these targeted measures that will help meet the needs of our workers, our businesses and the Canadian economy so that it can keep growing stronger for years to come. These investments have worked. Canada has recovered 115% of the jobs lost at the outset of the pandemic. Job creation is remarkably strong, and even our hardest-hit sectors are starting to get back up and running. That is real progress to set up the Canadian economy for success, deliver good jobs and keep our air clean.

Shifts in the global economy will require some workers in sectors across Canada to develop new skills and adjust the way they work. I have seen this first-hand in Brampton South, where we have a diverse and resilient workforce. This is why I want to talk about upskilling and re-skilling. At the Brampton Board of Trade Federal Issues Forum, I heard from community leaders that skills training is the key to Canada's future prospects. I am glad that we are targeting high-growth business sectors with new strategic investments that will have a significant and positive impact on the regional labour force and long-term job growth.

In recent years, the federal government has made significant investments to give Canadians the skills they need to succeed in an evolving economy and connect our workers to jobs. The measures in Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, would build on these past investments. These measures include working with provincial and territorial partners on improving how skills training is provided in key areas.

One of those key areas is trades. Improving labour mobility for workers in the construction trades can help to address the labour shortage and ensure that important projects such as housing can be completed across the country. That is why Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, is proposing to introduce a labour mobility deduction. This measure would provide tax recognition on up to $4,000 per year in eligible travel and temporary relocation expenses to eligible tradespersons. Providing quality settlement services for workers is another important part of the budget.

I was proud to welcome the President of the Treasury Board to Brampton South recently to visit the Achieve organization. Its settlement workers told us about how important this budget's measures are to providing additional skills training and support services. Workers need to have the skills to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. Bill C-19 would implement the plans proposed in budget 2022 after paying attention to the needs of Canadians as we set them up for success.

Budget 2022 lays out $2.6 billion for skills development, job training and related needs. It also supports cybersecurity technology for small to medium-sized businesses to help boost cyber-resilience. This is something I have been working hard on with Rogers Cybersecure Catalyst in my riding. Skills training will support Canadians in learning new skills to put to use in their careers and grow our workforce by addressing these barriers. We are building an inclusive economy for the 21st century.

When we talk about an inclusive economy, we have to talk about child care. This is why we are helping all parents, especially women, to have the ability to build both families and careers, because we know that child care is not a luxury. It is a necessity. This is something I heard at many doors when talking to residents. Too many parents across Brampton and across the country are struggling to find affordable, high-quality child care. That is why we have now signed agreements with all provinces and territories, including Ontario, which signed on in Brampton South last month. We are making $10-a-day child care a reality for families across the country, with a historic $30-billion investment. Businesses, economists and women are in agreement that we need more child care options and we need them to be flexible, affordable and inclusive. This agreement gets this work done.

We have heard of the challenges many Canadians have faced during COVID-19. Every Canadian should have access to quality health care. This government is taking action to work with the provinces and territories to invest in health care for everyone. We know that COVID-19 resulted in a backlog of surgeries, and some patients are facing longer wait times for surgical treatment. The government has announced the intention to provide provinces and territories with an additional $2 billion through our top-up to the Canada health transfers to address these backlogs. This would build on the $4 billion in support provided in 2021. Over the past two years, many non-urgent elective surgeries had to be postponed, and these investments will make a real difference in the lives of all Canadians when it comes to accessing high-quality health care services.

When we talk about this pandemic, we need to acknowledge that many women were hit hard. It is important to understand the implications of the pandemic, especially in the area of gender-based violence, which we have been studying in the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Budget 2022 proposes to provide more than $5 million to Women and Gender Equality Canada to enable provinces and territories to improve services and supports to prevent gender-based violence, and to support survivors. We need to ensure that all women are safe and have access to economic opportunities. That is exactly what we are doing.

In conclusion, by taking action with Bill C-19, we are building more homes and creating good-paying jobs for Canadians. Passing this bill would enable our government to continue this important work. That is why I urge all members of Parliament to support the passage of this bill.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about how people are reporting longer wait times for surgical treatment. That is true.

She said that her government has transferred money to help address these backlogs. I was stunned when I heard my colleague make that statement, because that is exactly what the premiers of all of the provinces and Quebec keep telling the federal government. There are wait lists and problems with our health care systems, and transfers need to be increased so that there is more money to address the problems in our health care system. This is a jurisdiction that belongs to the provinces and to Quebec.

Does my colleague agree with her constituents and with the premiers of the provinces and Quebec that it would be better for the government to increase health transfers and send that money to the provinces and Quebec, as everyone has been calling for?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, since the start of this pandemic, our government has invested more than $69 billion to fight COVID-19 and to protect the health and safety of Canadians. We have all heard about the key impacts of our federal transfer and the safe restart agreement, which have helped provinces and territories restart their economies safely while we continue to respond to COVID-19. We will keep working with the provinces and territories to improve health outcomes for all Canadians.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about the investment in electric vehicle manufacturing in her area, and that is great news. That is great to hear. It is great that there is going to be investment in workers in that area. However, as an Alberta member of Parliament, I worry that the investment in workers in Alberta is not as robust and that, once again, the government is forgetting investment in Alberta workers.

Can the member discuss or share how the government will ensure that the massive subsidies going toward the oil and gas sector will actually help workers instead of just going into the pockets of CEOs and big corporations?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government is committed to making sure Canada has a thriving auto manufacturing sector. Canadians can be assured that our government will continue to ensure that the auto sector and its workers are an integral part of our country. By working together, we are creating thousands of new jobs, making a difference in the lives of people now and making sure that future generations have a clean environment.

To stay competitive, we need to continue investing in our workforce, with hundreds of thousands of jobs in this sector. As I said in my speech, we are investing in upskilling and re-skilling our workers. That will help—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have time for a brief question.

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments with respect to transit. I would encourage her to advocate for more. There is very little on ground transportation in this budget.

My question is with respect to reducing poverty, knowing that 40% of those living in poverty across the country are Canadians with disabilities. As she may know, over 100 members in this place have already called out the need for the government to reintroduce substantial legislation for the Canada disability benefit.

Could she comment on the importance of moving forward with this guaranteed income for Canadians with disabilities?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a priority for our government. As I said, a key part of our disability inclusion action plan is to reform and modernize the eligibility process for disability benefits, including the disability tax credit. This government is working hard on that. I know it is a very important matter for this government.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to this bill.

I will start by saying that, in addition to today being Red Dress Day, as I was reminded by the member for Milton, today is also Liberation Day in Holland, which is important to me, being half Dutch. I sat and thought, while the member was making those comments, about how my grandfather, during the Second World War, spent a lot of time trying to avoid interaction with the occupying forces in Holland at the time. When Holland was finally liberated, seeing Canadian soldiers walking through the streets liberating Holland, it was at that point that my grandfather said, “That's where we're moving. We're moving to the place where these people are from.”

I think this is a reflection of not just the incredible set of values that we have in Canada, but indeed the way our troops represent us through the world. They represent us not just in a purely militaristic sense, but also from a place of being ambassadors of Canada, and that is quite literally how I am here today. Had my father's father not made that decision to move to Canada after the Second World War, my father would never have met my mother, and I would never have been here to have this discussion, despite the fact that, at times, I am sure that my Conservative friends from across the way might wonder what that world would have been like.

When we talk about this budget, one of the key pillars for me is our commitment to move toward clean air and a stronger economy. We know for a fact that in the economy of tomorrow, where hedge funds and investors are looking to put money right now is into anything green, anything sustainable, anything that will have an impact for generations to come. When we talk about renewable energy, for example, this is where people want to put their money.

I have heard a lot of discussion, from Conservatives in particular, about the size of Canada's debt, the debt we took on in order to get through the pandemic, which most of the Conservatives here voted in favour of. I think they raise some serious concerns. We have a lot of debt. How are we going to get through that debt? How are we going to deal with that debt?

There is the default reaction, which is to say, “Well, it's going to be our kids and grandkids. That's the only solution. They are the only ones who will be able to deal with it.” However, I offer a different perspective, and it goes to two things that I have already brought up today. The first—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. There seems to be a lot of chatting going on, and I think it is a little noisy in here. I would ask members who want to have side conversations to take them outside while the House is in session.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, I think of both things that I brought up today: my grandparents immigrating to Canada and my desire for a clean, renewable economy that is built here in Canada. That is how we are going to get through this pandemic, the effects of the pandemic and the debt that has been taken on during the pandemic. We are going to do it by growing our economy in the right places, the places that have longevity to them, the places where we know that when we invest in technology, if we can be on the forefront of it, we will become an exporter of that technology around the world and reap the benefits from that.

That, in my opinion, should be an end goal here, and that is what I see in the budget, but also as it relates to our willingness to be an open country, to be a country that is willing to accept people from around the world and celebrate the differences they bring here, provided they want to be constructive participants in a strong economic force.

I think back to when my grandparents immigrated in the 1950s, which I referenced earlier, both sets of grandparents, from Holland and from Italy. They came here looking for a new life and prosperous opportunities so that their children could succeed. Indeed, on my mother's side, my three uncles ended up starting a housebuilding company, building custom homes, and they were quite successful during their careers.

Providing opportunities to people from around the world to come to Canada is what we have been doing. Over a million new people live in Canada now, compared to 2015. By doing these sorts of things, by being an open and welcoming country, investing in our economy and making sure that we have the right investments, we are going to grow our economy. That is how we are going to deal with the hardships of the pandemic and what was required in terms of spending during the pandemic.

I heard the member for Souris—Moose Mountain speak about carbon capture. I do not want to single him out, because a number of Conservatives have spoken about it. Carbon capture is certainly something that we can consider in the short term. It can be effective in the short term, but I cannot understand, for the life of me, why we would want to suggest that it is a long-term solution.

I am not sure if members have seen the movie Don't Look Up. It is a recent movie out on Netflix. The whole premise is that there is an asteroid coming toward earth. The default reaction is how to deal with this asteroid, but before long it turns into a conversation, in particular by those on the right, about letting the asteroid hit earth and capitalizing on it by mining the various minerals and riches the asteroid is bringing with it.

That, in my opinion, is exactly like talking about carbon capture. We know there is a problem. Why is the solution to the problem to take the problem and bury it two kilometres underground? It does not make sense to me. Of course, the Conservatives' default reaction to dealing with fossil fuels and the problems that come from fossil fuels is how to capitalize on them. I do not think this is the solution. I think the solution is investing in making sure that we build the battery technologies of tomorrow. Let us be an exporter of those battery technologies, looking at different ways to invest in zero-emission vehicles.

Zero-emission vehicles are here. We passed the tipping point. By 2035 in Canada, all vehicles sold for regular use will have to be net-zero-emitting. The vast majority will be electric. Why are we not investing in the technologies that will be required? The electric vehicle right now is where the Model T Ford was in terms of the runway for vehicles. We are just at the beginning. If we give it 10 or 15 years, we will see that the battery technology is going to very quickly adapt so that we will be able to drive 1,000 kilometres on a charge and charge almost instantaneously. That is the future.

We should be investing in this technology, so that we can be on the forefront of it, so that as a country we have the companies right here in our country because the government believes in this technology, and so that we can be exporters of that technology throughout the world.

Therefore, I am very glad to see the $1.7 billion going toward zero-emission vehicles in this budget because I think that is going to get us there.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I enjoy listening to the speeches by my colleague across the way. He talked about electric vehicles, and I am very interested in that. We usually have a clever back and forth, but I have a serious question.

How much money is being put in place to increase the infrastructure of the electrical grids across Canada to be able to charge all of the electric cars that will be here? I hear that in Toronto it is at 90% or 95% capacity. I hope the answer will not include the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is assuming the technology will remain stagnant and that it will not change, but it will become easier and faster to charge those vehicles. In 10 or 15 years from now, we will not need charging stations other than in people's homes and along the highways at various stops.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Madam Speaker, we will not see them to the degree we see them now throughout city streets because the technology will advance so quickly that one single charge at home will allow people to do their daily tasks.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will ask the clerks to pause the time. There is a lot of noise, not just in the chamber, but also on the outskirts. I am hoping the Sergeant-at-Arms, or someone else, could speak to those in the lobby and ask them to take their conversations away from the House of Commons because it is very hard to hear what is going on.

We will now continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, how ironic to hear the member for Kingston and the Islands brag about his government's investment in transportation electrification.

Canada lags behind in clean energy funding by a 14:1 ratio, meaning that for every $14 billion that goes to fossil fuels, just under $1 billion goes to clean energy.

The member for Kingston and the Islands is awfully proud of his government's action on transportation electrification. If I were him, I would be embarrassed.

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

Madam Speaker, because of the noise I did not hear the entire question, but I think the member was getting at oil subsidies versus renewable subsidies. The problem with talking about oil subsidies, which is unfortunately what the members of the NDP do quite a bit, is that they build into the subsidies the money that is to go toward dealing with orphaned wells.

There are a lot of orphaned wells out there, which the federal government has chosen to take a part in solving the long-term implications of, and I believe it is very important for it to do that. However, if we are going to lump that in as part of a subsidy, then I would suggest it is more about making sure we deliver on our commitment to the environment.

The House resumed from May 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, and, of course, to my colleague's amendment.

First of all, I would like to quickly revisit what happened in the House this week. Every day, I have tried to get answers from government representatives on various topics, including the Emergencies Act and the government's desire to keep information confidential, and therefore hidden from Canadians, about the reasons why it invoked the Emergencies Act.

I also asked the Prime Minister about his knowledge of our country's justice system, specifically whether someone should be allowed to avoid a criminal charge because the act was allegedly committed a long time ago. I also asked about the current delays in accessing various government services such as passports, immigration, employment insurance payments or access to information about the Canada Revenue Agency.

All week, the Prime Minister and the rest of the ministers consistently failed to answer the perfectly legitimate questions I asked about issues that affect all Canadians. I asked questions that affect each and every member of the House on a daily basis because each and every one of us gets calls from constituents who are concerned about how long it takes to get a passport or how long they have to wait on hold to talk to agents at various government departments. Unfortunately, I got no answers, and the government has taken no action to inspire hope in the people dealing with these problems.

To make matters worse, yesterday, the minister responsible for Service Canada clearly invited people who cannot reach federal government services to try going through their MP's office. That is essentially taking a problem from over here and putting it over there, in hopes that the added delay will get people to wait just a little longer before they get an answer. That is unacceptable, and I hope the message we sent the minister, and especially her government, this week will be heard. People are sick of waiting and they are sick of this government's inability to make the right decisions. The right decision would be to let all federal employees go back to work doing what they were doing before the pandemic. The right decision would be to let federal employees go back to their offices so they can get back to a process that worked, sort of, but that at least gave people access to someone they could talk to on the phone and access to services. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening now.

I hope this message will be heard. The government says that it is in the process of reviewing the various health measures imposed on its federal employees. I hope that, one day, it will present us with a plan for getting back to normal and learning to live with COVID-19.

I remember very well that, at the time, we called on the Minister of Health to table any documents showing that the vaccine mandate and various other measures imposed on federal employees were based on science. Unfortunately, I still have not seen the Minister of Health or any other government minister table any documents in the House that would justify imposing these health measures or, more importantly, maintaining them, when every other country in the world is fully reopening their doors. Quebec is even going to lift its mask mandates almost everywhere on May 14.

Given what I just said, it should come as no surprise to anyone that I was rather disappointed with the budget the Liberal government tabled on April 7. This budget has Canadians shaking in their boots, for many reasons. It does not take an expert to realize that the highest inflation rate in 30 years poses a direct threat to the savings of young families, workers and seniors.

Over the past few weeks, and months for that matter, the cost of living has risen dramatically everywhere. The price of groceries, gas and housing is at record highs. Yesterday in Quebec, the price of regular gas passed the psychological barrier of two dollars a litre. The Conservatives had asked the government to temporarily eliminate the GST on gasoline as a small gesture of goodwill. This would have left a little more money in the pockets of Canadian and Quebec families. Unfortunately, the NDP-Liberal government said no.

There is no doubt that with rising inflation and interest rates, families are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. Small businesses are suffering from labour shortages, supply problems and rising costs on just about everything.

We need better leadership. Unfortunately, the government has none. In fact, when we ask members of this government for explanations, when we ask that they take action for young families and professionals or for young Canadians who are seeing their dream of homeownership completely disappear and go up in smoke because of rising interest rates and the cost of homes, which is scandalous, the Minister of Finance flat out dismisses all these claims and everything Canadians are going through by quoting us figures on Canada's performance globally.

According to the Minister of Finance, since Canada's global performance is so good, everyone in Canada is doing well. Families are not struggling and businesses are problem-free, because Canada's global economic record is so good. Families need not worry that milk, bread and everything else costs more at the grocery store, or that some products are hard to find. It is not so bad.

It is worrisome to hear such comments from the Minister of Finance of our country. It is insulting and very disrespectful to Canadian families. I hope that before the end of June the Minister of Finance will take two minutes to realize the magnitude of the extra financial burden that has been put on the shoulders of Canadian families and that she will stop reading talking points so she can finally respond to the concerns of Canadian families.

This is the first NDP-Liberal budget. Some may say that we had one before, because it was in fact the Liberals with the NDP, but we can now confirm that the NDP has joined forces with the Liberals and that this coalition, as the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions called it yesterday, has unfortunately done its job.

In this NDP-Liberal budget, there is $56.6 billion in new spending that has nothing to do with COVID-19 or anything else other than the Prime Minister's desire to buy a majority that he did not earn in the election that was called in the middle of the pandemic. As he did not earn a majority, he bought one, and that is costing Canadians $56.6 billion. Unfortunately, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have to pay for the decision made by the Prime Minister, who is putting his personal interests before those of Canadian families in order to remain Prime Minister of Canada as long as possible.

Naturally, for all these reasons, I will be opposing the budget, and I invite all my colleagues to do so for the good of all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party really needs to get its head into the world given what is actually taking place. It was not that long ago that the Conservative Party was criticizing the federal government because the price of oil was too low. When it was 88¢ a barrel, the Conservatives were saying it was too low and were blaming the government. Today, they are blaming the government because the price of oil is too high. They do not seem to understand that it is called the world price of oil, much as there are things happening in the world today, whether it is the war in Ukraine or the pandemic. All of these factors play a role in things such as inflation.

Will the member recognize that the world does have an impact, even on Canada?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, I recognize that. However, what is this government doing for Canadians other than saying that Canada is handling this crisis better than other countries? It is doing absolutely nothing.

Today, the cost of gas in Vancouver is $2.11 per litre. That is the reality. When the government was asked to temporarily remove the GST to help Canadians currently struggling here, in Canada, what did the NDP-Liberals say? They said no. That is the reality.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to salute my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable and thank him for his speech.

Bill C‑19 is the first budget implementation bill introduced by the Minister of Finance, which would implement certain measures of the budget.

This bill is more than 420 pages long and it extends far beyond the content of the budget. This bill talks about laws being enforced in space, in a galaxy not so far away. The next division talks about strip-searches in prison.

Does my colleague think there is a legitimate reason to include all kinds of other bills in an already massive bill? Why does he think the government is choosing this approach?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, in response to my colleague's excellent question, I will say that I think the government is lost in space. Stripping down in front of Canadians would involve a little more transparency.

Unfortunately, aside from one MP who already has some experience with that, I do not think that the Liberals are truly ready to show some transparency.

Anytime you talk to this government about transparency, the Liberals tell us that Canada is doing very well globally and Canadians do not need to know what is really going on within our borders.

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

Madam Speaker, there are some things about the budget that we do not like either, namely, the oil subsidy increases.

However, there are also some worthwhile things in there that will help people in a meaningful way, things like funding for dental care and for children, youth, seniors, the poor and the middle class.

Does my colleague not agree that his constituents will benefit from these social measures?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a hard time understanding how the NDP could sell its soul by agreeing in advance to support a budget without knowing, or supposedly without knowing, what it would contain. Actually, we do not know if that is true, because we were not informed of all the negotiations that took place between the two parties.

The reality is that the NDP agreed in advance to support not only this budget, but also the ones for next year and the year after that without knowing the content of those budgets. Perhaps now that they are part of a new coalition, the NDP trusts the Liberals to keep their promises, but I would like to remind them that the Liberals have not been very good at keeping their promises since 2015.

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

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the amount of new spending, which is roughly $57 billion. I am wondering if he can comment on whether there is something in the budget to show how that will be paid off. Is there anything in the budget about fiscal anchors or anything that leads to when and how all of this debt is going to be paid off?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, the answer is no.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, the budget is a big document. It has a very nice cover, and it spends an awful lot of money. This year, Canadians are going to have an incredibly tough time getting by.

One of the questions for the previous speaker was whether it was appropriate for the budget document to have so many things jammed in it that did not address the raison d'être of the budget. No, it is not appropriate. The government had one job with this budget, and that was to make sure that Canadians could afford to live. We have seen, over the past two years, incredibly challenging times that were met with an incredible response, including incredible sums of money being spent by the government. However, there is $57 billion in new spending at a time when the economy does not need more stimulus, but Canadians need a break. We are not seeing that. Canadians were looking for ways that the government was going to make their lives more affordable.

We have the highest inflation that we have seen in more than three decades: it has climbed up over 6.7%. We have not seen an inflationary hit like that since the introduction of the GST. What does this look like for families? We hear the government's response to the pleas, cries and assertions of the opposition that Canadians need help, and government members will say it is a global phenomenon and our net debt-to-GDP is pretty good when we compare it with other countries'. That does nothing to help Canadians who are going to spend, on average, $1,000 more this year to feed their families. That word salad will still leave people with empty bellies.

The price of gas in this part of the country, eastern Ontario, is going to climb over $1.90 a litre between today and tomorrow. It is not a question of if gas is going to hit $2 a litre, but of which day it is going to hit $2 a litre. What does that look like for someone who has to drive to work? What does that look like for someone who depends on their vehicle for so many things, especially in parts of rural Canada? In rural eastern Ontario, in my community of Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, people have to drive to get to a doctor's appointment, to get to work and to take their kids to school or recreational activities, to say nothing about social visits. It means that they cannot afford to. We also live in one of the world's coldest climates, and the price of home heating is going up, as well.

What is in this budget document? Is there a GST holiday for Canadians to help them when more than half of Canadians, nearly two-thirds, are within $200 of insolvency and not being able to pay their bills? That would jeopardize their ability to keep a roof over their heads, to feed their families and themselves. No, it is not in there. With energy prices soaring and hitting the average Canadian especially hard, is there a break on the carbon tax increase, which does nothing to stop the necessity to drive? It is not correcting a bad behaviour. They are good people doing good things. No, there is no break on the carbon tax increase in there for them.

It is incredibly disheartening to see this document from the government after so much goodwill was given, by all members in this place, to support a team Canada approach in helping Canadians get through the pandemic. Canadians now need a team Canada approach to support them when life is so unaffordable.

Before the pandemic, the provinces and territories were asking for something in the range of $28 billion in increased health care dollars, and during the pandemic, the Prime Minister said we would talk about health care spending when the pandemic was over.

I think that COVID is going to be with us for a long time and this is, arguably, the first post-pandemic budget, but the Liberals have not even started the conversation with the provinces about stable and predictable health care funding.

Instead, they introduced a separate bill to spend $2 billion to address backlogs on surgical wait times and delayed and cancelled care and treatment appointments that are devastating Canadians with unbelievably negative results for their personal health. They have tied that $2-billion commitment into this bill.

We had hallway health care across this country, and hospitals operated at between 95% and 130% capacity before COVID. Instead of introducing new programs that are going to tax a health care system that is already experiencing a health care human resource shortage, and there is nothing to address that health care human resource shortage in the budget, they are putting in new programs that the provinces did not ask for. Health care is solely their responsibility, and a $2-billion one-time payment is supposed to stand in the place of meaningful consultations between the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister and the provinces' premiers.

That is not partnership. It is not co-operation. It is certainly not going to give Canadians any comfort. Frankly, Canadians have been very patient over the past two years, and as I said the results have been of varying degrees. They have been terrible for those who had delayed, missed and cancelled treatment and care appointments and surgeries.

What does this budget do? We hear the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader say that it does a lot. It does a lot to make sure that the government gets to stay in power through its deal with the NDP. Voters are going to get an NDP budget, having voted Liberal.

It is incredibly disingenuous of the government to say that they are putting Canadians first when what we have seen is the same thing we have seen from the government time and again: that is a Prime Minister who will do anything to stay in power. If questions get too hot in committee, he prorogues Parliament. When all members of the House agree not to have an election during the pandemic and polls look good for the PM, he calls an election.

When there is a real opportunity to do right by Canadians, and to give them a break on this affordability crisis that we are facing, the Prime Minister saw a great opportunity to hitch his wagon to the NDP and continue for another year to hold on to power, instead of doing what Canadians elected us all to do. That is to look out for our neighbours, look out for each other and not look out for our own self-interest, which is what we have seen with this.

It is very disappointing, but I can assure members that the official opposition is going to continue to stand up for Canadians. We are going to continue to remind the government that on Main Street, life is getting more unaffordable, and even though they are getting their advice from Bay Street, we are going to be here fighting for Canadians every single day.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the member has a little bit of confusion when it comes to health care. If we look at it, when he says that there is no planning or that we are not supporting health care, we have health care accords with all of the different provinces and territories, something that Stephen Harper was not able to accomplish, that give annual increases. In fact, when we look at over $45 billion that we are investing, it is actually over 4% higher than it would have been in the previous fiscal year.

When he makes reference to the $2 billion, that is to deal with the backlog of surgeries and procedures due to the pandemic. That is over and above. Can we only imagine what Stephen Harper would have done?

We are a government that recognizes the importance of health care. We have supported health care, and we continue to support health care.

Is there anything that the member would like to retract when it comes to the issue of health care? That was one of the biggest, most dismal failures of the Harper regime.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that, in attempting to correct what I said, the parliamentary secretary, who obviously only woke up halfway through my speech, repeated what I said: that the $2 billion was to address backlogs caused by COVID-19 in the health care system.

What I said, and I will repeat it for the hon. gentleman, is that the provinces and territories asked for stable and predictable funding. They have since said they want to meet with the Prime Minister to negotiate what that agreement is going to look like going forward. The Prime Minister has refused to do it. Shame on him.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his speech.

The government is using Bill C-19 to implement a new tax on luxury items—

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

I would ask hon. members to please stop their conversations while the hon. member for Joliette is asking a question.

The hon. member for Joliette.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is clearly on fire today, as is often the case.

Back to the question I would like to ask my colleague.

Bill C-19 establishes a tax for luxury items such as luxury cars, luxury boats and aircraft. People are either for or against this idea. The Bloc Québécois agrees with it.

However, during the pre-study in committee, the government and public service representatives informed us that no impact study has been conducted on the jobs and sales numbers for this manufacturing sector.

I would like to hear my colleague's views on that, but also, more specifically, on an aspect that is of great concern to us. The tax is supposed to apply to personal aircraft use. However, the structure of the tax suggests that it may apply to the business sector.

Think of the mining companies that want to transport their workers. It will be difficult for them to opt out. Moreover, for everything that is exported, the tax will have to be paid first before being refunded—

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

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, as for so many things, a special interest group or a lobby group picked up the telephone. It rang directly in the Prime Minister's Office. It answered, and said that it was not really concerned about the impact on Canadians, but that it sounded great so it was going to be included in the budget. The problem, when an analysis is not done on something like the impact of this particular tax, is what that looks like for jobs in the communities where people, for example, provide service on aircraft and boats. That is going to have a devastating impact on communities. It was an obligation of the government to study that impact and consider it before putting it in this omnibus bill.

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

Madam Speaker, to me, some of the fundamentals of Parliament are accountability and transparency. My hon. colleague was on the committee with me when we studied the government grant to the WE Charity. This was an opportunity for this children's charity to answer some straightforward questions, such as how many companies it owned, what the separation was between its for-profits and those with charitable status, and who owned the companies, yet we never did get those answers. It took four legal summonses to try and get answers, but still the man who handled all its finances, Mr. Victor Li, never did come before Parliament. We never got the kind of documentation we asked for.

I have a straightforward question. I would like to ask my hon. colleague this: Does he feel we still do not have the answers Canadians deserve about this international organization, the WE Charity?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, we saw a scandal that involved a billion-dollar contract going to insiders again, as I mentioned in my previous response.

With respect to the CFO, Victor Li, who did not appear before the committee in person, as well as multiple members of government staff who were instructed by ministers not to appear before the committee, Parliament and Canadians have not received the answers. It is incumbent on all members in this place to make sure that our lawful powers and authorities are respected in this light.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Scarborough—Rouge Park.

When I think of the budget, I think we need to recognize a few points right at the beginning. First, it invests in economic growth and innovation. If we read through the budget, we can see that amplified virtually throughout the budget. We believe in investing, not only investing in that area but also investing in people. We could talk about the environment, but in this budget we see an investment in the green transition. This is all good news in this budget.

Was anyone in this chamber or any Canadian surprised when the Conservative Party said it was going to vote against the budget? I was not. I do not think anyone was surprised. I believe the Conservatives already knew they were going to be voting against the budget even before the budget was presented. No one needs to be surprised.

What is surprising, to a certain degree, is the twisting that we are seeing. Conservatives are turning themselves into pretzels trying to justify why they do not support the budget. We see that in some of the procedural games they are playing. Yesterday, for example, they brought in a concurrence motion in order to prevent members from being able to debate the matter. We see members talking about the budget, but not necessarily recognizing the reality. For example, the member who spoke earlier talked about the price of oil and how it is somehow the Government of Canada's responsibility for the world price of oil. The Conservatives criticized us when the price of oil was too low, and now they are criticizing us because the price of oil is too high.

The Conservative Party does not have its mind in reality. The truth of the matter is that Canada, like every other country around the world, was inflicted with the worldwide pandemic. To deny its existence and its impact is unacceptable. We need to recognize that there is a war taking place today in Europe, the war put in place as a result of one person, President Putin, and the impact it is having in Ukraine. We are so grateful for the heroes of Ukraine. It goes beyond the borders of Ukraine, and there is a great solidarity movement worldwide in support of Ukraine. We need to recognize that as something that is having an impact worldwide, in terms of issues such as inflation.

How many times have we heard Conservatives talk about inflation, trying to push the panic button, as if Canada is alone, as if it is Canada's inflation and we are leading the world on inflation? Nothing could be further from the truth. We only need to look south to the United States to find that Canada's inflation rate is lower. Compared to many of the European countries, especially if we were to average it out, we would find that Canada's inflation rate is lower.

If we look at the job numbers, we see that Canada has recovered 112% or 115% of the jobs lost at the beginning of the pandemic. If we compare that to the United States, we will find that we have done exceptionally well. We are definitely doing far better than the United States. If we talk about economic growth, we are predicted to have the healthiest economic growth in the G7 countries, the most powerful nations of the world.

It is interesting when we listen to question period that we get these out-of-reality questions when it comes to the economy but the Conservatives avoid talking about the budget. I suspect it is with good reason, because the budget is fairly well received by Canadians. Canadians know that they have a government that truly cares, a government that is progressively moving forward in supporting Canadians.

We love the fact that, for the first time ever, we have a national child care program, a program that is going to ensure affordability in day care from coast to coast to coast. As with other things, we were able to achieve, through consensus, a health care and a child care agreement with all provinces and territories. As a result, we will have a healthier population and we will have more people engaged in the workforce. On the latter point, all one needs to do is look at the province of Quebec. The province of Quebec has demonstrated very clearly to the rest of Canada that making child care affordable enables more people to get engaged in the workforce, not to mention the quality of life for all. This is a government that has moved forward on that issue.

Within the budget, there are so many initiatives that it is impossible to get to everything in 10 minutes. I want to highlight a few points.

I made reference to the $2 billion earlier, and I talked about it last night. Canada provides historic amounts of health care transfers to the provinces. We are talking over $45 billion. Never before have we seen a federal government give that kind of cash to the provinces, but within this budget we are giving an additional $2 billion top-up. Yes, it is targeted. I know that might upset some members of the Bloc, and some of the Conservatives are also a little upset with it. I hope my friends in the NDP are not upset with it, because it provides additional dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars, to our health care system to ensure that we can deal with some of the surgery and health care issues, such as backlogs. We can imagine the pain that is involved in a hip that needs to be replaced, or the individuals who had cancer detection and have not had the types of surgeries that are quite often necessary. These are the types of supports we are providing through the $2-billion transfer because of the pandemic. That is over and above the health transfer agreements that we have achieved with the provinces and territories.

Critics will say that the provinces and territories want more money. I have been a parliamentarian for 30 years, and every year the provinces and territories ask for more money. Why would they not? That is not the only thing they ask for. I used to be a provincial health care critic and I understand the system. The greatest threat to health care today is not providing the funds and not dealing with the need for managing the changes that are necessary. That means investing in and looking at, for example, expansion in mental health care. It means looking at long-term care.

How can we ensure that seniors are spending more time in their homes? We have a wonderful initiative in this budget, which I would suggest is one of those gold nuggets. It is the multi-generational home renovation program. I believe this program is going to enable more seniors to live longer in their homes with their families. It is a program that is going to save health care dollars, but more importantly, it is better for our communities and for our families.

I see my time has expired and I only got to my first two points. Hopefully I will be able to get more time in the coming days.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that interesting speech.

I have to say that Bill C‑19 has its flaws, starting with the health transfers that Quebec and the provinces asked for. Nevertheless, I also have to say that there are some good things in it, such as the green transition, extending employment insurance by five weeks for seasonal workers and so on.

Here is my question. What can the government do to address the needs of Quebec and the other provinces, especially when it comes to health care, while respecting their jurisdiction?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I believe we are meeting the needs of our provinces and territories with record-high health transfers. Those transfers are tied to the Canada Health Act, something that Canadians in all regions of our country genuinely believe in. Further to that, we are also emphasizing, not just talking about it but providing dollars to go toward it, standards on long-term care, expansion into dental programs, and expansion into mental health care.

The government recognizes that the provinces have the administrative responsibility for health care, but the federal government also has a strong leadership role. The Government of Canada and the Prime Minister are stepping up to the plate to fulfill that commitment.

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

Madam Speaker, in listening to the debate from the member opposite, I did not hear a lot of clarity when it comes to actually understanding that some of these issues clearly are in provincial jurisdiction, as well as supporting the provinces and working in partnership and in consultation with the provinces. There was a lot of word salad in that last answer and not a lot of concrete understanding that it is not just a responsibility of the provinces, but it is a constitutional responsibility of the provinces. I just wonder if the member actually understands what provincial jurisdiction means.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was a member of the Manitoba legislature for almost 20 years. I understand the differences between federal and provincial responsibilities. I also understand what my constituents want. What my constituents want is for Ottawa to continue to play a leadership role. To say that Ottawa has no role in health care would be absolutely and totally wrong.

I dearly hope that my Conservatives friends will come to that understanding. It is in the long-term best interest of all Canadians that the official opposition recognize the degree to which Canadians love and appreciate their health care system. The Conservatives should not be dissing it; they should be supporting it. Our current Prime Minister has had more discussions with premiers in a few years than Stephen Harper ever did in his entire 10 years—

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

The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, at this point in time, people are hurting on the street and this budget is leaving people behind. I want to speak specifically about persons with disabilities. Persons with disabilities are approaching a year now that they have been waiting for a bill to be brought to this House in regard to the Canada disability benefit. They are extremely disappointed, but not just that; they are suffering because this bill has not come to the floor.

When is this bill coming to the floor? Why have we not seen it yet?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things the Prime Minister indicated to cabinet, and in fact to the whole caucus, was that there are things we can improve upon and things we can learn from the pandemic. If the member wanted to take the time, she could read what I thought was a brilliant speech quite a while back from the minister responsible for persons with disabilities. The minister talked about the need to build that databank and start giving more attention to people with disabilities. I know she is charged with the responsibility of the issue that the member has raised. She takes it very seriously. Like the member, I await and will be patient because I know that the minister and this government take this issue very seriously and we hope to see some action on that front.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to join members here and speak in favour of the budget implementation act. I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking from the unceded lands of the Algonquin people.

We were elected in 2015, and I want to highlight some of the major successes in my region of Scarborough, particularly Scarborough—Rouge Park.

As members are aware, we were able to support the extension of the Scarborough subway with an investment of $2.26 billion. It is an unprecedented level of investment in Scarborough, and I am very proud of the work of our all of Scarborough colleagues in order to ensure this. We have also invested heavily in our community, including a hub in Scarborough—Agincourt.

Of course, in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge Park, the establishment of the Tamil Community Centre is the fulfillment of a dream for many in the Tamil community. It had an investment of over $14 million from the federal government, and was established in partnership with the province and the City of Toronto.

I am very blessed to have one of the most beautiful ridings in Canada, and it is made more beautiful by the Rouge National Urban Park. This is something that we fulfilled right after being elected. I think every political party can take credit for the success of this park. Of course, under the leadership of Minister McKenna at the time, we were able to ensure that all the land for the park was secured and transferred to the federal government, and it is now under the able management of Parks Canada.

I am standing here six years later reflecting on the successes, but I will also reflect on the challenges we have ahead. One of the challenges is COVID-19, and we have seen the Scarborough Health Network, which is a primary health care provider in our region, work very hard during the pandemic, whether on the testing front or in terms of providing vaccines or educating people who had vaccine hesitation. It really made sure that we had among the highest vaccination rates in all of Canada. I want to thank and congratulate the Scarborough Health Network.

However, we also know that our health systems overall are not in their best form because of all the pressures. I want to assure the folks from the Scarborough Health Network that this budget and the budget implementation act does support the health network with $2 billion set aside to ensure that we catch up on the surgeries and the appointments that were missed during the pandemic. The budget has robust measures to support our health network across Scarborough and also across Canada.

Of course, one of the major challenges we had during the pandemic was in long-term care homes. In one of my long-term care homes, we lost over 53 people, and I have spoken about this a number of times. This is a heart-wrenching realization of the failures of long-term care, and the need for all of us in all levels of government, despite the fact that it is a provincial responsibility. There is a federal component, which is to ensure that we have national standards for long-term care, and this budget implementation act definitely does support the need for this type of national standard. I am very proud that we were able to do that.

Scarborough is one of the most diverse areas of the country, and I want to talk about something that is near and dear to my heart: safe and inclusive communities. Members may recall late last year when the University of Toronto Scarborough, under the leadership of Professor Wisdom Tettey, instituted the Scarborough Charter, which essentially brings together academics, students and post-secondary institutions to ensure that academia reflects the Black communities in Canada, and the Scarborough Charter really is an important framework.

We have made, in so many different parts of Scarborough, a very concerted effort to address the issues of systemic racism. I am so proud that this budget expands on the national anti-racism strategy, which I was part of developing in 2019, to invest $85 million toward the new anti-racism strategy and a national action plan in combatting hate.

We know the impacts of racism in my community. My community comprises one of the largest communities of African-Caribbean descent in Canada, the largest Tamil population, the largest Guyanese population and a very strong, vibrant and diverse Muslim population. I could go on and on. The reality is that folks in my riding may not have the same opportunities as others, whether it is in employment, housing or essential services, so I am very proud that we are investing in ensuring that we achieve race equity, but at the same time, we are making sure that we are combatting hate. We saw that last year in London, Ontario. We see periodically with mosques, synagogues and even Hindu temples across Canada.

We know that violence, as well as hatred, toward racialized people is significantly on the rise. On that point, I want to highlight that we are investing significantly in establishing a special envoy on preserving Holocaust remembrance and combatting anti-Semitism, which again is very important to my community, as well as ensuring that we have a new special representative on combatting Islamophobia. In order for us to have safer communities, we need to invest in these measures.

However, we do not stop there. We go beyond in expanding the supporting the Black Canadian communities initiative with $50 million. This is on top of what my friend from Hull—Aylmer often speaks about. We have invested over $800 million since we have taken office in terms of ensuring that we have an even playing field for members of Canada's Black communities, but we know there is a lot more to do and the investment in this budget is a reaffirmation of the need to move forward. On a side note, we were able to ensure that the work of the Hon. Jean Augustine, who was an august member of this House, is recognized through a legacy contribution to an endowed chair in her name. These are some of the measures that are really going to the root of combatting racism and hatred in Canada.

We are also putting in $100 million toward ensuring that we have a national action plan to support the LGBTQI community. We are doing significant work with respect to reconciliation. Unfortunately, I do not have time to talk speak to it extensively, but it is a path that we have taken over many years, and it is a journey that is going to take a great deal more from the federal government and all Canadians. I believe we are on the right trajectory, and while I recognize the frustrations and the slow pace of this, it is important that we double down and continue on this path. I invite all members in this House to support this.

On a final note, I want to finish up with the Rouge National Urban Park. We made a commitment to plant two billion trees across Canada, but we also have a carve-out for the Rouge park of $2 million for the establishment of a new trail that will connect across Canada. I am very proud of that, and I hope to continue this work.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad you mentioned Rouge national park, and I am happy—

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

I did not mention anything.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member mentioned Rouge national park. I happen to be sitting in the seat of a former member of this House, Peter Kent, who was a big proponent for it and a big reason that the park exists today.

The member talked about equity, the need for more workers and the pay gap between men and women still being very real. I am wondering if he can point to anything in the budget, other than words and rhetoric, that says that any of that is being fixed, whether it is training or money for hiring. The member calls it investment. There are a lot of words here.

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

Madam Speaker, I do want to pay tribute to Peter Kent, who was very important in establishing the park. Of course, as I acknowledged, this is a park that political parties of all stripes can take credit for.

In terms of the wage gap, I think that one of the major ways we have been able to address it is through our agreements with the provinces on $10-a-day child care. I think it is a transformational program that will particularly support women to not only enter the work force but also advance in their careers.

Bill C-19—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Furthermore, I am tabling the government's responses to Questions Nos. 409 to 417.

Bill C-19—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

Questions and comments, the hon. opposition House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not quite surprised by this. The only thing surprising me is that the motion was not seconded by the NDP House leader.

This is just amazing to me. This is a government that argued with its coalition partners in the NDP about Motion No. 11. What Motion No. 11 was going to do was expand the time, give more opportunities for members to speak by expanding the hours, and yet, with just two and a half days of debate, the government moved time allocation on an important piece of legislation, doing the exact opposite of what it argued Motion No. 11 was going to do.

Before the Liberals spare us the false indignation of obstruction, in fact what the government is doing is utilizing this motion to obstruct members of Parliament from doing their job, which is providing oversight and scrutiny on important pieces of legislation. Therefore, it is not surprising to me that we are at this point. I know the opposition House leader is going to go on about Friday and about the movement of a motion to committee, splitting up a bill. We called a vote. There was no reason for Bill C-19 not to be debated, except the filibuster by the government.

My question is a simple one. Is it not true that the government House leader and the Prime Minister, in fact, because of this tag-team partnership with the NDP, actually have exactly what they want and need in this Parliament, and that is an audience, not an opposition?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what forces drove the member opposite to come to office and to be in this chamber. I know him well enough to know that he is a good and honourable individual who has good intentions for this place. However, I cannot imagine that his desire when he came here was to basically, day after day, obstruct the business of the House. If the member opposite and his party really wanted more debate, I would think they would not move concurrence motions every day.

The fact of the matter is that we tried, with Bill C-8, to engage the party opposite over more than four months, every day over four months asking how many more speakers the Conservatives wanted. What we ended up seeing was that they had no interest in debate. What they had interest in was obstruction.

In fact, if we take a look at what we are dealing with in front of us here today, in only two days of debate the Conservatives have proposed an amendment that would not even allow the budget implementation act to be scrutinized, which is an integral role of the parliamentary process. They used motions of concurrence for two House reports to delay and obstruct debate in the House. They put forward subamendments to create further delays. What they have done all through this process is show that they have no interest. They basically want to hijack, as one party, the entire Parliament and not allow it to function, and then they are surprised that we would object to this.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the official opposition House leader that he had an opportunity to ask a question, and if he has more, there will be an opportunity to ask more. It is not polite to interrupt the government House leader while he is responding.

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I knew that this time allocation motion was coming, but I did not think it would be moved so soon. It is important for people to know that we have not yet even had five hours of debate on Bill C-19, which is a big bill with numerous measures. Many sectors have been calling us after seeing the budget. We need to debate this big, important bill, and five hours is not enough time.

I am surprised because I think this demonstrates carelessness and contempt on the part of the government. The Liberals are saying that we have debated this long enough, and they are eager for the bill to be passed. We, too, are eager for it to pass, but debating bills is part of our job. I am therefore very surprised, and even appalled, that this motion was moved today when I was not expecting it until later.

I think that is an exaggeration. I think the government is counting on its tacit agreement with the NDP to prevent meaningful and thorough debate, especially in the case of Bill C-19. This is not a small bill; it is 452 pages long and the Standing Committee on Finance has already begun its study.

This is not a question, but I will say to my colleague that it is a bit discouraging to see that the leader continues to be contemptuous of the legislative work that we have to do here in the House.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very important to have debate in the House. At every stage of a bill, it is important to have time to ask questions and seek information.

In the case of Bill C-19, time is allocated in the House, but also during the committee stage. Then the bill will come back to the House. Therefore there will be many opportunities to talk about this bill and ask questions, and I encourage members on the other side to participate at every stage.

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

Madam Speaker, over the last couple of months we have seen a total blocking of important legislation by the Conservatives.

Teachers and farmers were basically being stopped from getting the important measures that were in Bill C-8, and that continued on for months. Now we have the budget implementation bill, which does a number of things that the NDP has pushed the government to put into place, including the first stage of national dental care. Thousands of people in the official opposition House leader's riding, Barrie—Innisfil, would benefit from that, and yet the Conservatives do not want to let it go through.

We have not seen any real, substantive action by the federal government on affordable housing for decades, and now, finally, in the budget implementation bill and in the budget this year, because of the confidence and supply agreement with the NDP, we are seeing tens of thousands of affordable housing units that could be built, including in Barrie—Innisfil. Right across the country people could benefit.

Why does my colleague, the government House leader, feel the Conservatives have been blocking everything? Why have the Conservatives disrupted every single Routine Proceedings now for almost two weeks, and why are they being so stubborn about refusing to allow important legislation to get through the House, legislation that would help people?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite enumerates a number of things that are exceptionally important within this bill, things that we need to make progress on and that Canadians expect us to make progress on.

Frankly, I am confused. I have tried with the official opposition on numerous occasions to find opportunities, to find out how many speakers they want and to work with them, and it has just come back with no level of co-operation whatsoever. I look at this bill as a case in point. Conservatives say they want to have more debate, and yet they move concurrence motions that kill debate. It means that less debate occurs.

At some point, I would say that obstruction could be a temporary tool and on that basis could be called strategy, but if the only gear they have is obstruction, that is not really a strategy; it is just obstinance. I am really confused as to its aim.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by noting that I have supported time allocation motions in the past and we had a sufficient number of speakers. I will also mention, on the point by the government House leader, that I have been similarly concerned by some of the motions for concurrence we have seen here over the past week. That being said, my understanding is that we have had 11 speakers so far on Bill C-19 at second reading, out of 338 members in this place. This is a substantial piece of legislation. As we have heard from the Bloc, there are 452 pages.

How can we ensure that sufficient debate is provided? If the government House leader is concerned with some tactics from opposition parties, why is the response to those tactics to further erode the quality of debate that we can have in this place?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that there is lots of opportunity. We are talking about five days. Unfortunately, all of the obstruction and concurrence motions by the Conservatives have vastly reduced the amount of debate that is available, and I recognize that.

I am sure the member would be sympathetic to the fact that as we are trying to take action on climate change, increase our economic outcomes and take action on housing, there are a lot of bills, and all of this obstruction means that there is an enormous backlog. Canadians would rightfully expect that this Parliament, in its majority representation from many different parts of the country and certainly different parties, would take action on those items. It would not sit idly by, allowing one party to hijack the House and stick it in mud period after period.

I am hopeful that the Conservatives will rethink this strategy. I do not think it would resonate with Canadians. I cannot imagine Conservatives going to the doors and saying they had great news: that, day after day, they had stuck everything in the mud and not let Parliament do anything. I do not think that is a very effective message for them to take to the doors.

Instead, I would say members should work creatively with us. The committee stage is coming up after this, and the bill has to return to the House. There are multiple phases where they could participate. Hopefully they will do so constructively, but that has not been the case so far.

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

Here are the facts, Madam Speaker. Two concurrence motions have been moved: one on fisheries and one on ethics. There was an important issue with respect to fisheries coming out of committee and, of course, important issues as they relate to the scandalous behaviour of the government on ethics.

Bill C-8 was introduced December 16, and we had 10 weeks when the House was not sitting. What did the Liberals expect for the fall economic statement, when we are not going to have debate on this?

The other thing we are seeing is that before the coalition agreement with the NDP, the NDP sided with the government 89% of the time on votes. Since that coalition agreement, it has sided with the government 95% of the time. It is not surprising to me that I am hearing the NDP House leader parroting the talking points of the government.

The fact is that we are seeing a decline in democracy. This is the government's attempt to seize complete control over this place on important legislation, such as Bill C-19, when members have the right to speak and members have the right to move motions. We have those rights because these are important issues to Canadians.

Will the government House leader just admit that he is contributing to a further decline in democracy in this country, and that Canadians did not vote for a coalition agreement between the NDP and the Liberals? They actually voted for an effective opposition, including the Conservative Party, which, by the way, is the official opposition: Her Majesty's loyal opposition. We will continue to do our job, despite the fact that the government does not want us to do it.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can only reflect that, unfortunately, in all of the conversations I have had with the opposition House leader, there just has not been any interest in engaging to talk about the calendar or moving things forward. Every time we talk, it is more obfuscation. That is disappointing to me, because I have to say that I was hoping for more and I continue to hope for more.

It is important to reflect on two things. One, I was here in opposition. It is a little difficult for me to listen to the Conservative Party, which used time allocation not as a tool, but as a hammer to hammer the opposition every day that it was there. It literally created a playbook 200 pages long talking about how to control committees and shut them down, and telling its members exactly how to puppeteer all of these committees: to object now, after four months of blocking any government legislation from moving forward; to object now, when we have all of these important issues for Canadians that are expected to be dealt with; and to object now, when we are utilizing these tools so that this place can get its business done.

The Conservatives represent only a small fraction of the members in the House. They do not have the right to hijack all of Parliament. If they were to win a majority government, they could go back to using a cudgel to hammer the opposition and ram things through and not allow debate, as they did before. They could do that.

They do not have a majority. We do not have a majority. We are attempting to work with other parties. I would say to the party members opposite that if they want to be constructive, and if they want to get things done and if they do not want to spend the next three years simply blocking everything that moves, they should talk to us. We want to work with them to move things forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the government House leader could provide his thoughts on the fact that we have a legislative agenda, which incorporates the changing of laws, and we have budgetary measures. It is a government agenda that does ultimately need to get through. There is nothing wrong with opposition parties critiquing it and offering amendments: changes and so forth. I am not in opposition to that. It is the official opposition's attempt to frustrate all things in all ways; for example, on Bill C-8.

Could he provide his thoughts on Bill C-8, which was the fall economic statement? It ultimately passed the House after the budget was released, a couple of weeks back. The Conservatives did that through frustrating, filibustering and concurrence reports. They even attempted to adjourn the House. They had different ways to prevent the bill from being debated. I am referring to Bill C-8.

Can he provide his thoughts in regard to Bill C-8?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, after more than four months of dealing with Bill C-8, which was dealing with the previous fall, it became apparent that we would be lucky to get to the coming fall if we had not used measures to move it forward.

There were critical supports there for teachers and for workers. Similarly, regarding the budget implementation act, it is not just that there are important measures in it to be taken on everything from housing, to banning foreign investment, to labour mobility and reducing, by half, corporate and small business tax breaks. There are so many things that are essential here. It is everything that also flows behind it. We have a responsibility to that.

I would say that at the onset of my time as House leader, going back to December, the Conservatives came forward with good proposals on Bill C-3, and we were able to work together. We had an opportunity when they came forward on Bill C-4 to move it forward because we recognized it.

We are in a minority government, and how we comport ourselves is a choice for each of us. As the government House leader, I recognize the minority status that we are in and that we are going to be in the House for a period of time. I would imagine that Conservative MPs want to do some things here and want to get some things done.

I can imagine that standing up every day on dilatory motions and obfuscating has to get pretty old for you guys at some point. You want to take some things back to your constituencies, and I am willing to work with you on that. Come forward with stuff.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. government House leader needs to address all questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the members or their party.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the government House leader about the complete lack of self-awareness in the Conservative MPs. They blocked, for months, important legislative changes that would help teachers and would help farmers. I certainly heard from teachers in my riding and people saying, “Let us get this done.” Conservatives said, “No, we are not going to let anything through.”

Now we have the budget implementation act, which, for the first time, would put in place national dental care. Thanks to the NDP and the member for Burnaby South, we actually would see thousands of people in every Conservative constituency, but also in the constituencies of every one of us in the House of Commons, have access to dental care. This is a significant shift. With respect to affordable housing, as well for the first time, we would have in place an affordable housing program that would create tens of thousands of affordable housing units right across the country to address the housing crisis. These are all things that benefit everybody: every constituent of not just Conservative MPs, but all MPs in the House.

This is what we should be working on. For five days in a row, the budget implementation act was supposed to be brought forward, and for five days in a row, the Conservatives blocked any sort of discussion. They just refused to let this move forward in any way and they would not debate it either. The official opposition House leader neglects the fact that, every single day for two weeks, Routine Proceedings has been disrupted by the Conservatives.

Why is there no self-awareness, among Conservative MPs, that what they are doing is harming Canadians?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree. Sometimes in the thrust and parry in this place, we can lose the purpose for which we come here. Again, I would go back to what we did with the Conservatives on Bill C-3. That was a great opportunity to work together. We absolutely have a supply and confidence agreement with the NDP. We are working on a lot of important issues, from affordable housing to the environment to the dental care plan that the member referenced, but I would suggest to the members opposite that, just as we did in Bill C-3, there remain opportunities for every member in the House.

This is the fifth minority government that I have had the privilege to serve in. I have seen it done all ways, and I can say that when I was in opposition I spent my fair time both criticizing the government and trying to obstruct at different moments. However, when I lost, which I did in 2011, the reflections that I had were the opportunities that I had to get things done.

We are going to be here for a while, is my guess, and, instead of moving things to obstruct every day, I would invite Conservative members to come and have a conversation with us about the things they are hearing from their constituents that they want movement on. It is totally fair that they are going to vote against some bills and totally fair that every once in a while, to make a point, they might want to obstruct, but I hope they will also reflect that when we were trying to deal with a bill like Bill C-8, after it being dragged out for more than four months, this is where we wind up. It is not healthy. There is a better way to work together, and I extend that bridge. I thought that we had a really good start and I would like to get back to it.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear the government House leader ask for Conservative MPs to come and actually tell him what they are hearing from their constituents, when all the Liberals have done is shut down debate once again. The Liberals do not really want to hear how rural and remote Canadians feel about their policies.

Also interesting is that the lapdog from New Westminster—Burnaby comes to the defence of the government. It is challenging to be one of the 338 members of Parliament elected to bring the voice of Canadians here and then, once again, the government is shutting down debate. Madam Speaker—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are all hon. members here. I know that debates get heated from time to time, but it is entirely inappropriate for that member to refer to my colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, as a “lapdog”. It is entirely inappropriate to use that kind of language in the House and to refer to any hon. member in the House in that manner.

Madam Speaker, I seek your advice on how to proceed with the outrageous point of view offered by that member.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the hon. member's interruption. It is something that I was going to raise as soon as the hon. member had finished. I would ask members not to attack individual members in the House in that way.

I trust that the member will offer an apology before he continues his remarks, which I am going to ask him to wrap up soon.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize if perhaps my comments struck a nerve with our colleagues. With all due respect, I know our colleagues to be honourable. I do, but it is frustrating—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to ask the member whether he is going to apologize to the member.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was just getting to it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would ask the member to respond to that and finish his question, so that I can get to the hon. member, because we are running out of time and I am going to have to start cutting questions on that side of the House.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I do apologize for saying the comments, but I do not apologize for the feelings that this side of the House has, when the government has essentially given itself a majority with its colleagues from the NDP.

I want to ask what happened to the “sunny ways” of 2015, when the Liberals were not going to start with dilatory motions; they were going be the most open and responsive government, and they were not going to force closure on debates. This, they have done time and time again, not only in this session, but any time the heat is turned up on them. What happened to that government?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members that name calling is really not a very professional thing to do, especially in this House.

The hon. government House leader.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I spent a lot of time in opposition, and one of the things that I think is really not becoming of this place is to use that kind of language toward any other member. The reality is that the NDP House leader and I have our differences, but we both recognize that we were elected in a minority government to find ways to get things done for Canadians.

I would reflect back to the member that we had a really great start. I mentioned Bill C-3 and Bill C-4, but there were a lot of things that were put forward by the Conservatives that were reasonable and that we were able to work with. What I am experiencing now is nothing but obstruction. I do not have anything to work with, and after four months of this place being bottlenecked with obstruction, we had to recognize there was no interest in actually having more debate; there was just an interest in unilaterally shutting this place down and sticking it in the mud.

No party should try to do that from the position of having a minority of elected seats. The Conservatives talk about the elected will of Canadians. The elected will of Canadians is for this chamber to work, and to work together.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, in the last election, the electorate sent a clear message to all of us, which is that we need to come back to this House and to work for the people. New Democrats took that seriously, and one of the things we are working on is to advance the needs of the community and to fight for them. What we have done is to use the power of 25 New Democrats to negotiate a supply and confidence agreement with the government, and what we have in this bill is a proposal to bring forward, for people in our communities, a dental care program. A national dental care program is needed, certainly, for my constituents. There are seniors who have not been able to get their teeth fixed, because they cannot afford to see a dentist. There are seniors who are blending up their food to eat.

The obstructions that are being put forward by the Conservatives obstruct not only this House, but also the work of committees—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry; the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I guess it is just a question to you. Is this a statement by a government member, or a question from the opposition?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is debate, and I have been hearing a lot of heckling on that side of the House. I would ask members to respect the fact that other members have the floor.

The hon. member can ask her question, because I have other parliamentarians who want to ask questions as well.

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, to that end, my question to all members of the House is this: Do they not want to see a national dental program in place for their constituents? Do they not want to see and ensure that teachers are not being impeded by their inability to get the tax credits that have been promised in this bill? Why are we trying to obstruct—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, we just heard the member ask a question of another opposition party. I do not know if she does not know the role of the NDP in this place—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, that is a point of debate.

The hon. government House leader has the floor.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, what we are seeing at the crux of this is a different view of what Canadians sent us here to do and what the role of official opposition is, or of opposition generally.

It is my view that Canadians sent us here in a minority government with an expectation that we are going to work together. Yes, we are going to disagree, and will do so respectfully. We are going to be voting either for or against different things, but we will be putting ideas on the table and moving them respectfully through this place. That is what Canadians' expectations are.

We could knock on doors this week and have Canadians ask us what we are doing here. If we told people that dental care, the environment and housing were extremely important, what they would want to hear is that we are making sure we get to those issues, that we get to the legislation and to the debate that is going to inform the policies that are going to drive forward an agenda that is going to serve and help Canadians.

I would reflect back to the members, particularly as they draw the weeks on and on and do the same thing again and again, that it is not a great message to go back to those same constituents and say, “I tried to block the House from doing its work. I stood up every day and moved concurrence motions. I limited debate. I tried to make sure other elected members did not have an opportunity to engage in debate, and I tried to stop legislation from coming forward.” I cannot imagine that is a very compelling narrative to give to constituents.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I share concerns with how long it took to get Bill C-8 through this place. I also recognize and appreciate that the government House leader is a reasonable person.

However, let us be honest about what is in Bill C-19. Climate is mentioned only with respect to the climate action incentive's being delivered once a quarter as opposed to once a year. I do not see a section in here that implements dental care.

If this does move through time allocation, does it mean we will see more substantial climate legislation? Does it mean we will see legislation for the Canada disability benefit? Over 100 MPs from all parties in this place have made clear they want to see the government move forward fast on that.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, the quick answer is absolutely. By moving forward after this, we have a raft of things that are going to be helping Canadians and improving their lives: taking action on climate and housing, making sure we are helping workers and businesses as we start returning to normal, and building on the remarkable economic success.

Canada has recovered 115% of the jobs lost in the pandemic, which compares to 93% in the United States. We have a leading plan, and I would say one of the best, if not the best, to tackle climate change and to take appropriate climate action. There are so many things following behind this. It is why we cannot accept that the Conservatives scuttle the agenda of the government or the House. We have to get to these things.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we would ask that the motion be passed on division.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #79

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

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

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from May 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

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

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Terrebonne.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague, the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

Today we are debating Bill C‑19, a massive, 500-page bill that contains a little of everything. This bill could be considered an omnibus bill. However, it does not contain all of the measures from the budget statement. We expect to see another bill introduced in the coming weeks.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill, although a number of measures could have been, and would benefit, from being studied more carefully. Allow me to explain.

Although we agree on the principle of the bill, we will nevertheless wait to study all of its measures carefully in committee. We certainly will not agree to pass this bill so that we can finish far too early after debating it for just a few hours.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

The hon. member for Terrebonne is making a speech. I would ask the members who are talking to their colleagues to leave the chamber or wait until later to chat with colleagues.

The hon. member for Terrebonne may continue.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that, even though the Bloc is in favour of the principle of the bill, many of the measures described in Bill C‑19 could do with being fleshed out.

That is what we will do in committee. My colleague, the member for Joliette, will make sure that every measure in the bill is examined and scrutinized so it can be passed with due diligence. Even though we support the bill in principle, we will still take the time to improve it in committee.

This bill includes several measures we feel are reasonable, emergency measures that, in all sincerity, I think are pretty good. Let us start with the extension of pandemic-related measures. We are in favour of this idea and always have been. Even now, many businesses need economic support to weather the pandemic. I want to make it clear that the Bloc Québécois has always supported targeted assistance.

We want businesses to be supported. As we know, the pandemic disrupted the various sectors of the economy in different ways. While some sectors are coping well, other sectors, such as tourism and hospitality, are still struggling. People have changed their habits and are not going back to the theatre, the movies or restaurants. It is great to be able to help certain sectors that have been especially hard hit by the pandemic.

The second urgent measure is the extension, by five weeks, of employment insurance for seasonal workers. Again, we commend this measure. The third urgent measure is the one‑time immediate payment of $2 billion through the Canada health transfer, in addition to $750 million for public transit.

Let us come back to the extension of pandemic-related financial supports. We are in favour of well targeted assistance. We agree in principle with this measure. I just want to point out that businesses have been approaching us for months. We contacted the government and wrote letters to the minister, but there is nothing in the short term to help the businesses affected by the semiconductor shortage. It is bad.

Businesses are being forced to lay off workers or shut down completely because they are missing an essential component needed for their products to function properly. I am talking about semiconductors. Even though I have asked the question several times in the House, there is still nothing to help these businesses in the short and medium terms. There may be a line or two in the budget about plans to potentially have this technology in Quebec or Canada some day. However, for now, there is nothing tangible; in fact, there is nothing at all for these businesses that are losing employees, losing jobs, losing expertise and even facing the risk of bankruptcy. This is unacceptable at this point in time.

The five-week extension of EI benefits for seasonal workers is all well and good, but I think many of my colleagues would agree that employment insurance needs to be completely overhauled. We would not have needed financial assistance measures during the pandemic if our employment insurance system were working properly. This is still not the case, and it is a real problem. One of my colleagues is working very hard on this issue and has made all kinds of proposals, but we all agree that the EI system is completely broken. The system is designed to ensure that people get the least amount of benefits possible, despite having paid into the system. It is just wrong that the system is managed by the federal government, when it is our money. It is unacceptable that it is so dysfunctional, when we have needed additional financial supports for nearly two and a half years. EI reform is critical, and it must be done now.

Lastly, the third measure that is urgent and warrants discussion today is the immediate one-time payment of $2 billion in Canada health transfers. We have been waiting and asking for this for quite some time now. Our health care system is suffocating. We have the know-how, but we need the money and the Canada health transfers with no strings attached right now.

We obtained $2 billion through the Canada health transfer with Bill C-19. However, that is our money. Why must we always beg for our own money?

Not only that, but it is also tied to $750 million to support public transportation. That is a good thing because public transportation took a big hit during the pandemic. Ridership on most public transit systems is very low. As I mentioned, low ridership is due to the fact that people have changed their habits and are still afraid of the virus, which continues to spread.

We need to upgrade this infrastructure and provide new options. More money is needed to support public transportation. I repeat that this money belongs to us and there should be absolutely no strings attached to it. It is not right that our money has strings attached to it.

We will ensure that the money that will be put to good use by the various provinces and Quebec will not have strings attached.

I will now digress for a moment to talk about the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, on which I have the pleasure of serving.

As we have been examining the public accounts in recent months, we discovered that there was information on how different departments provide funding or make expenditures. We know who they fund, where that funding goes and how much is being given. Departments are subject to certain accounting standards. The average person can see how any amount over $100,000 has been spent, where it was spent and how much was spent.

We recently discovered something that is quite significant. Crown corporations, such as Export Development Canada and the Business Development Bank of Canada, are not subject to these same accounting rules. That means that citizens will not be able to see how their money is being spent, for expenditures over $100,000, by Crown corporations, because these corporations are subject to IFRS. IFRS are internationally recognized standards, but they are used by the private sector and should not apply to the government. The public must have the information they need to see how expenditures over $100,000 are spent, who received the money, in what province and what it was used for.

Between 20% and 30% of all government spending goes through Crown corporations. That means it is impossible to know how much money is being handed over. However, we hear a lot about equalization. In the case of equalization, it is easier to have an approximate idea of how much is given and how much is received. There is a lot of emphasis on that, yet we do not know how much we receive in total in terms of government spending because the Crown corporations make it impossible know how much each province in Canada receives, which is unacceptable.

Until we know how much we are receiving, we demand that the transfers, our money, be given to us without conditions.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing that is really important to recognize is that when we talk about the budget implementation bill, it is part of the bigger picture of the national budget, a budget that delivers, in many ways, for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

One issue is dealing with child care. We can take the example of what has taken place in the province of Quebec. Quebec has clearly demonstrated how successful a national child care plan could be, because of the success of the child care plan in the province of Quebec.

I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts on the benefits of having a $10-a-day child care program for all provinces, in particular for parents from a perspective of affordability, but also for the economy in terms of the possible engagement of literally thousands of future workers.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent question, which allows me to mention that, unfortunately, there are not enough child care spaces.

This system is fundamental. It was introduced by the Parti Québécois, which is a sovereignist party. Everyone knows that all the positive measures in Quebec are driven by sovereignist parties.

Not only are there not enough child care spaces, but it is a provincial system. The federal government should not interfere. We are tired of seeing the federal government interfere in everything that falls under provincial jurisdiction, particularly in Quebec.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my friend to speak a little more about the theme of paternalism that we saw in this budget. The Prime Minister seems to be adding strings attached with funding that is supposed to be going to provinces for what is within provincial jurisdiction. I have said in this House before that we could sometimes mistake the Prime Minister for wanting to become a premier instead of a prime minister, given all the meddling in provincial jurisdiction that he has been doing over the last number of years.

I would like the hon. member to comment on that.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy conversing with my hon. colleague. His question really ties in to my previous answer.

The federal government always has to impose conditions, even for a system Quebec already has. It is extremely paternalistic, as the member just said. When we want our money back for what we consider to be our needs, the federal government imposes conditions.

The federal government should not be constantly meddling in what the provinces decide to do. Provinces have the right to make their own decisions about certain programs and where their money should be spent. Provinces are different, and their priorities are different.

Why not give the provinces, especially Quebec, a little more decision-making power? As we all know, Quebec is another country and one of the two solitudes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply grateful to my colleague for her excellent speech. I have a question for her as an economics expert.

Last year, the president of CMHC told the Standing Committee on Finance that the way to deal with the crisis is to increase supply.

We know the budget contains plenty of housing measures, such as the tax-free first home savings account. These measures will actually boost demand, and many economists say this is counterproductive. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the overheated housing market does differ from one city to the next. We can all agree that Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and the regions of Quebec do not all have the same problems.

Using a single pan-Canadian measure to address all of the country's challenges is therefore a bad idea. Additionally, the housing problem is caused by a lack of supply, since the occupancy rate is very high. Providing support measures to a segment of the population that is already able to save for a home, which is what the proposed TFSA does, will ultimately stimulate even more demand. It is counterproductive.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to rise to speak to this issue and to Bill C-19. There is a lot to discuss, of course, and we have already talked about some of it.

It is really too bad that our debate time has been cut short, as we saw earlier. To say that we deplore it would be a massive understatement. The Liberals across the aisle do not like to debate. We saw this during the election campaign. Important bills were scheduled to be voted on, but the Liberals called an election and wiped the slate clean, killing bills like the one on the Official Languages Act. This means we have to start over on a number of important bills. They also prorogued the House two years ago. Now we have this important, mammoth bill before us, which does not even contain all the measures in the budget. Only some of them are included.

However, I am going to focus on the part that interests and concerns me the most. I think everyone in the House knows that I have risen here about a billion times to talk about the housing crisis.

In fact, there are four major crises in Canada at this time. We spoke about the language crisis earlier. My colleague from Salaberry—Suroît introduced a bill on that issue. It is an important issue for my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, who is a staunch advocate for the French language in Quebec, as I and all members of the Bloc Québécois are. There is a major language crisis in Canada. The federal government does not want to acknowledge that French and English do not have equal status. That is a major problem.

Obviously, there is the health crisis, from which we are emerging. We are pleased and we are hopeful. Once again, the repercussions of the health crisis will be difficult to deal with. There are major problems in the area of mental health. Once again, even though it says it sent money during the crisis and one-time transfers to help the health care system in Quebec and across the country, the federal government is rejecting all the provinces' ongoing request to increase health transfers from 22% to 35%. This could help them deal with the next crisis. We are talking with organizations across the province, and another crisis is looming, the mental health crisis. It will be costly, and the federal government needs to get it through its head that this is a provincial jurisdiction. It is not up to the federal government to establish standards. It just has to sign the cheques. The provinces run the hospitals, pay the doctors and manage the system, and they need money because they know what they require. However, the money is in Ottawa.

The climate crisis is another crisis, and it is connected to the housing crisis, which is the main topic I want to talk about today and one of the topics I talk most often about in the House. The government has taken some small steps to address the housing crisis, as it has for the climate crisis. A year ago, in the span of about a month, the government increased its targets, which were around 30% before the latest budget. With its latest budget, the government wondered why it should stop there. Since the government was not going to meet this target anyway, it might as well increase it to 36%. The government increased the target to 36% but still had no way to reach it. The government did not know how it would meet its targets, but at 36%, it was not afraid of anything. On Earth Day, the government increased the targets to between 40% and 45%, still without backing them up with any measures. There are still no details about how we will reach those targets. The Liberals are not afraid of anything, so they are throwing out percentages and hoping to meet them. In the meantime, along came the Bay du Nord project, which will extract one billion barrels over 30 years. I remind members that Canada has never met a single one of its greenhouse gas reduction targets. Now, the government expects to reach a 40% to 45% target, but that is nonsense.

This brings me to the topic I wanted to talk about: housing.

On housing, the government is taking the same kind of gamble. In other words, it is offering up figures, any figures, and then crossing its fingers, closing its eyes, bracing itself and hoping everything works out. That is how the federal government is acting.

The budget says that Canada needs 3.5 million housing units to address the current crisis. We are not entirely sure how the Liberals came up with that number.

In a study published a few months ago, Scotiabank said that we would need 1.7 million housing units. I think the bank was talking about current needs, but the budget is talking about the government's projected needs to 2031 based on higher expected immigration numbers for the coming years. The government added 1.7 million housing units to the 200,000 to 300,000 people who would arrive each year and somehow came up with 3.5 million housing units, which is a significant target.

The budget actually contains an admission of failure, since it recognizes that Canada needs 3.5 million housing units in order to solve the crisis, but it does not say how the government is going to get there, just like the climate change targets. There are a few programs, figures and dollar amounts for dealing with the crisis.

The example of the rapid housing initiative is already a major problem and a scandal. The municipalities are creations of the provinces. When the federal government says again that it is going to send money directly to Matane, Rimouski, Quebec City, Longueuil or Valleyfield, it is bypassing Quebec.

At some point, the federal government is going to have to come to an agreement with Quebec on this. The last time it tried to negotiate with Quebec, it took three years, during which money was spent in Toronto, Vancouver, and Winnipeg, but nothing in Quebec—

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

I am sorry to have to interrupt the member, but we have to proceed to Statements by Members. He will have three minutes and twenty-five seconds remaining when debate resumes after question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert had three minutes and 25 seconds remaining when his speech was interrupted.

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

Madam Speaker, I was saying that we are experiencing four major crises in Canada, and I was talking about the housing crisis. I was explaining that there are some measures in the budget that we find a bit dangerous, particularly with regard to speeding up the construction of housing with the municipalities.

In my riding, La Halte du Coin is an organization for the homeless with high acceptance rates. It was set up during the pandemic when there was an outbreak in downtown Longueuil. I want to recognize Nicolas Gildersleeve, the director, and the entire team at La Halte du Coin for the incredible job they do.

All of Longueuil pitched in to make this organization a reality. The homelessness and housing sector in Longueuil is extremely good. Some people have been working in that field for 25 or 30 years. They are experts, very committed and empathetic individuals. I love them and I learn something new from them every time I see them.

Last Thursday, I left here to participate in a fundraiser for La Halte du Coin. Longueuil's entire housing sector was there already. It was remarkable. I wrote down a list of everyone who participated and I thought I would have a chance to name them all, but I really do not have enough time left.

The last time I went to La Halte du Coin, at the beginning of April, the organization was in need of volunteers. Like many such organizations, they need more people. I went by and spent two hours around suppertime serving meals.

That is unique and it is what I wanted to talk about. La Halte du Coin is located in a church on Sainte-Foy Boulevard in Longueuil. The organization serves meals during the day and has 30 beds at night. Around 6 p.m., they ask everyone to leave so that they can get the beds ready. About 50 people had a meal and then went outside to smoke while they waited. That evening in early April was cold and rainy.

After helping to serve supper and set up the beds with the people who were there, I went outside. There were 50 people waiting. It was very upsetting to see because there was not going to be enough room for everyone. Fifty meals were served but there were only 30 beds inside. Those who were unable to get a bed slept on the ground outside the building, in the parking lot or in the ATM vestibule not far from there.

It is terrible. We are unable to house all those who need it in this country. There are many causes for homelessness, including mental health issues and addiction. Homelessness is a complex issue.

I was talking to the people who were there, the homeless. I had the opportunity to talk to them at suppertime. I got the feeling that these are very proud people and that they are not happy about having to rely on a resource for homeless people. They wanted to tell me that soon, in one or two months, they would be able to find a place to live, that they were happy, that they had a job lined up and that things were going to work out. Sometimes that does not happen, but I got the feeling that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have to interrupt the member because his time was up a little while ago. I am sure he will have an opportunity to say more during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is talking about housing. It is important for us to recognize that there is a need for strong leadership on the housing file because it is not only Ottawa that plays a role. The provincial governments, municipal governments and different stakeholders all have a role to play.

I think what we have seen from Ottawa over the last number of years is very strong leadership, whether through the first-ever national housing strategy, the historic amount of public dollars being invested in housing or the support of programs such as housing co-ops.

I am wondering if the member would reflect on the importance of the role that the three levels of government in particular need to play to increase the housing stock in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, let me begin by apologizing for contradicting my colleague, but when he says the federal government has led by example, that is not true.

According to a report published two or three months ago, the government has built only 35,000 units since 2017. In the budget, the government promised to build 100,000 units. We do not even know how that is going to work.

In a newspaper interview a few days ago, the director of the National Housing Council, the organization that was created as part of the National Housing Strategy, said that the strategy had met the needs of only 4.8% of households with urgent housing needs. The point of the strategy is to help the most vulnerable, but right now, it just is not cutting it.

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

Madam Speaker, with respect to the budget implementation act, I know one issue that I have been following very closely is the issue of direction and control. Unreasonable regulations exist in the context of charities law. The budget finally recognized there was a problem with this, but at the same time there are some concerns about whether the solution offered is adequate.

We need to fix these regulations. We need to work across party lines to get this done, because right now they are piling millions of dollars' worth of red tape every year onto charitable organizations. I wonder if my colleague has a comment about the need to reform these regulations and remove red tape so that charities can do their work unencumbered.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not really sure I understood the question. In any case, one thing is certain: When I speak with representatives from community and housing organizations, especially those in my riding, the issue of red tape comes up often.

It is important to understand that the housing sector, much like all community sectors in Quebec, has limited means and is short on employees. Moreover, the labour shortage affects them dramatically. There is a reason why Halte du Coin was asking for volunteers. It is because they do not have enough employees and they cannot pay $150 an hour. The salaries they offer are lower than public service salaries, so they have trouble retaining people with specific expertise. They all mention the red tape and paperwork, especially for grant applications.

I think there must be a way to harmonize all levels of government so that the criteria are more straightforward and the focus is on helping people, as it should be.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member so much for the advocacy he is doing here, but also for the advocacy he has mentioned in the past that he does in his riding.

I want to ask the member about government loans for municipalities and cities. What are you hearing in Quebec about access to operating funds from the government for housing in cities?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will not tell her what I am hearing, but I am sure the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is able to do that.

I want to remind the member to address her questions through the Chair and not directly to the member.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert has one minute to respond.

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

Madam Speaker, there are indeed programs in Quebec. One of them was created after the federal government pulled out in 1993. It is called AccèsLogis Québec, and it is a very good program. Unfortunately, there is some uncertainty right now as to whether it will survive. Like everything else, it lacks funding.

At the federal level, we should focus on programs that really work, such as the rapid housing initiative, the RHI. There are some interesting programs that work but that do not have a big impact on affordability. The RHI is a very good program. The problem is that there is not enough money in it.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

It is an honour to rise in the House to speak to a bill to implement certain provisions of our 2022 budget.

Before I get into my speech, I want to acknowledge my family and express my gratitude to them, to my husband and best friend, and to my daughter Ellie, who, although she might not know it, motivates me to speak to the issues important to me, such as gun control, affordability, the environment or our fight against climate change.

My family has not seen me much since the House resumed in January. I was in Ottawa, either in the House of Commons or in my office, fulfilling a long-time dream of mine to work on drafting a federal budget.

We set ourselves an objective to draft a budget focused on affordability and that was also fiscally responsible and would enable Canada to maintain its favourable fiscal position, with the lowest net debt in the G7 and the smallest deficit among G7 countries.

I would like to take a moment to pause and note that the statistics I just mentioned mean that we, as a federal government, went from spending very much in an emergency context to support small businesses and Canadians through the pandemic to very quickly adjusting once that period of emergency was behind us in order to be fiscally responsible and to ensure that our spending would go down as global inflation was rising.

What is also interesting is that this pivot was not only done successfully, but it is also causing experts, including experts at the IMF, to predict that our growth here in Canada will be the highest among the G7 countries this year, as well as next year.

This is first and foremost a budget that addresses today's specific needs in the areas of housing, the environment, reconciliation, inclusion and equity. It also had to address needs arising from the current geopolitical context.

I am someone who believes that one of the federal government's roles is to ensure the sovereignty of its territory and its national defence. It must ensure that the country is prepared for any eventuality.

That is why our budget includes historic investments in defence, to support Ukraine in its fight for freedom and democracy, including our own.

The war in Ukraine is also causing ripple effects in economies throughout the world. Energy prices in particular have soared as a result of the war, and food prices as well. Canadians are feeling this at the pump and the supermarket. This is a period of global inflation. That is why our government has taken unprecedented steps to ensure we were putting money back into the pockets of Canadians. I think often of the Canada child benefit because it is not only a cheque that is received every month by families, but also a program that has lifted over a million Canadians out of poverty, including 300,000 children.

There are many other programs, and this budget provides many other proposals, including a one-time payment for Canadians having difficulty finding access to affordable housing and subsidizing dental care. These are programs that are going to help Canadians meet the rising cost of living.

It is also why this budget proposes the creation of a historic number of new homes, and we are making it easier for people to buy their first home through a tax-free first home savings account, as well as through doubling the first-time homebuyers' tax credit, and many other measures as part of this historic housing program we have put in place.

This budget also tackles the climate crisis by implementing our ambitious plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030 and get to net-zero by 2050.

To achieve this, we will establish a national network of charging stations and ensure that 100% of vehicles sold will be zero emission by 2035.

We are investing more to protect more of our land and oceans, and providing funding to Environment and Climate Change Canada to fight plastic pollution.

There are so many aspects of this budget that I would like to discuss. I touched on housing and the environment. I could speak at length about the importance of ensuring that more and growing small businesses would have access to our 9% small business tax rate, a measure in this budget that I care so deeply about. There are also incredible measures in this budget in order to ensure a bold and successful immigration plan, which would help us bring newcomers to Canada and also deal with the labour shortage we are experiencing.

In the short amount of time I have left, I would like to reflect on our history. During the First World War, Canadians fought bravely and played an instrumental role in the Allies' victory. We have all heard the stories of the Battle of Vimy Ridge and the Hundred Days campaign. Canadians showed their strength, time and time again, in the face of the enemy. Just 21 years later, we found ourselves in the Second World War, and Canada once again played a vital role in ensuring victory against the fascist Axis Powers.

Yesterday was Victory in Europe Day, which celebrates the surrender of Nazi Germany and the liberation of Europe. As I walked to Parliament today, I saw beautiful tulip bulbs everywhere. I saw those red tulips on every corner of our capital city. I thought of the role Canada played in liberating Europe, and this beautiful yearly offering from the Netherlands to honour the role played there by our Canadian men and women in uniform. As we all know, following the Second World War, Canada played a leading role in the establishment of the United Nations and its all-important peacekeeping force.

If we do not know our past, we cannot know our future. Canada has always played an outsized role in setting the world aright again. We do so today with the provision of support, particularly the provision of weapons, for Ukraine, and Canada was among the first, ensuring our initial deliveries of weapons arrived before the invasion.

The current war also makes clear that we must continue to strengthen NATO. I believe that Canada must and will continue to be a leader among nations, and I am encouraged and look forward to welcoming Sweden, Finland and, yes, hopefully and ultimately, Ukraine into NATO.

We know that this decision rests with the entire membership of NATO, and that consent to join NATO has to be unanimous. However, I feel it is important, considering that I have personally been sanctioned by Russia, to continue to make my view known publicly, both here in this chamber and elsewhere.

As a member of the foreign affairs committee, I have been deeply engaged in Canada's response to the illegal war begun by President Putin. As the ambassador-designate of Ukraine, my new friend recently arrived in Canada, told us just a few days ago in response to my questions in committee, what Ukraine needs now, first and foremost, is weapons. This is not to diminish the crucial and important role that humanitarian aid plays and the diplomatic support that Canada has been providing.

However, when Ukrainians are staring down a tank that is poised to hit a school, a shelter or a residential area, what they need are anti-tank missiles. When Ukrainians are fighting by night, what they need are night-vision goggles. When they fight by day, what they need are weapons. Our budget includes $500 million to continue to support their fight.

I hope that all members in this House will support our budget.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with many of the things my friend and colleague said, at least with respect to our needed engagement in the world.

Respectfully, the government was a little behind. I recall the first throne speech the government came out with in 2015 talked about the need for “a leaner military.” We have been pushing the government, prior to this invasion, to do more in terms of sanctions and weapons supplies.

I hope the member will continue to urge her government to do even more, because I think she put her finger on the right point in terms of the critical importance of supplying weapons.

The member spoke about the issue of debt at the beginning of her speech. Sometimes we make the mistake of comparing Canadian federal debt to other countries' federal debt, when actually in Canada we need to take into consideration the total level of government debt. Canada has very high total government debt when we consider the fact that many of the services that are provided in our country are actually provided by other levels of government.

Federal debt has more than doubled in the time the Prime Minister has been in office. I would submit that, if we are so far in debt that we would not be able to afford to lead anymore, is the member concerned about the debt levels and the impact as interest rates rise?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, there was much in that question. I would like to thank my colleague for recognizing the work that Canada has done to continue to support Ukraine. I would also like to thank my colleague for his work at our foreign affairs committee. However, I do believe that it was former prime minister Harper who cut the most from our national defence investments. I believe that we need to continue investing in our defensive capabilities, and this budget goes a long way in order to do just that.

With respect to the economic aspect of his question, I would point him to the consistently falling net debt-to-GDP ratio in our budget. I would point him to the statistics I mentioned on having the lowest deficit in the G7. This is ensuring that our economy continues to function well and to grow, and that we continue to attract foreign direct investment at unprecedented rates, which we are.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I would like to hear her thoughts about immigration and resources, particularly when it comes to temporary foreign workers.

I am a bit disappointed that there is not much about that in Bill C-19. There are a few general measures on economic targets, but they will not really affect Quebec, because Quebec makes its own selections in the economic classes. What we need is significant resources to process applications.

Again this morning, I spoke to an asparagus farmer in my riding who had asked to have his workers by April 23. He was so worried he would not get any workers at all that he was prepared to pay them to sit around and do nothing until May 10. Tomorrow is May 10 and he is still short six workers. That is a loss of $100,000.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I completely agree that we need to invest more resources in our immigration system. Members from across the country and I are also getting calls. I know that there are major delays, but there is also work to do in partnership with the Government of Quebec.

We set federal immigration levels, and Quebec set other immigration levels, which unfortunately are lower.

I think that everyone here in the House is capable of working together to ensure that we have enough workers in the country so that our small businesses and farmers can be as successful as we all know they can be.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I note that in the budget speech there was no mention of health care workers and no mention of the very important care economy. With this week being National Nursing Week, I wanted to ask the member about this. There is a top-up in the budget for health care, but the health care workforce is at a crisis point. Will there be additional investments made by the government to make sure that the labour shortages in the nursing profession are addressed?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I sincerely appreciate this question. I would point the member to the fact that we, as the federal government, must respect the jurisdictions of different layers of government, and health care is provincial jurisdiction. We are absolutely interested in sitting down with provinces and territories to come to an agreement, but, as I am sure she is aware, we would need the provinces to take the lead on such a matter.

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise here to speak to Bill C-19, the budget implementation act.

This pandemic has been incredibly difficult for many Canadians, and now we have a housing crisis, rising inflation and a labour shortage, which are all adding to these difficulties. Our health care system has come close to a breaking point on several occasions. Thousands have died. Millions have been seriously ill. Doctors, nurses and all health care workers have been under unbelievable stress and physical exhaustion. I want to say a personal thanks to all of those who cared for us and our loved ones over the past two years and more.

Businesses and workers suffered through a series of lockdowns. Nine million Canadians found themselves out of work, without income and with no way to pay their rent, their mortgage and their grocery bills. Companies were in similar dire straits. Fortunately, this House came together to pass measures that kept people financially afloat and measures that allowed businesses to keep employees on the payroll. However, last year, we learned that still over half of Canadians were only $200 from insolvency at the end of every month, and that was before the housing crisis reached another level of unbelievable house prices, monthly rents and rental availability.

The NDP is focused on helping Canadians, making sure they get the health care they need no matter where they live or their level of income, making sure they can find a home they can afford, making sure they have the means to live out their senior years in dignity, and making sure that those Canadians who did well through the pandemic, some of whom made billions of dollars in profits, pay their fair share.

This is the first budget after the Liberals and the NDP announced their confidence and supply agreement, so I would like to highlight some of the gains that we achieved in this agreement by using our power here in the House of Commons to help Canadians.

It is fair to say that the big gains have come in creating a stronger health care system here in Canada. When we created the universal health care system that we are so proud of, several aspects of health care were left out. At the top of that list is dental care, so I am proud that we will be bringing dental care coverage to all Canadians who need it, through this agreement. It would start with free dental care for all children without coverage this year, and by the third year we would have dental care for everyone with a household income of less than $90,000 who does not have coverage now.

I have already spoken in this House about the impact this would have. It would be literally life-changing for so many lower-income Canadians, who would have access to dental care for the first time, access that so many other Canadians just take for granted. It would not only change people's lives, but it would save our broader health care system millions of dollars. Alex Munter, the CEO of the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, has told us that dental restoration is the most common surgery carried out in that hospital, restoration that is needed because of the lack of preventive care. This program would keep kids out of hospital. I have to remind Canadians that both the Liberals and the Conservatives voted down this exact initiative less than a year ago, so the NDP is very proud that it would move ahead to change lives for the better.

Similarly, the confidence and supply agreement ensures that universal pharmacare would be added to our health care coverage. Canada is the only country with comprehensive health care coverage that does not include prescribed medications in that coverage. This program would not only save lives, as 10% of Canadians simply cannot afford to fill their prescriptions, but it would save the Canadian economy more than $4 billion a year through the power of a single buyer when we purchase medications. More savings, over $10 billion per year according to some estimates, would accrue by simply keeping people out of hospital and keeping them healthier through proper medication.

I recently spoke here about the crisis in long-term care, so I will not go into detail, other than to say that one of the other points in our agreement was to bring a safe long-term care act, which would go a long way toward ensuring that our seniors can live in dignity.

The issue that is critical for many Canadians, certainly in my riding, is housing: the impossible cost of buying a house, the ridiculous rental rates and the extreme difficulty in even finding rental accommodation. My riding has an unenviable combination of high housing prices, with the average house price in my riding running at about $1 million, and low incomes. The average single income in my riding is around $30,000.

In our agreement with the Liberals, the NDP won an extension of the rapid housing initiative, which would add $1.5 billion in funding to build more than 4,500 affordable housing units.

We have also made the government's rental construction financing initiative actually work for renters across the country. Previously, this program, which is the biggest CMHC program for rental housing, was doing little or nothing to provide affordable housing. It was giving money to developers to build rental units that were then being rented at an average of 50% above the average market value, so we were giving out taxpayers' money to help developers charge excessive rent. The NDP has fixed this, to ensure that 40% of these units will be rented out at below 80% of average market rent. In my riding, that means the production of units that will be offered at $900 per month, compared to the former Liberal rates of $2,000 per month.

We still have more to do. The NDP has pledged to build half a million units of affordable housing over 10 years, to make up the effort lost over the past 30 years, after successive Liberal and Conservative governments got out of the affordable housing game. We will continue pressing the government to make these necessary investments so that all Canadians can have a roof over their head.

I will briefly mention that I am disappointed that this budget seems to do little for the fight against climate change. In particular, I have real concerns that billions of dollars will be given to highly profitable oil and gas companies to try to implement carbon capture technologies that will likely delay rather than hasten our shift to a cleaner energy future.

When balancing budgets, governments too often forget the revenue side of the equation. During the pandemic, most Canadians have suffered financially, while a few in the 1% have made extraordinary profits. The NDP had called for an excessive profits tax, as well as a wealth tax of 1% for those Canadians who have assets over $10 million, to make sure the costs of the pandemic are borne more by those who can afford it rather than have the burden fall on the majority of Canadians who have suffered.

While the Liberals did not agree to our reasonable request, they have agreed to levy a one-time excess profit tax of 15% for banks and a permanent 1.5% tax increase for banks. These two measures will recoup over $6 billion in taxes over the next five years. The NDP would have preferred that the excess profit tax be extended to big corporations such as big oil companies and big box retailers such as Walmart, which made a $3.5-billion profit in the fourth quarter of 2021 alone. We are also disappointed that these taxes are not included in this budget implementation act.

I will finish by mentioning one small victory in excise tax reform that stems from my private member's bill, Bill C-267, which would remove the alcohol excise tax from low-alcohol beer. Low-alcohol wine and spirits do not face this tax. None of Canada's trading partners charge this tax. My bill was meant to make a common sense change to the excise tax to level the playing field. The beer industry was paying more than $1 million every year in excise tax on low-alcohol beer. The beer industry and millions of Canadians who drink low-alcohol beer, and myself, are all happy to see this bill incorporated into this budget implementation act.

I was disappointed to see that other issues stemming from the changes to the Excise Act were not dealt with in this budget. Many wineries in my riding will be paying excise tax for the first time, since their exemption was eliminated after a challenge at the World Trade Organization. Wine Growers Canada has been calling for permanent trade legal support for the industry to match the supports provided by other major wine-producing countries. The government has offered temporary 18-month support, but I was hoping for a more long-lasting measure that would really make a difference in this important industry.

The NDP will continue working to make life better for Canadians. I believe this bill is a step in the right direction, but we have a long journey to go.

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

Madam Speaker, I look at the budget from a holistic approach. There are many things within the budget one can talk about. When I reflect on the last federal election, Canadians did send a message that whether one was in government or in opposition, the expectation was that people would take their roles in a very responsible fashion.

Part of what we have witnessed over the last number of weeks and months is that there seems to be a higher sense of co-operation and recognition that by working together we can be more effective at getting things done for Canadians in all regions of the country. That does not limit an opposition party to work with the government and at the same time be a critic of the government. Could my friend provide his thoughts on that?

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

Madam Speaker, I would agree with the member for Winnipeg North. Most Canadians and constituents I talk to want politicians to collaborate and act collegially to create the best for Canadians and to make sure we are working here to make lives better for Canadians.

That is what the NDP has been concentrating on. We were very happy to work on this agreement with the Liberals because they agreed to put forward several pieces of legislation that we have been putting forward and they have been voting against. However, they have agreed to do that because we know it will make life better for Canadians.

Yes, we still have plenty to criticize the Liberals for, and we will continue doing that, but I think this is what Canadians want to see.

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

Madam Speaker, NDP members keep referring to carbon capture and storage. Carbon capture and storage is happening right now. It is happening in my constituency and in other places. There is an existing project that received a substantial amount of public funds, but there is a new project that is being developed, the Polaris project, built entirely with private funds, taking advantage of carbon credits. This is the private sector investing in carbon capture technology, benefiting from carbon credits and doing so in a way that reduces emissions while creating jobs and opportunities.

It is really hard for me to understand politicians in this place who say they care about the environment attacking technology that works, that reduces emissions, and seemingly attacking it only on the basis that the private sector is involved. It is as if the NDP is not so much motivated by concern for the environment as it is by just a general antipathy toward any kind of private sector development or companies involved in the oil and gas sector trying to be part of the solution.

Will NDP members recognize the reality that carbon capture and storage works, that it is working now, and take the opportunity to at least see it in action—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We will have to allow the hon. member to answer.

The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not so much concerned about carbon capture and storage because the private sector is involved. What I am concerned about is that the oil and gas sector is involved and is using that carbon capture and storage technique to basically pump more oil and gas out of the ground. It is enhanced oil recovery.

It has been going on for years in the United States. There is a lot of data to show that it does not work in terms of reducing the amount of emissions into the atmosphere overall. It is really designed to get more oil and gas out of the ground, which will be burned and create more emissions. That is why we are concerned about this kind of carbon capture and storage.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

At the beginning of his speech, he spoke a lot about the need for new housing. However, the housing announced in the budget will not be available for another two or three years, because housing cannot be built instantaneously. Still, there may be a way to help people find housing.

For example, in some regions, Airbnb has taken over 20, 25 or 30 housing units so that it can profit off of renting them out by the day or the week.

Would this not be a way to control these companies, to ensure that these units remain permanent rental units for residents?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that important question. Certainly in my riding, short-term rentals such as Airbnb are a huge part of the housing problem, because everybody wants to come to my riding for a holiday. I would comment that most of the laws regarding Airbnb are municipal and provincial, but I would certainly be happy to enter into that debate here if it were put forward.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Niagara West.

I would like to quote a fiscal Conservative, who stated:

Canadians want to know that the principles guiding government are ones that they share.

Here are our principles.

First, governments created the deficit burden. And so governments must resolve it—by focusing first in their own backyards—by getting spending down, not by putting taxes up.

Second, our fiscal strategy will be worth nothing if at the end of the day we have not provided hope for jobs and for growth. We must focus on getting growth up at the same time as we strive to get spending down.

Third, we must be frugal in everything we do. Waste in government is simply not tolerable.

Fourth, we must forever put aside the old notion that new government programs require additional spending. They don’t. What they do require is the will to shut down what doesn’t work and focus on what can. That is why a central thrust of our effort is reallocation. Whether on the spending side or on the revenue side, every initiative in this budget reflects a shift from lower to higher priority areas.

...finally, we must always be fair and compassionate. It is the most vulnerable whose voices are often the least strong. We must never let the need to be frugal become an excuse to stop being fair.

That was former finance minister Paul Martin in his 1996 budget speech. He understood how to create jobs and growth: It was to focus on growth at the same time as getting spending down and not putting taxes up. It was to forever put aside the old notion that new government programs required additional spending.

This budget in front of the House today does the opposite. It increases taxes. It increases spending, and spends on consumption rather than on investment. This is an approach the current government has taken since it came to office in 2015, and it is not working. In fact, the government admits to this in its own budget.

On page 25 of the budget document, there is a chart entitled, “Average Potential Annual Growth in Real GDP per capita, Selected OECD Countries, 2020-2060”. In this chart, Canada is dead last. It is an indictment of the economic policies of the government over the past six years. While the budget pays lip service to jobs and growth, it does not have a credible plan to create them.

Here is what the CEO of RBC, David McKay, said recently about the government’s economic policies. RBC is one of the largest private-sector employers in Canada. He stated:

Tax and spend to me is like eating Sugar Pops for breakfast. You feel really good for an hour and you feel crappy by noon, at the end of the day. And that’s what tax-and-spend gives you. It doesn’t give you sustainable prosperity.

The budget increases taxes. In fact, it levies a new tax on significant financial institutions, which have been one of the few sectors of growth in the Canadian economy in recent years.

The budget increases government spending. It calls for more than $56 billion in new spending over the next six years. That comes on top of the additional spending that was announced in last fall’s economic update. That, in turn, comes on top of the additional spending announced in last year's budget. In fact, the government is now spending $70 billion a year more than it did before the pandemic hit. That is more than 3% of GDP, which is an incredible increase in government spending.

Despite all this new spending, the government is not allocating spending in the right places. For example, the spending does not reflect the need to strengthen Canada’s defence and security and the need to uphold our international commitments.

All of this new spending announced in the budget in last fall's economic update, and in last year’s budget, is not going to the Canadian military. First off, a big problem with the budget documents, in terms of transparency to Parliament, is that the government is proposing two very different and contradictory figures for military spending in the budget documents. One number it proposes is an additional $8 billion over the next five years, but elsewhere in the budget it proposes an additional $23 billion over the next three years. These numbers are not fully accounted for.

If we set aside the two different figures in the budget for military spending, even if we take the most optimistic scenario that the government has laid out in the budget, it still doesn't meet Canada’s international NATO commitments.

The world changed on February 24. Russia attacked Ukraine, beginning the first war between states in Europe since 1945. In doing so, autocratic states such as Russia have made it clear that they are prepared to attack democracies abroad and here at home.

Other governments have realized that the world has changed. That is why, on February 27, Germany did a U-turn on decades of foreign and military policy. Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who heads a centre-left coalition, announced that Germany would immediately begin increasing defence spending to meet and exceed the 2% NATO commitment, beginning with an immediate infusion of $140 billion Canadian in new military spending.

The German government understands that the world has changed. The Liberal government does not.

NATO members have had a long-standing commitment to spend 2% of gross domestic product on the military. As I've just mentioned, Germany will be meeting that commitment. Canada’s closest allies already exceed that commitment, including the United States, the United Kingdom and France. Canada does not, and the budget contains no measures for us to meet that NATO commitment. In fact, in the latest NATO data, Canada ranks 25th out of 29 member states of NATO, in terms of our contribution to our defence and security.

That was not always the case. Canada was once a leading contributor to the alliance. More than 1.1 million Canadians served in the Second World War, and over 40,000 paid the ultimate sacrifice and gave their lives in defence of this country. For decades, throughout the 1980s and well into the early 1990s, Canada exceeded the 2% commitment. Canada spent more than 2% of its gross domestic product on defence.

Here is why that lack of defence spending should concern us all. There is no greater guarantee of peace and security in this world than military strength.

In fact, before 1945, in North America, both Canada and the United States had no standing militaries of any scale to deter aggression. In the century before 1945, our histories were replete with bloody and costly wars that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of our citizens in defence of democracy, freedom and the rule of law.

That is why, since 1945, we have pledged to never again go through that horrific period in history, as we agreed to establish standing militaries of sufficient size to deter the aggression we are seeing around the world and, potentially, the aggression we might see in the Indo-Pacific region.

The greatest guarantor of peace and security is a strong and robust military. Because the government is not allocating enough spending to Canada’s military, it is leaving Canada exposed and vulnerable in a violent and unstable world.

As Mr. Martin understood almost three decades ago, the budget should create jobs and growth by getting spending down and not by getting taxes up, and by forever putting aside the old notion that new government programs require additional spending. What spending does take place should take the form of investment, rather than consumption.

The government, though, has forgotten the lessons of the 1990s. Taxes and spending are up. New programs have not come from reallocation but from additional spending, and this spending comes in the form of consumption, rather than investment.

Despite all this additional spending, the government's budget does not uphold our NATO defence spending commitment, as outlined in the Wales Summit Declaration of 2014.

For all those reasons, I cannot support this budget.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech, and with not just a little puzzlement.

He quoted rather fondly former prime minister Martin, yet he was part of the government that took what was record debt reimbursement and turned it into new, and structural, deficits over the life of the government he was a part of. He quotes NATO spending. NATO spending, as a percentage of GDP, went under 1% under his watch and that of the government he was part of.

I am just wondering this. Now that he has run and knocked on doors and asked people to support a bigger spending platform than that which the Liberal Party proposed in last year's election, how does he reconcile the views he states today with all of these very puzzling seeming contradictions?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are no contradictions at all. In fact, when the current government took office on November 5, 2015, it inherited a budget surplus. The previous government had balanced the budget by the time the current government took office. In fact, it then spent an inordinate amount of money until the fiscal year end of March 31, 2016, that actually pushed the country back into deficit. It was under the Liberals' watch that the country went into deficit in early 2016.

With respect to our NATO defence spending commitments, it is true that defence spending did not meet that commitment during much of the aughts, nor did it during much of the 1990s, but that was in the context of the fall of the Berlin Wall, when we assumed that autocratic states such as Russia and China would improve their records on human rights, democracy and rule of law and would be good partners in the international order. That changed on February 24 with Russia's invasion of Ukraine: the first attack on a European democracy by another European state. That is why we now need to do what Germany has done, and increase defence spending to 2% of gross domestic product.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the issues that is very concerning to me, and that was not addressed in this budget at all, is marriage after 60. We know that if veterans, military folks, RCMP and our federal civil servants get married after 60, their partners get no survivor benefits after those members pass. Right now, we are working with an amazing human being who put away $153,000 out of his own pension to look after his partner when he passed. Now, she is very ill, and it does not look like she is going to make it. I think it is very concerning that the $153,000 is not going to be returned to that person.

Could the member speak about how important it is to recognize the people who served us so well, and their partners?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's question highlights an important debt of gratitude and an important debt we all owe, as Canadians, to the veterans who have served this country, both in current and past conflicts.

I know that my wife has many members of her family who have contributed to Canada's armed forces and served in uniform in both of the great wars of the 20th century. I would not be here today were it not for Canadian soldiers who defended Hong Kongers during the vicious battle of Hong Kong in the early days of the Second World War, and my mother with her family was liberated by Canadian soldiers during the liberation of the Netherlands. We must do better to ensure that today's generation of veterans has the supports necessary to ensure they can live out their years in peace, and with the sufficient supports we all owe to them.

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

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague expressed his disappointment with the government's investments in the armed forces. I would have liked to hear more on this topic.

As members know, a lot of the equipment available to our armed forces is positively ancient, and the Canadian Armed Forces are chronically under-funded. For example, our soldiers are using handguns from around the time of the Second World War, and they cannot even get boots.

I would like to hear my colleague share his thoughts on the Canadian army's procurement system and the difficult financial position it is in now.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I go to the hon. member, I want to remind members who want to have side conversations that it is best to take them elsewhere.

I would like a brief answer from the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I think we need to invest more in equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces. It is clear that we have a problem because, after sending only $100 million worth of equipment to Ukraine, the government said it could not give any more, because we have no more equipment to give.

It is therefore clear that spending on the Canadian Forces must be increased to ensure our safety and security here in Canada.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the more than six years since the Liberal government was elected, it has proven itself to be good at two things. First, it is excellent at spending massive amounts of money on debt, with limited results. Second, it is phenomenal at wedging, dividing and stigmatizing people, and ridiculing Canadians who disagree with it. That is the sum total of the Prime Minister and his government's record over the last six years.

They are not good stewards of the economy and they certainly—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have to interrupt the member. From what I can see, there is a problem with interpretation. I think it is because the hon. member's mike is probably not picking him up.

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

Madam Speaker, the interpretation service is indicating that the member's headset is not working properly. Perhaps it is something technical that should be checked.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Could the hon. member check his mike? I do not know if he has the new headset. It is working.

I want to remind members who are participating virtually to make sure that the correct mike and headphones are being used.

The hon. member for Niagara West can continue.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals are not good stewards of the economy and they certainly were not able to unify the country. However, they have managed to divide Canadians just enough so they can squeak in a minority, although they continue to lose the popular vote election after election. I would not say that it is a strong mandate at all, yet they pretend like it is.

They have also managed to plunge us into inflation so bad that they have had to scramble to explain why. They would have us believe that it is not their fault. We have heard virtually all members deflect and blame everything and everyone else for it, but ultimately it is their fiscal management and astronomical spending and debt that got us into this problem at this point.

What is this point? Well, for the first time in 31 years, prices are up over 6.7% compared with the previous year. This means higher grocery prices for Canadian families every time they go into the store. As a matter of fact, food prices are up 8.7% since last year.

Families are certainly aware of gas prices every time they fill up their tanks on their way to work or to drop kids off at school. Dan McTeague, president of Canadians for Affordable Energy, is warning that gas prices could reach $2.20 a litre this summer, with diesel going even higher. That is over a 32% increase in gas prices since last year.

In addition to gas, home heating prices are up. We live in a cold country. Canadian families have no choice but to turn up the thermostat in winter, and they have certainly seen the difference in their gas bills this past winter. Electrical bills have also gone up. Ultimately, everything Canadians purchase and pay for, or what economists call the cost of living, is going up and is going up fast.

As the Canadian Press notes:

A report by RBC Economics says inflation and rising borrowing costs will affect all Canadian households, but low income Canadians will feel the sharpest sting.... RBC estimates the lowest income Canadians will also be more affected as they spend a much larger share of their earnings on consumer purchases.

It follows that “low income households have a smaller cash cushion to deal with the rise in prices and borrowing costs.”

I am sure members of the NDP-Liberal government will stand up after my speech and try to deflect and blame others for their failures, as they usually do. Perhaps they will even invoke Stephen Harper's name again, which is a common theme. Let us remind them that it is 2022. They have been in power for more than six years, and these dismal results are entirely of their own doing.

However, they have started to understand that their tired, old tactic of blaming previous governments is no longer effective. Canadians see that and they no longer believe them. I am sure the Liberals see it in the polls. They have realized it quickly and are trying to pivot to what would be another failed tactic. Political games are what the NDP-Liberal government is good at, not managing the economy and not managing our country's finances. It is only about playing politics. What is the plan? I ask because it certainly does not seem like there is one.

Franco Terrazzano, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said:

[The finance minister] is giving taxpayers another credit card budget with no plan to pay the bills on time and chip away at the $1-trillion debt.... [The finance minister] is taking the wait-and-see approach to the government’s credit card bills and hoping the economy can grow faster than its borrowing, but that’s not a good bet with its track record of runaway spending.

The latest statistics bear repeating because we are in a fairly dire situation. Statistics Canada recently reported that inflation has reached its highest point since January 1991. We have all seen the news. Millions of Canadians are barely hanging on. Canadian families are spending thousands of dollars more in groceries this year compared with last, food prices are up across Canada by more than 7% and housing is a huge problem the government has done almost nothing about. In fact, since the Prime Minister and his Liberals were elected in 2015, prices for homes have doubled. The average price was over $800,000 in February, a record, and this is more than nine times the average household income.

In fact, according to Fortune magazine, the standard home in Canada costs almost twice as much as the U.S. equivalent. Robert Hogue, RBC assistant chief economist, said that increases are “nothing short of stunning”. That is incredibly discouraging for Canadian families to hear when they are looking to purchase a home.

The Conservatives have raised the alarm bells for many years on this specific issue, but the calls have fallen on deaf ears. Some of the most vulnerable Canadians, such as seniors, are also falling even further behind. Let us put it this way, just so everyone, hopefully including members of the NDP-Liberal government, will understand: More than half of Canadians are $200 or less away from not being able to pay their bills or rent, and 31% are unable to cover their bills because they do not earn enough income. Three in 10 Canadians are already falling behind at the end of the month.

What is worse is that this budget does nothing to address any of this. It does not do anything to address our deep economic challenges and make the lives of Canadians easier. It only makes them harder.

Even on one of the Liberals' supposed strong suits, the environment, we recently learned from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the carbon tax is not revenue-neutral. I hope everyone in the chamber remembers the number of times the Prime Minister and the Liberals repeated that the carbon tax was going to be revenue-neutral. I would venture to say it was hundreds of times, if not thousands, in the House, in the media and in their announcements throughout the country. In the end, was it true? Of course it was not. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that middle-class Canadians should expect to pay hundreds of dollars, if not thousands, because of the carbon tax. That is not revenue-neutral.

The difficult thing for me is that the Prime Minister and the Liberals already knew this. They knew that this would not be revenue-neutral, yet they still went around repeating what they knew not to be true. They repeated it so often that it convinced many Canadians.

Where are the Liberal MPs and the Prime Minister now? We now have evidence that the carbon tax is not what they told us it would be. In fact, it is pretty much the opposite. Will they take ownership? Will they admit they were not telling the truth? On this side of the House, we will not hold our breath.

Once again, the Liberals will skate around the question, skirt the issue and move on to their next failed attempt to implement another ill-advised policy, perhaps like a digital ID, which Canadians are rejecting because they do not trust the government. Who could blame them? There was the WE Charity scandal, the Prime Minister's trip to Paradise Island, the numerous ethics violations and the constant apologies for misdoings, yet the Liberals do the same thing over and over again.

The digital idea is just another example by a ballooning government to introduce further and unnecessary government restrictions on Canadians. The Liberals will attempt to hurl insults for even bringing this up. On page 74 of budget 2021, they proposed to “provide $105.3 million over five years...to Transport Canada to collaborate with international partners to further advance the Known Traveller Digital Identity pilot project”, a project pushed by the now notorious and controversial World Economic Forum. The government claims that this project will be used to “test advanced technologies to facilitate touchless and secure air travel”. However, the concerns around it are already pouring in. Civil liberties groups and governments are sounding off and opposing any form of digital ID. In fact, the Government of Saskatchewan realized the ill-advised nature of the digital ID program and announced a few weeks ago that it was nixing the planned rollout.

Many Canadians are not even aware of the digital ID programs that are now at various phases of rollout in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. Now the federal government is planning one of its own. I am not sure why governments, including the current one, are so bent and steadfast on having such a tight, restrictive and intrusive grip on Canadians. Why do the Liberals not trust Canadians? Why are they attempting to track them as if they are livestock? In a recent interview, Ann Cavoukian, Ontario's former privacy commissioner, said, “I would never want to get a digital ID.” That is what Ontario's former privacy commissioner said about digital IDs.

There is something very wrong when a government is obsessed with controlling its own citizens and subjecting them to such divisive and invasive technological tools. It is wrong, it must stop and it must stop now. The now infamous vaccine passports were one of the most intrusive tools to ever be put in place, in addition to being incredibly exclusionary. This trajectory cannot continue with yet another divisive tool like a digital ID.

I understand this is being pushed on the government from external and foreign sources of influence, but submitting to this kind of insidious meddling and perpetual surveillance of Canadians' lives is troublesome, to say the least. Having this sort of government control over citizens is plain wrong in a free and democratic society like ours.

Having said that, the government is not just reluctant to accept or support some of our most basic civil liberties. It is also hurting many industries, including a very important one in my own riding, the wine industry. The Liberals failed to freeze the automatic escalator tax increase on alcohol excise duties on April 1, once again putting our winemakers at a competitive disadvantage. This tax increase hurts not only winemakers, but breweries, cideries and distilleries. Let us not forget that over 95% of these producers are small businesses, many of which have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the inflation crisis, payroll tax increases, labour shortages and ongoing supply chain issues. An increase in the tax on alcohol hurts the industry, from growers and producers to restaurants and consumers. It is time to end this and give this incredible world-renowned sector a break from the never-ending increase on government.

In sum, Canadians cannot afford more—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but I have been trying to give the hon. member a signal. His time is up. I did allow him to wrap up a bit, but I thought he was ending. I see he still has a bit more.

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

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

Madam Speaker, what comes to my mind in listening to the member is that he sure put a lot of words in that speech, much of which, I must say, I disagree with. Canadians can have more hope. They do not have to be as depressed as the member is trying to imply. Whether it is Canada's job sector or many of the different social programs being put into place, there is good reason for Canadians to support the budget, which they have already, for the most part, seen and are receiving quite well.

Does the member recognize anything good in this budget, or is it completely and universally a bad thing, from his perspective? I think there is a lot of good that he is not talking about at all.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would encourage my friend to come down to Niagara some time to see the crippling effect the passport problem is having on tourism in the Niagara area. If he looks at the ArriveCAN app, that is another issue. If the member were to see what is going on with hotels and the whole tourism industry, he would see how people and travel are down in a significant way.

I look around my riding, and I look at the businesses that are struggling right now, and a lot of that comes from the policies of the government. I would encourage the member to not just spend all kinds of money on programs, but to come to see what some of the other things are doing to affect travel and tourism.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I know he lives in the Niagara region, whose wines I really enjoy, by the way.

He heard what I said earlier about temporary foreign workers, about the lack of resources and about the ridiculous chaos we are experiencing, which is jeopardizing not only our agricultural production, but also the survival of our businesses. Could my colleague comment on that?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his love of Niagara wines. I too have a love of Niagara wines. We see a number of challenges in farming. The temporary foreign worker program is definitely an issue. I previously also heard some of my other colleagues talking about fertilizer and tariffs.

A farmer called me the other day and told me they are going to pay almost more money in tariffs than they had to pay for fertilizer. I ask members to think about that. A tariff is a tax. It is a tax on everyone. This is fertilizer that farmers prepaid for last fall. I understand there is a war going on. I understand a number of things are being levied. When we put a tariff on fertilizer, we are putting a tax on Canadians, and that is a huge issue that will cost us more. To make matters worse, we have issues with getting the kind of temporary foreign workers we need so we can get the food in the ground, and once it is there, we also need help getting that food harvested.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to learn that the NDP is in government, because I was not aware of that.

The Liberal government is incapable of providing services to Canadians. The immigration delays are a catastrophe. The unemployed find it impossible to talk to someone about employment insurance. Now there is a crisis with passports, even though everyone knew that people would want to travel when the pandemic ended.

Is my colleague seeing the same thing in his riding? People may well have to give up their plane tickets and their travel plans because government offices cannot meet the demand for passports.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are seeing lineup after lineup of people not being able to get their passports. I have a number of constituents, just as all my colleagues in the House do. There are people who applied in January and February. It is now May, and they are still not able to get their passports. This is causing great consternation. They are wondering if they are going to be able to get their flights, be able to get them on time, or are actually going to be able to travel.

After two years, we realize there are going to be a number of people who want to travel, so it would have been prudent to increase the number of staff to handle the workload that was going to happen as a result of the passports expiring over the last couple of years.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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 Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Brantford—Brant, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills.

It is always an honour to stand in the House and speak to a number of measures, in this case it is one of the most important measures that a government could introduce, the budget implementation act, or the BIA. I remember when I was on the finance committee for a number of years, this was a very important time of year, when the BIA was sent to the committee for deep analysis and study. I know this year will be no different at the finance committee.

I want to take an opportunity to address Bill C-19 in the House, and to speak to it from, I suppose, a different point of view. I want to speak on economic matters but economic matters that are proposed in the bill that would impact Canada's foreign relations. I think it would be appropriate to begin, arguably at least, with one of Canada's most important voices on the international scene, and that is former prime minister Lester Pearson.

Long before he was a prime minister, in 1957, while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Lester Pearson said:

Of all our dreams today there is none more important — or so hard to realise — than that of peace in the world. May we never lose our faith in it or our resolve to do everything that can be done to convert it one day into reality.

This is a tremendous insight, obviously, one that Pearson believed in very strongly when he was speaking in 1957, and one that has occupied the attention of statesmen and even members of Parliament in democracies throughout the world. Canada is no different.

The question, the challenge, is how to best achieve this, particularly from the vantage point of a middle power such as Canada, a middle power that has tried to find its way, particularly in the post-World War Two order, surrounded as we are by superpowers, such as the United States, China and Russia. How exactly is it possible for a middle power to exert influence on the international scene so this goal of world peace could be possible?

The dilemma is a real one and one that could be achieved by looking at what Canada has done. I speak here not only in terms of the Pearsonian legacy of foreign policy, which is a strong and very proud tradition in the Liberal Party, but also of the real important voices from the Conservative Party through Canada's history who have sought to find a place for Canada in middle power terms.

One possible path forward that has worked is diplomacy. I think of Pearson, and I think of diplomats such as George Ignatieff and Saul Rae, and there are others I could point to as well. They, in their work as diplomats, found a way. They carved a way for Canada so we could exert influence on the international scene. That would involve, of course, peacekeeping. That is a great example of what Canada has done in the past to pursue this goal of international peace.

Another example would be working with international development organizations, specifically those non-governmental organizations that are on the ground, carrying out vital work in lesser developed countries, in countries where poverty is the experience of so many, or is the experience of the vast majority.

When we look at governments of the past, when we look at the government, we see governments that have funded, have helped to fund and worked with NGOs, which are pursuing those very laudable aims of economic growth and development, encouraging entrepreneurship, encouraging peace and bringing people together at the same time.

Since 2015, I have had the opportunity to visit a number of countries in my tenure as a member of Parliament, including Ukraine, and I wonder if there will be an opportunity later in questions where I could speak to that. Ukraine was one example, and there is also Colombia, Nicaragua, Kazakhstan, Poland and Latvia. I have had the opportunity to see NGOs, supported by the Canadian government, carry out that vital work. Through that, the goals of a middle power could be achieved, with that goal of ultimately coming back to peace.

Contributing to multilateral institutions is another key way that a middle power such as Canada could make a contribution to this outcome. Especially now, how relevant it is that we see Canada highly engaged in NATO.

I know there are voices out there that want us to do more, and yes, of course, we can do more. I think if we were to canvass the opinion of NATO allies and NATO leaders, we would find that Canada's contributions, specifically with respect to what is happening now, vis-à-vis Russia and Ukraine, is not just applauded, it is admired. We need to continue that work, and of course there are policy innovations that can help us move toward the path of peace and human rights, which ultimately underpin peace.

That brings me to the budget implementation act, or the BIA, Bill C-19. I am thinking of the Special Economic Measures Act, the SEMA, and the Magnitsky law, which takes its name from the great champion of human rights, Sergei Magnitsky, who lost his life for his advocacy at the hands of Vladimir Putin and his regime. Under those existing laws, property held in Canada by individuals involved in the undermining of international peace and security, or the gross and systematic violation of international human rights norms, can be seized. That property can, in fact, be seized by the Canadian government. There is a challenge, though, which is where the BIA comes in. What is exactly meant in the SEMA and in the Magnitsky act by the term “property”? How is that defined conceptually?

Under SEMA, for example, property is defined as any real or personal property. That is one way forward. Again, I go back to criticisms that have been raised before that this needs greater clarity and greater precision in the legislative language. Bill C-19 rectifies that and would add an extended definition if it is agreed to by the House, which I think and hope it will be. Should Bill C-19 pass, property would be defined as any type of property immovable or movable, tangible or intangible.

What does that mean in concrete terms? It means that property includes not just physical assets, such as a building, for example, or planes, homes, helicopters or jets, all the things that certain individuals, such as tycoons around the Russian regime, for example, are known to keep, but also money and, very importantly, virtual currency. Cryptocurrency would fall under this new definition and something called non-fungible tokens, which are, for example, digital art or audio recordings that can be found and purchased online. This is important because it is crucial that legislation along these lines keeps up with modern developments. I am glad to see the government recognizing that and moving in the right direction.

Most importantly, though, is the change that allows for seized assets to be sold by the Canadian government. Those assets that would be seized from individuals who have been found to be going against or somehow undermining international peace and diplomacy, or who are involved in the violation of international human rights, could be not only seized under this proposed change but also redistributed as compensation. They could be sold, to be simple about it, with the proceeds going to victims to advance goals of international peace and security in some way, or to assist the rebuilding of a foreign state after war. The post-war rebuilding process always proves to be very important. It is complex, to be sure, but very important.

Should this pass, I know that the government has said that certainly the aim would be to assist the Ukrainian people, the victims of Putin's war and, after the carnage that it has brought about for Ukraine, to assist the government in a massive rebuilding. Canada needs to be there and must be there as part of what some have called a “Marshall Plan”, envisioning what Ukraine could look like in terms of a project for the future. I say “project” in the sense that allies would come together and assist another vital ally, which is obviously going through a very difficult time.

Others have raised a point of checks and balances, so I am heartened to see that only a superior court justice would be able to give the order allowing for seized assets to be sold. I think that is quite crucial when it comes to ensuring that there are checks and balances on the decision to seize and sell an asset in the way I have described, the way the bill proposes.

Finally, I will conclude on this point: There has been a lot of commentary in the media and other circles that points to the fact that this amendment to the SEMA and the Magnitsky act comes in the context of the crisis in Ukraine. I would say that it sends an example for the world, and I am glad to see that Canada is the first G7 country to lead the effort. Hopefully, the other democracies pick it up and employ it as well.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to say to my colleague that I appreciated his speech. I serve with him on the public accounts committee.

One thing that I would like him to address is the cost of living crisis that is going on. Right now in my riding we see farmers seeding and planting their crops in the ground. Obviously, the price of gas is extremely high, and although there are some exemptions there, it makes it very expensive not only for farmers to buy fuel, but also for the supporting services out there for farmers. I wonder if the member could comment on the lack of mention of that in the BIA.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member and I have the opportunity to work together on the public accounts committee, and I have enjoyed the experience with him so far.

I take it that he agrees with everything I said with respect to the amendments that have been proposed to the SEMA and the Magnitsky act, so we can at least agree on that point.

On the cost of living, I certainly sympathize. I hear it in my community. I think all members in this House recognize that inflation is a real phenomenon, but we ought to recognize that it is driven completely by events that have transpired at the international level, beginning with the pandemic and the way it has upended supply chains, as well as the irregular weather patterns and the way they have impacted supply chains. The way we can respond is to do what government is able to do. For example, the national child care program that has been proposed will help. The continued impact of the Canada child benefit will help.

There are other examples of areas in which we can work together collaboratively to make life more affordable for Canadians, and I look forward to working with the member to that end on the public accounts committee.

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

Madam Speaker, listening to my colleague's speech, which was essentially on foreign affairs, led me to ask myself a personal question that my colleague across the way may be able to answer.

Currently, when we talk about foreign affairs, we talk about ties to other countries, but also about travel. In our offices, we are completely overwhelmed with calls from tearful constituents saying they submitted their passport applications weeks ago. Some applied months ago and still have not received their passport. They are at a loss as to what to do and say they will cancel their trip and lose their reservations.

Since my colleague is passionate about foreign affairs, what does he think about the way the government is handling this situation? Personally, I find it really deplorable.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is true. I hear it in my own community. Certainly, the staff at the constituency office are helping individuals as best they can with respect to passports. That is something that has been raised in this House, and I expect it will continue to be raised. We are seeing across the country a huge increase in the demand for travel. I believe there has been a 40% increase, to be specific. Naturally, when we have that kind of an increase, we will have quite a lot of people pushing for a passport renewal. I think the government needs to continue to ensure that individuals have timely access to that, as much as possible, through Service Canada. The minister responsible has been very clear that extra hours have been made available. More staff have been brought in on weekends, for instance, and are working overtime. I know it is a difficult thing for people to go through, but it really does reflect the fact that we are seeing an increase in demand all at once, and this is the outcome, unfortunately.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with interest as he connected Bill C-19 to international events.

I want to ask him something that relates to his role as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue. There were some moves against banks to tax their excess profits. Why is the government so reluctant to extend that tax on excess profits to the big box stores and gas companies that are profiteering while other Canadians are struggling to make ends meet?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would be very happy to speak to the member and then have a lengthier conversation and get his thoughts, but certainly, tax fairness is at the very heart of this government's agenda. We have seen taxes go down for the middle class. We have seen taxes rise for the wealthiest 1% in recent years. We have seen the government make sure that corporations are paying their fair share, and that will continue. The NDP will have ideas on this, but I think the government's record speaks for itself, and it is a strong record.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-19, the budget implementation act. This bill proposes to officially implement many of the important measures contained in budget 2022, tabled just a few weeks ago, measures that would impact people from all walks of life in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills.

Budget 2022 contains targeted and responsible investments to create jobs and prosperity today and build a stronger economic future for all Canadians tomorrow. Its proposed measures set out to make investments in Canadians and to make life more affordable for them, in economic growth and innovation and in promoting a clean economy. In particular, budget 2022 takes significant steps to help build more homes and make housing more affordable across the country, and it is housing that I would like to talk about today.

As we know, everyone should have a safe and affordable home, but this goal, which was taken for granted by previous generations, is no longer within the reach of a growing number of Canadians, including young people in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills. Increasing the supply of housing would make housing more affordable, but it is not the only solution; there have to be more measures taken.

For example, in budget 2022 there is an issue that is addressed, and that is the concern that foreign investment and speculation will increase the cost of housing in Canada. The government has an important role to play in addressing these issues. The 2022 budget proposes new measures that would prohibit foreign investment in residential real estate and ensure that speculators and homeowners who quickly sell their properties pay their fair share of taxes. I know that Vancouver and Toronto have received most of the attention in this regard, but those impacts can also be felt in other parts of the country, including in Mississauga—Erin Mills.

Bill C-19 would enact the prohibition on the purchase of residential property by non-Canadians act. It is a new statute that implements a ban on foreign investment in Canadian housing. The ban on foreign investment in Canadian housing is aimed at curtailing foreign demand in light of concerns that foreign buyers may be contributing to pricing some Canadians out of the housing market. The proposed legislation would prohibit people who are neither Canadian citizens nor permanent residents from acquiring residential property in Canada, whether directly or indirectly, for a period of two years.

The government's intention in this regard is that refugees and persons who have been authorized to come to Canada on emergency travel to flee international crises would be exempt. Foreign students who are in the process of obtaining permanent residence would also be exempt in certain circumstances, as would work permit holders who are residents of Canada.

As well, speculative trading in the Canadian housing market contributes to higher prices for Canadians. These transactions can include the resale of homes before they are built or before they are lived in, such as the assignment of a contract of sale. This creates an opportunity for speculators to be dishonest about their original intentions and creates uncertainty for everyone involved in an assignment sale as to whether GST or HST apply. The current rules also result in the uneven application of GST or HST to the full and final prices of these new homes that have not been lived in before.

Therefore, as proposed in budget 2022, Bill C-19 would amend the Excise Tax Act to make assignment sales in respect of newly constructed or substantially renovated residential housing taxable for GST or HST purposes. The amendment also excludes from taxable consideration the amount of deposit paid under an original agreement of purchase and sale that the original purchaser is recovering through that assignment of sale.

This amendment would eliminate the ambiguity that can arise under the existing rules regarding the GST or HST treatment of assignment sales by making all assignment sales by individuals taxable. It would also ensure that the GST or HST applies to the full amount paid for a new home, including any amount paid as a result of an assignment sale, resulting in greater consistency in the tax treatment of new homes.

The government also wants to make housing more affordable for the homes people already live in. For example, seniors and persons with disabilities deserve the opportunity to live and age at home, but renovations and upgrades that make their homes safe and accessible can be costly. In my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills, we see a lot of multi-generational homes, where grandparents live with their children and grandkids in a single dwelling. The opportunity for them to live comfortably is significantly reduced because of the inability of homeowners to provide for important renovations to have that accessibility available to parents as they age.

The home accessibility tax credit already provides supports to offset some of the costs that I am talking about. However, with the rising cost of home renovations, many seniors and people with disabilities feel that they cannot afford the modifications that would allow them to continue to live safely in their homes.

As proposed in budget 2022, to better support independent living and to better support these multi-generational homes, Bill C-19 would amend the Income Tax Act to increase the annual expense limit for the home accessibility tax credit from $10,000 to $20,000. This enhancement would apply to the 2022 and subsequent taxation years. It would provide up to an additional $1,500 in tax support for renovations and alterations that are already eligible under the home accessibility tax credit, for such expenses as the purchase or installation of wheelchair ramps, walk-in bathtubs, wheel-in showers, building a bedroom or bathroom to permit first-floor occupancy, and installing non-slip flooring to help avoid falls.

Our government was elected in 2015 with a promise to deliver a national housing strategy, because even seven years ago it was already hard for Canadians to own a home. We have delivered that strategy and continue to build upon it. We are taking further action to make housing more affordable and to give Canadians that same chance to own a home, as our parents did.

We all know that no one level of government can solve this problem. Our Liberal government is leading the way, and we need every level of government to recognize this issue and work with us to take action. When we talk about building homes, we have to work with the provincial, regional and municipal governments to ensure that developers are operating in a fair and equitable way that is promoting affordable housing and promoting the swift and quality construction of homes that people in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills, for example, can take advantage of.

The measures I just mentioned today in Bill C-19 and from budget 2022 would help make the housing market fairer for Canadians and support more affordable home living for seniors and people with disabilities. If we are serious about taking action on the housing market, I hope that all members in this House can support Bill C-19.

In conclusion, each and every member in this House has a story of a constituent in their community who has struggled with housing and who cannot see a future with a comfortable living space that they can rely on. Housing is a basic right that we should be able to afford to Canadians, and I am proud of the measures being taken in Bill C-19 to ensure that we are continuing to build upon all of the important work we have done with respect to affordable housing over the past seven years.

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

Madam Speaker, as the government continues to increase reliance on temporary foreign workers without the protections that come with permanent resident status, we know that temporary foreign workers are increasingly vulnerable to exploitation. Recently, the Auditor General found, through federal inspections, that the health and safety for temporary foreign workers has gotten worse, and that is after the government promised to fix it in 2020.

Could the member please clarify: Instead of increasing our reliance on exploiting workers to drive down wages, does she agree that the time to negotiate better wages and work conditions for migrant workers, permanent residents and Canadians is now?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I hear very regularly within my community, especially from small business owners, is their inability to find workers and skilled tradespeople who can fill those gaps that are being created. We, as a government, over the past number of years have been finding those pathways to permanent residence for those workers who are highly skilled and want to come and live in Canada on a permanent-residence basis. We need to continue to build and provide those supports.

A number of years ago, I did a study in the justice committee about trafficking in persons and trying to ensure that migrant workers, for example, were very well represented. There is a lot of work that has been done on this, and we are going to continue to do that work with the advocacy of all members in the House.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member about the budget generally. We have seen her government bring forward about $60 billion of deficits this year. In the past couple of years, it said that it needed it because of COVID. It needed all this program spending. We know that the $60-billion deficit this year has no COVID spending. I think it is quite reckless.

I am not sure if she would agree. I would like to know her thoughts. Their government is burdening our generation with a tremendous amount of debt and deficits. That means higher taxes and, frankly, higher inflation that families in her riding and my riding are being impacted by. I would like to know her thoughts. Does she think that it is responsible, now that COVID is over, that the government maintains massive deficits?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the question from the member opposite, I think it is ill-informed. We did spend the past two years making sure that Canadians had roofs over their heads, had food on their tables and were able to safely isolate themselves if they had COVID.

Bill C-19 and budget 2022 are really about providing that economic recovery. The child care plan that we had installed across the country is addressing these very issues. The housing affordability piece in budget 2022 and Bill C-19 is addressing these very issues. The makeup and the buildup toward a greener economy are addressing these issues.

I will remind members in the House that inflation and COVID are not specifically Canadian things. They are worldwide phenomena. Right now is the proper time to invest in Canadians and ensure that they have that foundation to lift up the economy in Canada and globally.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way talked a lot about the impact of inflation on people and what needs to be done to limit that impact. People have been hit hard by this.

She and I are roughly the same age and therefore probably from the same generation. I am concerned about the people who came before us, those who built our country and Quebec, including seniors who have been hit hard. Year after year, they complain about not getting an adequate increase to their pension.

This time it is even worse because, in addition to the fact that the government is doing nothing, inflation continues to rise. I wonder whether my colleague is proud of her government's record, given how badly it has failed seniors.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, I am proud that it was this government that enhanced the CPP so that future seniors will have more pension to live on.

I am proud of this government for increasing old age security. I am proud of this government for investing in affordable housing and investing in long-term care for our seniors.

Bill C-19 shows us the empathy and the care that we have to really build upon in Canada to ensure that seniors in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills and that member's riding, as well, are able to thrive and sustain themselves.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a huge privilege and honour to rise today on the budget implementation act, Bill C-19. I am also very grateful to serve the federal NDP as the critic for mental health and harm reduction.

There are many things in this budget that are a movement toward progress. There are many areas of this budget where there are huge shortfalls. I really want to follow up on what my colleague for Mississauga—Erin Mills spoke about recently, which is housing, because housing has such an impact not just on the economy for small businesses, workers and volunteers in our communities but also on people's mental health, especially when we are seeing the skyrocketing rates of real estate and rents that are out of touch for Canadians. The people who are the most impacted are workers, seniors and those who are the most marginalized. People who were not homeless before are becoming homeless because they are being pushed out onto the streets.

In my home riding and the community I live in, Port Alberni, we saw real estate go up in the last year by 46%. In Oceanside, it went up 34%. The average price of a home is over $1 million, yet we have seen wages remain fairly stagnant. I am probably the only member of Parliament in the House who, after being elected, moved away from his home community to better serve his riding and cannot actually move home. This is because the price of real estate in my home community of Tofino has gone up 400% since I was elected. This not only has an impact on me, but we can imagine the workers in Tofino and how impossible it is for them, or for the small businesses that require workers.

I know this is a huge challenge. We heard solutions come from the Liberals and questions from the Conservatives about housing, but they are fairly consistent in that they have centred their efforts around the free market. The free market will not solve these problems.

I grew up in the seventies and eighties in Victoria, British Columbia. I am really proud of where I grew up and the community I lived in. It took leadership and worked with the federal government to develop some co-ops. As we know, Canada went on a robust co-op housing program that was actually developed through a minority government of the Liberals and the federal NDP working together in the early seventies under our leader David Lewis. It was that agreement that got the national housing program going. They started to develop about 25,000 units on average throughout the 1970s and 1980s.

I was really fortunate to grow up in a co-op housing development. My dad was a transmission mechanic. He still is, actually, and is in his early seventies. He has been working on transmissions for over 50 years. I am so proud of my dad. My mom worked at HRDC as a clerk. They were middle class, if we want to call it that. I am proud of my mom, and it was Mother's Day yesterday. To my mom I say that I know I was not home, but happy Mother's Day. I love my mom and thank her so much. To all the moms in our community, I give thanks.

My parents worked really hard. The co-op was unique in that it provided safe, secure and affordable housing for my mom and dad and my brother Rob and I, but it also provided safe and secure housing for seniors, single parents, people of lower incomes and people on income assistance. I can go back to that co-op in Victoria to this day and some of the friends I grew up with are grandparents and live in that co-op. Their kids and their grandkids live in that co-op.

The problem is that there are not enough co-ops anymore. When the government pulled out of building co-ops and pulled out of the national housing strategy in the early 1990s, we lost 25,000 units a year. We are talking about over 750,000 units to this day in the shortfall of co-op housing.

I was visiting my friends John and Beth last night, who live in co-op housing here in Ottawa. They received safe and secure housing. They were on a wait-list for four years, terrified, which impacted their mental health. They were working two or three jobs and trying to figure out how they were going to make ends meet. They wanted to make sure their daughter Kira could live in a co-op, but they are not even taking names now in the co-op where they live because the wait-list is so long.

In fact, my daughter, who just graduated from the University of Ottawa, dropped me off today and she said, “Dad, I can't talk about ever owning a home, because I don't want to be disappointed.” It is just terrible that this is what we are leaving our children and the people in our communities.

We can look to Europe. First, I will go back to where we are at. We were at 10% of our housing being non-market housing in the 1970s and 1980s. Now we are at about 3%. We can look to Europe, which is at 30%, and Vienna, which is at 60%, because they understand how important it is to have safe, secure and affordable housing. The free market is not going to give us that. It has not. We are developing very rapidly on Vancouver Island.

I sat in local government in Tofino. I remember how frustrated we were when the federal government downloaded to provinces, which then further downloaded to local governments. I was part of the initial Tofino housing corporation. I am proud that today we are finally building a development that we talked about 20 years ago. Here we were, this small local government: this small municipality was trying to figure out how we were going to develop non-market housing to meet the needs of our community.

What a task for small communities to take on. They do not have the expertise or aptitude, and often do not have the leadership. They do not know how to do it. I can assure the House that if the federal government puts money on the table, local governments will access it. They will find the land.

Our province of British Columbia is building half of the non-market housing in the country right now. It needs a federal partner to go to the lengths it is going to. The province just had applications for over 12,500 shovel-ready units by local governments: local non-profit housing. They had funding for 2,500. It would have been great to see the federal government pick up the other 2,500. We are halfway there on shovel-ready developments that could help make sure people have affordable housing.

I get frustrated. I look to my community. We have a non-profit housing group in Ucluelet. Randy Oliwa called me the other day and said, “Gord, we can't even get an answer on a $5,000 planning grant to get things off the ground.” The Beaufort Hotel was being purchased. It is a hotel that already has low-barrier housing and private sector housing. The group made an application through the rapid housing initiative. The applicants were told that it looked very positive, but they got denied because they were oversubscribed. They had $5 billion in applications and they only had $1 billion on the table.

They were told to reapply, so they reapplied and got denied again. They decided to apply through the women and children shelter and transitional housing fund, and then got denied again. They brought in Lookout, a great partner from Vancouver, to develop non-market housing and ensure that the people living in this building were not going to get punted and thrown out on the streets. Again, they got denied. Now they are using the co-investment fund. The steps and hurdles these groups have to go through to make sure people have affordable housing are just ridiculous.

I want to speak a little about how important housing is, not just for small businesses, workers and people in our communities, but also to ensure that people are not suffering: those who are on the streets and who may be living with a substance use disorder. I was at a low-barrier housing unit in Duncan, B.C., where they built these sleeper cottages. I met a man who had his first home. It was basic needs. It was not low barrier; it was no barrier. For the first time in his adult life, he told me, he was not homeless or living in prison. He was on opioid therapy as a result, which he could never access living as a homeless person. He was treated like a criminal: He was moved from park to park, living in fear and not sleeping.

Another woman I met at the same low-barrier housing was moving to low-barrier from no-barrier housing. As a result of having that, she had been sober for eight months. For the first time in her adult life, she has a chance. Without housing, how can people have mental health? When people are homeless, they do not sleep.

The Prime Minister's goal to house 50% of the homeless people in the next 10 years is not good enough. It is not good enough. We need to move rapidly. We need to build non-market housing, and the government needs to step up its game. We need all parties to work collectively on this, because the free market simply will not solve the problems of our needs right now. Housing is a basic human need. It is a human rights issue. It is an economic issue. It is a social issue.

I have not even tapped into indigenous housing, because I am being told I am running out of time. I could speak another 10 minutes on that alone. I hope we can work together in the House to scale things up rapidly.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member across the way for his passion around housing, as well as mental health and harm reduction.

I was waiting for the member to talk about the budget allocations for co-op housing. He talked about the need for co-op housing, and I 100% agree with him on that. I am quoting the executive director of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, Tim Ross, who said, “Starting with 6,000 new homes over the next five years, we are optimistic that the new co-operative housing development program will kick-start the development of the next generation of co-op housing at scale in Canada.”

There is $1.5 billion there. He ended with indigenous and northern housing. I am looking at the $300 million going towards indigenous and northern housing. Could the member comment on how we are finally getting a start where we need to see it?

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

Madam Speaker, I would say we are getting a start and we are talking about thousands now when it comes to co-op housing, but it falls far short of the 25,000 units we were building per year in the 1970s and 1980s. That is still 19,000 short of what we were doing then. How are we going to make up the gap?

Right now, the federal government's plan in terms of filling the workforce labour market shortage is to bring in new immigrants, but it does not tie housing to immigration. There are huge problems when it comes to the lack of cohesive planning, when it comes to housing and ensuring that we have a strong workforce.

In terms of indigenous housing, there is some money in the budget, which New Democrats helped negotiate, to get this agreement going. We talked about the agreement as the floor. We have much work to do. I have lots more to say on this, and I will.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the member's personal journey and story with co-op housing. I thought he did an excellent job, but I would like to ask him about the issues facing those who need government housing, particularly with inflation.

There are a lot of seniors in my riding who could use the housing described by the member. They live on very fixed incomes, so when inflation goes up 6% or 7%, that may not sound like a lot to folks in this room, but when people have only $100 a month for groceries, it is a lot and it really impacts their ability to eat well and feed themselves. We are seeing this impact families as well.

I would like the member to comment on the impact inflation is having on his constituents and whether he is at all concerned that the Liberal government is not addressing this.

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

Madam Speaker, we have skyrocketing inflation, but we also have a skyrocketing concentration of wealth and skyrocketing inequality. We have seen grocery store prices and fuel prices go up. We see bank fees go up, and yet banks are having record profits. Grocery stores have record profits. Oil companies have record profits. How is that flowing down to seniors? How is that flowing down to Canadians? It is flowing down in increased costs to them and increased profits to the richest Canadians and shareholders.

What we need is some balance. Corporate taxes have gone from 28% to 15%, and yet people cannot find a place to live in our country. We need to bring a median to this situation and it needs to happen rapidly. Fairness is not happening right now. Inequality is skyrocketing, and we need to address that. It is part of the solution when it comes to taking on inflation and ensuring that people get the best support they can, and there is money. We can make sure that the wealthiest people can pay their fair share. That is a beginning in taking on this crisis, and we absolutely need to do more.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to support a point raised earlier in the House by the hon. member for North Island—Powell River and ask her colleague from Courtenay—Alberni if he is also concerned for seniors who served in our military and former judges, but particularly those who were in the military and the RCMP. Right now, if they remarry after age 65, they do not get to convey any survivor benefits to their surviving spouses. It is called the gold-digger clause, going back to former finance minister Bill Morneau. The Liberals promised to get rid of it, but they have not.

I wonder if the hon. member has any comments on that.

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

Madam Speaker, it seems there is commonality in that not just veterans, but seniors are being targeted, and there needs to be more work. The gold-digger clause absolutely needs to be revoked. It is discriminatory to Canada's veterans, the people who put their lives on the line so that we have a fair and free society. We are indebted to them, and we owe them the benefits that every Canadian deserves. This is an unfair penalty on the very people we should be supporting the most.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, two weeks ago, I had the privilege of rising in the House to speak to the many ways that budget 2022 will improve the lives of Canadians. Today, I have the privilege to speak to how the rubber would hit the road with the budget implementation act.

There are so many topics I would like to cover, but in the short time I have, I am just going to choose one because we are finally setting in motion the changes that are outlined in this bill, and this is a topic that deserves debate in the chamber. These changes are increasing the transparency and accountability in our financial system and in land ownership through legislative changes that would result in the creation of a registry for beneficial ownership.

Canada has developed a reputation as a haven for money laundering, tax evasion and other financial crimes due to the relative sophistication of our banking sector and the opacity, which is a defining characteristic of our corporate and land ownership. This reputation has led Canada to have an internationally recognized term for money laundering, which is “snow washing”. It refers to the fact that anonymously owned corporations in Canada are presumed by banks and other financial institutions as being legitimate without the transparency that should underpin such a determination.

An expert panel on money laundering in B.C. real estate estimated that, in 2018, some $46 billion in list funds were laundered in Canada, much of it moving through real estate. The 2017 analysis by Transparency International found that Canada had the weakest corporate transparency rules in the G20, tied only with South Korea.

Why does this matter? Few realize that white-collar crime such as this has very real impacts, even if it may not be obvious from the beginning. The fact is that these vulnerabilities feed directly into the largest challenges we face in the present day. Consider the example of the Vancouver model of money laundering. In this model, opioids are shipped in large quantities from China to Canada as a way of Chinese residents moving capital out of China to the safe haven of Canada by evading the country's currency export controls of $50,000 U.S. per year. The proceeds from the drug trade are laundered through casinos or invested in, among other things, Canadian real estate, where it is purchased through blind trusts or numbered companies with the real owners obscured.

Money laundering not only supports criminals. It is also estimated to have contributed to a 5% increase in the price of housing in B.C. as of 2018. When studies show that we do not know the true owners of over half of the 100 most expensive properties in B.C., we know that it is not just causing more housing unaffordability, it may also be linked to tax evasion of our treatment of principal residences. Importantly, it is also fuelling the deadly health emergency we have in the province of B.C., which is the opioid epidemic. Dirty and dark money comes from both domestic and foreign sources.

In the House, it has been a source of great pride to see how members of all parties have come together to support our Ukrainian friends who have been victimized by the brutal invasion of Vladimir Putin. One of the main tools we have relied on has been the use of targeted sanctions on Putin's inner circle. This budget implementation act indeed contains measures that will create the conditions for the seizing and disposal of assets from sanctioned individuals. However, when the ownership of assets is undertaken through complex, international schemes of shell companies in countries that have similar opaque corporate registries, then we currently have very little ability to determine who the real owners of assets are in Canada, which are held in Canadian banks, and our sanctions, therefore, have limited effect.

It is abundantly clear that we need to act, and through measures in this budget, we are doing just that. We are reviewing and strengthening our anti-money laundering and terrorist financing regime by extending the current system to monitor payment service providers and crowd-funding platforms for money laundering and terrorist financing. About $90 million is provided to FINTRAC to significantly expand and modernize its ability to detect and prevent financial crime.

We are also taking the first steps to establish a new Canada financial crimes agency, which will become Canada's lead enforcement agency for financial crimes. This is important because we need to have financial and accounting experts in law enforcement and the public prosecution services to effectively tackle complex, white-collar crime cases.

Most importantly, we are amending the Canada Business Corporations Act to implement a public and searchable beneficial ownership registry, which would be available by the end of 2023. This will require that corporations report the identities of those who own and control significant portions of any corporation. It will allow law enforcement, the CRA, banks, journalists and the public at large to see exactly who owns any given company and ensure that criminals can no longer hide behind anonymous numbered corporations. Beneficial ownership registries are the gold standard when it comes to combatting corporate financial crime, and this has been recognized throughout the world.

In fact, this is not even going to be the first beneficial ownership registry in Canada, as B.C. has had a land registry since May 2019. However, unfortunately, what was supposed to be a world-leading system has been plagued by delays, unclear and poorly defined rules and heretofore a lack of compliance. The system should be in place by the end of this year, but that already puts it a year behind schedule. The registry currently has information on only 46,000 owners with a total of 73,000 properties, which is just a tiny fraction of the 2.2 million titles in British Columbia. Therefore, it is crucial that when we develop our federal beneficial ownership registry, we learn through some of the challenges that British Columbia has had and adopt some of the best practices that we can find from around the world.

The U.K., as one of the first countries to create a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry, has one of the best systems in the world so far. U.K. companies are required to keep an up-to-date register of people with significant control over it, meaning anyone who holds more than 25% of the shares or voting rights of a company, either directly or indirectly, through another company or trust. Failure to comply with this is a criminal offence, not only for the company but also for the officers of the company. In the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the U.K. has expanded its register to apply to land ownership to give the government the ability to require identity verification for people who manage, control or just set up companies.

There are uniquely Canadian challenges that we will need to face as we build our own beneficial ownership registry. Unlike the U.K., Canada is a federal system where provinces and territories have jurisdiction over real property and for federally incorporated entities. This covers an enormous number of the entities that we need to have transparency on, so we will need to work with such partners to ensure that we have a national system that works. We have a national registry for money services businesses, regardless of where in Canada they are registered. This system was also created to combat money laundering and is centrally administered by FINTRAC.

There are many forms that this system could take, but what is most important is that the data is standardized to make it easier for law enforcement to analyze, for simplifying regulatory compliance and to minimize the regulatory burden on companies that operate in multiple jurisdictions in Canada. What is most important is that this registry be publicly accessible and free to access. This is important because we know that law enforcement has a limited capacity to monitor the millions of corporate structures in Canada. The public, particularly the press, has the ability to play a role to connect the dots and uncover wrongdoing that can assist in uncovering illegal actions as well.

To give an example of why this is important, I note that B.C.'s land ownership registry was not able to find any property owned by a sanctioned individual. It was only due to leaks that were involved in the Paradise papers that we were able to find a single piece of land in British Columbia, in the riding of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, connected to a sanctioned individual. That really shows the value of investigative reporting.

I would like to end by saying the following. We know the impact of financial crime is deep and far-reaching. It is clear that we need to act decisively and think big to mitigate the negative effects of money laundering and tax evasion, and to catch those who are using Canadian property and corporations to transfer, hide and launder their money in Canada. Now is the time to take lessons learned from jurisdictions around the world, calibrate them to the Canadian context and develop a system that will make Canada a leader in preventing financial crime.

Budget 2022 contains the building blocks for a financial system that has more integrity, and I look forward to working with my colleagues from all parties in the House to pass this bill as a first step in getting dirty money out of Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have been talking for a very long time about the need for action on money laundering. It is a regular concern I hear from Canadians. It is a particular concern I hear from Canadians from diaspora communities, actually. They raise the fact that money in other countries is taken by corrupt dictatorial regimes and then brought to and used in Canada.

In that vein, I want to ask a question that has been specifically brought to me regularly by people in the Iranian community in Canada. They are concerned about this issue. They are also concerned about the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The House of Commons voted to sanction the IRGC to list it as a terrorist entity, yet the government has not acted, despite the Liberals voting in favour of that listing motion three years ago. If we are not willing to identify terrorist organizations like the IRGC and list them under the Anti-terrorism Act, then we are missing out on a critical tool for combatting the kind of activities in which they might engage in Canada.

I wonder if the member has a comment specifically on the listing of the IRGC and whether that is something the government plans to do as part of a broader suite of measures. Also, why is there a delay?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think my hon. colleague's question speaks directly to the reasons why we need to move ahead on some of these measures. It is one thing to have a list of sanctions and individuals we are going to be sanctioning, but if we do not actually have the tools in place to ensure that we are able to go after the assets in Canada, those sanctions are not going to have significant effect.

In this budget implementation act, we have a number of measures that are going to allow us to do just that on beneficial ownership of companies. We have actions that are happening right across the country, in British Columbia and Manitoba and now Ontario as well. I would encourage the member opposite to talk to some of his colleagues in the provincial government in Alberta to see if they can start moving ahead with some of the measures that we need to have so we can move ahead with the measures that we need to bring in for sanctioned individuals.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke a lot about investigations into money laundering and recovering money. We agree with all that.

However, there is something that really bothers me. How does my colleague explain the fact that his government is not doing anything at all about tax havens? They are perfectly legal and everyone is aware of them. It is estimated that the government is losing at least $7 billion a year to tax havens.

Also, is the member not the least bit embarrassed that his government is creating uncertainty about the coming into force of the farm succession act, on the pretext that our farmers are fraudsters rather than honest people who put food on our tables? I think that is completely shameful, and I encourage him to put pressure on the government from the inside to quickly dispel this uncertainty.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I disagree with what the member said about the government not investigating tax havens.

We are going against some of the tax havens that we have here. There are new measures in the budget this year that do just that, including ways in which individuals are using international companies to get around paying taxes in Canada.

There is much more that we need to do. There are ways we can simplify our tax code to do that. Some of the measures I am talking about today will allow us to increase the amount of tax revenue that we can receive by going after some of the ways money is laundered, as well as the ways people are evading taxes through some of these anonymous organizations.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my neighbour for his interesting speech. I did not really see a profound investment in immigration. In my riding, we are having hundreds of calls day after day from people trying to figure out their status. They have done all of their paperwork and they have done everything they should. They are already living in Canada. We have people on worker visas who have done everything right and now cannot work. They are losing their homes. It is becoming a mess.

I am wondering if the member could talk about his government's responsibility and how long it is going to take to actually address these really important issues.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree. In this budget, there is over $2 billion going to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to be able to deal with the backlogs. The idea is that by the end of this year, with these investments, we will get back to a normal service standard, as well as introducing new programs, such as an expedited temporary foreign worker program, which I know would be a game-changer for some of the hardest-hit sectors where there are major labour shortages, such as tourism in my riding.

There is a lot here on immigration. Because of the backlogs related to COVID, we have a lot we need to do. With these investments and some of the changes that are being made to expedite the processes, we are going to be able to deal with some of the backlogs that are causing major issues.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be in the House and to speak on behalf of the people of Calgary Midnapore, and here I am today addressing the BIA.

I will start with an anecdote. Last Friday, when my husband picked me up at the Calgary airport, we were making the left-hand turn we usually do in an effort to merge onto Deerfoot Trail. Halfway through our turn, the light turned yellow and my husband stopped in the middle of the intersection. I turned to him and said, “James, what the bleep are you doing here?” Well, that is what I have to say: What are we doing here? What is the government doing here?

When I arrived here in 2017, there was the same sentiment that existed in 2015 when the Liberal government came into place. Among Canadians, although we were disappointed as Conservatives and sorry to see the departure of former prime minister Stephen Harper, I think there was a feeling of hope and enthusiasm across the country. We often think of sunny ways at that time, when the Prime Minister and the Liberal government came in. Those same sentiments existed when I arrived here in 2017. I was just outside those doors getting ready to be walked into the House of Commons for the first time, and there was still that same feeling of excitement and of sunny ways.

I have to say, that is not there anymore, and this budget reflects it. This budget is a mishmash and a patchwork of legislation. Any individual reading through this content could not determine the goals, aspirations and theme of the government. Is that not what leadership really is? What are we doing here?

When I reflect upon the reasons for the lack of direction we now see from the government, I would attribute it to three things. Number one is now the failure to implement any vision the government to the Prime Minister might have once had. The second would be an unuseful and impractical adherence to ideology. The third would be ignoring the real problems affecting Canadians. I will take some time now to expand on each of those.

When I talk about the failure to implement the vision, I am talking about the sunny ways and hope and enthusiasm the Prime Minister and the government arrived here with. Unfortunately, when they have tried to execute these sunny ways and implement them in Canada and Canadian culture, it has been nothing but an absolute failure. We saw that with the attempts for democracy reform. We saw it when the attempt was made to go to proportional representation, which was a 2015 election promise. It was failed upon by the previous minister for democratic institutions, who is no longer in the House. That is one example of the failure of the implementation of vision we have seen from the government.

We saw this with the climate plan. We saw this with the Paris climate accord. I sat back there in my second week, having to vote on the Paris climate accord. The fear and division it created in the House, which I will expand upon, was for no reason. These targets that we voted upon and that divided us were never actually achieved by the government, so what is the point?

It is the same thing we saw with the Liberals' grand idea of planting two billion trees. As I look around this room, I see nary a tree. They have failed on these climate initiatives as well.

The third is unity, and I will speak to this from two perspectives. The first is regional. Liberals have pitted region against region in this country, needlessly creating division at a time even before the pandemic descended upon us. Of course, with the pandemic, it was the Prime Minister who used inflammatory language, name-called and attacked Canadians who had valid concerns about the mandates. He actually rejected a Conservative motion to create a plan to roll back the mandates, which could have lowered the temperature, and he then of course invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time in Canada's history. We, on this side of the House, are still reviewing that to this day. It created terrible disunity not only in the House, but among Canadians.

The second is a unuseful adherence to ideology. We have seen this in two places in particular. The first was the killing of the natural resources sector. As an Albertan, I take personal offence to this. How has the current government done this? It has done this by not providing support for Line 5. My colleague, the member for Calgary Centre, has talked and encouraged ad nauseam about this. Of course, at this moment in history, while Ukraine faces its most difficult time, the most difficult time we have seen in recent history, the government failed to pass a motion to get natural gas to Europe. At a time when our natural resources could be used for good in this world, the government turned its back against it. It brought in Bill C-48, the tanker moratorium, and who can forget Bill C-69, the no new pipelines bill, which again showed an unuseful adherence to ideology.

We also saw that with the mandates, the mandates that still rest with us today. I can tell members of the House that the parliamentary precinct, and frankly airports and airplanes, are the only places now where I am required to wear a mask. The government should lift the mandates on that and stop using this unuseful adherence to ideology. It is not helpful for Canadians at all.

What I think is most important here is that, if we look at the ways the government has failed and how this budget reflects that, it shows an ignorance of the real problems that affect Canadians. What are they? I will list a couple.

At the industry committee we saw a rejection to support the lithium mine, which would have been very important for semiconductors, something that is becoming increasingly important as we evaluate supply chains going into the future. In addition, we saw a government that was useless and unwilling to take a stand until the very last moment on the CP Rail strike, which would have had devastating impacts on not only western Canada, but also all of Canada.

We have seen this lack of action in labour shortages. The CFIB's recent report “Labour shortages are back with a vengeance” found that 55% of businesses could not find the staff they needed. Food and Beverage Canada said that it lacked 300,000 workers within its industry and has companies with vacancy rates of over 20%. The government throwing money at this is not helping. It needs to address the backlogs it has within its immigration processes.

We hear about housing endlessly here, with the average price of a home now reaching $874,100, a jolting 27.1% increase over the last year. The initiatives of the government, such as the first-time homebuyer incentive and the shared equity mortgage fund, are failing terribly.

I can talk about the failures of the government and how this budget and the budget implementation act do not address the cost of living and inflation. For the first time in 31 years, prices are up 6.7% compared to a year ago. Families are spending nearly $1,000 more a year on groceries and gas. Gas and home heating are costing more, and housing prices have doubled since the Prime Minister became the Prime Minister. More than half of Canadians are $200 or less away from not being able to pay their bills or rent, with three in 10 already falling behind at the end of the month.

In conclusion, the government has run its course. It has received a minority not once, but twice now. It just had to buy a mandate until 2025. When it was elected in 2015, there was a sense of hope, optimism and possibility. That is gone now. This budget reflects it, and the budget implementation act reflects it. What are we doing here?

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

Madam Speaker, I am not too sure what the Conservative Party is doing here if we look at what their performance has been like in the past number of weeks. I can assure the member that the Government of Canada, in particular our Prime Minister and cabinet members and in fact all Liberal members of Parliament, are here because we want to be able to serve Canadians.

We are doing that in good part by budgetary measures that are going to have a profoundly positive impact on every Canadian from coast to coast to coast. Whether it is programs such as the first ever national universal child care program, which is going to enable the workforce to expand, or investments in infrastructure, there are so many gold nuggets inside the budget to ensure that we continue to provide hope for Canadians. The sun will continue to shine as we continue to move forward.

The member seems to be of the opinion that Ottawa is the only one with mandates left. If she crosses the river into Quebec, she will find that there are mandates for mask wearing. Would she maybe address that issue?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will tell my colleague that the sun has indeed set. He talks a lot about, for example, day care. I wish the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development had been focused on Service Canada and the delivery of passports. I think that is just another example of how the government has lost its way. Liberals have been so focused on their own ideology that they have forgotten about the needs of Canadians and delivering to Canadians, and they should remember that.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to my Conservative colleague's passionate speech. I found it interesting and stirring, so to speak.

When we talk about Bill C-19, we are also talking about the budget that the government tabled not too long ago. What I really did not like about that budget was the lack of action on climate change. With the approval of the Bay du Nord project, we see that the government is continuing to get more deeply involved in oil.

Could the member who just gave that wonderful speech tell us more about what the government should do to combat climate change and get away from oil?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, in fact, two people are disappointed. The first is the member who just asked the question, because, as I stated in my speech, this government has taken no action on climate change. The second is me, because, as I stated in my speech, nothing has been done for the natural resources sector.

Even though I agree with my Bloc colleague, I want to say that we must also take action for the natural resources sector, which is being neglected at present. Therefore, I agree with my colleague, but I am disappointed for another reason.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member and I work together on the disability inclusion file. I want to ask some questions about the Canada disability benefit.

Could the member for Calgary Midnapore comment around the missing Canada disability benefit in the budget?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think we need to look at the sincerity and the intentions of the government. I believe that the member would agree with me on this. The government tabled that bill in the last week before we left for the seasonal break, when there was an election about to be called. What does that say about the Liberals' sincerity and about their will in implementing the act?

As strongly as we may feel about this, as much as we need to see something done for Canadians with disabilities, it really starts with the government. The fact that Liberals tabled this in the final week before we left with an election potentially looming, and the fact that they have not brought it back in the recent budget of 2022, speaks volumes.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to join today’s debate on Bill C-19, the budget implementation act. Let me begin by stating something that I have mentioned before about this budget. This is a fiscally prudent budget that is also focused on economic growth. If we are looking for a theme and a direction, here is the theme and here is the direction.

We were able to shift this budget’s focus onto these elements because of how well we have done in recovering from a global pandemic that has exhausted economies around the world.

Starting with jobs, we have recovered 115% of the jobs lost since April 2020, which is equivalent to three million jobs. Just this past Friday, on May 6, Canada’s job numbers were released, and they showed that the labour market has gained over 15,000 jobs in April alone, bringing our unemployment rate to 5.2%, the lowest since 1976. These numbers are not to be taken lightly. They represent the resilience and strength of real people and real Canadians who made effective use of the supports and programs rolled out by our federal government. They worked hard to get back on their feet, stronger than ever.

However, there is more to be done, and that is exactly what the measures in budget 2022, implemented by Bill C-19, set out to do. The budget builds on the progress we have already made, by investing in workers, small businesses, our supply chain and more.

We also need to acknowledge that every success has its ups and downs. Canadians know that our recovery from COVID-19, along with our continued fight against it, has come at a very high price. This global pandemic has had not only health consequences, but also economic ones, as the international phenomenon of inflation has made things more expensive, both in other countries and right here in Canada.

We acknowledge the higher prices of groceries. We acknowledge the high and rising costs of homes, and we also acknowledge that the impacted supply chain has already deeply hurt the pockets of everyday consumers at the checkout counter. We know that the causes can be sourced to the pandemic and the current international conflicts, but we have to do something about it right here at home.

With budget 2022 and Bill C-19, our government is advancing and introducing measures that will address these concerns and help mitigate the rising costs of living for Canadians. The budget is grounded by a focus on housing, the climate, jobs and growth, and affordability, but one key common element in all of these pillars is people.

Our people are the backbone to a strong and growing country, and Bill C-19 ensures that we continue to have their backs through measures for affordable housing, clean and good jobs, and a safe place to live.

Before we get into those overarching categories, let us quickly review the key ways in which the budget implementation act will help Canadians.

On housing, Bill C-19 doubles the maximum for the home accessibility tax credit, and also proposes a two-year ban on foreign investment in Canadian housing that will make housing more affordable.

On health, Bill C-19 proposes $2 billion for the provinces and territories, to reduce backlogs in surgeries and procedures.

On the labour shortage, Bill C-19 introduces a labour mobility deduction that will make travel easier for tradespeople, who will be able to fill the gaps in important projects.

On a cleaner economy that is fuelled by our small businesses, Bill C-19 proposes a reduction by half to the corporate and small business tax rates for businesses that manufacture zero-emissions technologies.

Now that we have gone through some of this overview, let us get into some of the big themes, starting with the most pressing concern in our local communities and in my riding of Richmond Hill, which is housing.

We have never had such an ambitious plan as we do in budget 2022 to address the fundamental issue of housing affordability. Through Bill C-19, we can implement measures that would make housing not only more affordable for our first-time homebuyers, but also more accessible for all.

We know that gaps in supply are leading to increases in costs, which is why budget 2022 indicates our government’s commitment to doubling the number of new homes built over the next 10 years. This budget also includes measures to reduce the barriers for first-time homebuyers who work so hard to save up for a place to call their own. Bill C-19 would prevent foreign investors and commercial enterprises from parking their money in Canada and driving up costs to the point that young buyers can barely afford to enter the housing market.

We talked about youth, but what about seniors or persons with disabilities? They have made significant contributions to Canadian society and deserve homes that are accessible to them and continue to fit their needs. However, renovations can be pricey, and with the rising cost of living, such home improvements are far out of reach for seniors and persons with disabilities.

That is why Bill C-19 proposes to double the home accessibility tax credit’s annual limit to $20,000 to help make significant alterations and renovations more affordable. This would mean an additional $1,500 in tax support, which will in turn make alterations such as the installation of wheelchair ramps, walkers or non-slip flooring more affordable. For members of Richmond Hill's community council on seniors, who are concerned about the costs associated with customizing their homes to their current needs, I know this is going to be a significant aid in helping them age well in the houses they know and love.

We delved into housing affordability, but we know that to be able to purchase or maintain homes, people need good jobs, which is why investing in jobs and growth is a key pillar of budget 2022. Primarily, let us talk about the jobs that need support.

Currently, our economy can absorb nearly one million jobs, 300,000 of which could be fulfilled by the construction trades. Workers in the construction trades often travel to take on temporary jobs, frequently in rural and remote communities, but their associated expenses do not always qualify for existing tax relief. To ensure that we can get the workers where they are needed and address labour shortages in an equitable way, we need to support the mobility of workers within Canada. If they can travel without worrying about associated costs, we will have more workers and more projects will be completed, even some potentially in housing, which will indirectly increase our supply.

Through the labour mobility deduction for tradespeople, Bill C-19 proposes to provide tax relief on eligible travel and temporary relocation expenses. However, it is not just tradespersons who need the support in getting to work.

Lastly, Bill C-19 has measures that will make Canada a cleaner and safer place to live. We are committing to smart climate investments today that will not only be good for the planet, but good for the Canadian economy. Whether it is through the $15-billion investment in the Canada growth fund, the creation of the Canada water agency, the $1.7-billion incentive for zero-emission vehicles or the expansion of the low-carbon economy fund with $2.2 billion over seven years, this budget implementation act will bring to fruition Canada’s global efforts in fighting climate change in a way that is not only planet friendly, but economically friendly.

In closing, I ask all members of the House to join me in supporting this bill.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, in March 2020, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions reduced the domestic stability barrier to 1%, thus freeing up an additional $300 billion in capital. The government at the time said that it expected the banks to lend it out, and the banks did loan it out. Mortgage credit has exploded over the last two years of the pandemic, from $1.7 trillion to $2 trillion today.

Should the government have put in place measures to ensure that this additional $300 billion in credit did not all go into the residential mortgage market, thus fuelling the explosion in house prices and the skyrocketing housing prices we have seen over the last 24 months?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the $300 billion was an investment in Canadians, from all aspects, whether it was directly to individuals or to businesses in various sectors, and as I said in my speech, the result is evident now. We are back with 115% job recovery; we are back with over three million jobs. We have shortages of one million jobs, and we have the potential to do much better. As we roll out various programs in Bill C-19, not only will we address the labour shortage, but we will also make sure that people have an affordable place to live and that we can also welcome new Canadians to Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Richmond Hill's speech, and I noticed he did mention, in addition to seniors, people with disabilities.

In the heart of the pandemic, the member for Elmwood—Transcona and I wrote to the minister, asking for the creation of a federal disability benefit to help lift all people with disabilities out of poverty, as a first step toward a guaranteed livable basic income. I wonder what is happening on the government side when it comes to providing that necessary income support for people with disabilities.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question. I have many stakeholders in my riding who are dealing with disabilities. One of the challenges we have is that there are also provincial programs that are being rolled out in conjunction with what we are planning in the federal government. As members know, there is nothing more important than working with provinces and territories to ensure that the programs that are being rolled out are complementary, and that takes some time. We are working very hard to ensure not only that we address the needs of those with disabilities, but also that the funding being given addresses the needs in a very complementary way.

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

Madam Speaker, in his speech earlier on Bill C‑19, the member across the way did not mention anything about a topic I very much wanted to hear him talk about. That may be because it is not in the budget either. I am talking about the word “health”.

Almost every province, including Quebec, asked for health transfers. I have been a member of Parliament since 2015, while the Bloc Québécois has been in the House for I do not even know how long, and I cannot recall one year or one week when the Bloc did not talk about the fact that health transfers need to be increased. The federal government's response has been insulting, namely that the government will talk about it once we become more efficient.

On the one hand, who is the federal government to tell the provinces how to run their affairs?

On the other hand, since this is a unanimous request that keeps coming up, how are we unable to come to an agreement on this fundamental need?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I expected that, coming from one of the Bloc members, who always ask us to transfer more funds without any accountability. I am part of the HESA committee, and through a lot of witnesses and through my community councils I have always heard about the fact that we need to make sure that the funds that are being transferred to provinces come with some strings attached, and the strings attached are basically to make sure it is transparent, accountable and delivering the results we are delivering.

I will close with the fact that we are second in the OECD countries in the amount of money we are spending on health, and we will also increase this year's payment by about $4.5 billion, yet on the delivery we are 27th in the world. I would like to ask the member what explains the difference between being second in the amount of help we are sending to the provinces and being 27th in delivering those results.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-19, the budget implementation act. I will be honest. I found the title of this year's budget quite misleading. The NDP-Liberal government titled this year's budget, “A Plan to Grow Our Economy and Make Life More Affordable”. If the government really wanted to grow our economy and make life more affordable, it would have looked at Canadian agriculture. Unfortunately, when I looked for Canadian agriculture in the budget, I noticed that not one page was fully dedicated to agri-food or agriculture. The blatant lack of priority for Canadian agriculture would be concerning in any budget, but even more concerning in budget 2022.

We are in a food crisis. There is a global food shortage, and the Canadian government is nowhere to be found. I am going to quote Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, a professor and researcher of food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University, who has been sounding the alarm on this crisis. He stated, “We need to be clear on the fact that by fall more than 100 million people will experience either famine or severe hunger.” Let us let that statistic sink in: By fall, more than 100 million people will experience either famine or extreme hunger.

Corn and wheat make up 30% of the calories consumed on earth, yet the region responsible for 25% of these exports is at war. That means that the poorer countries will lose access to their food supply and developed countries will pay higher prices to secure their food. Where in the budget was there anything to ramp up the production of export capacity of these commodities? I sure did not find it.

When I read the budget implementation act, I saw things like new taxes on luxury goods and vaping products. These are the types of things that the government has prioritized over Canadian agriculture. This reminds me of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: one of the best-known theories in human motivation. This hierarchy is modelled in the shape of a pyramid. At the top of the pyramid is the need for self-actualization. Beneath that are the need for esteem, the need for love and belonging and the need for safety. At the bottom of the pyramid are the foundational psychological needs, including food, for example. Society does not care about the higher levels of needs if the foundational needs are not met. At a time when the world is in a food crisis, the NDP-Liberal government is more focused on some higher ideological need than on the foundational need of food security.

I am shocked that the government is not focused on replacing the global reduction in food from Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Not only could Canada feed the world, but we could also create wealth and jobs for our rural communities. We are one of the few remaining agriculture-exporting nations on earth. I believe we have a role to play in feeding the world. However, when I read the budget, I do not see any priority given to this by the current government.

The government has the mentality that western Canada should be limited to simply producing, harvesting and exporting raw commodities. This means that even if Canadians produced a record crop, we would still have to rely on other countries to process our commodities. This is the wrong mentality. We can do so much more. The government should create the right business environment so industry can create more value in Canadian agriculture products. When we turn our raw commodities into high-quality products such as canola oil, flour and starch products, we not only grow our economy but we also meet the demands of the world.

It was the current government that commissioned the Barton Report. In that report, agriculture was identified as a sector where Canada has the potential for substantial growth and export improvement. The report mentioned global population growth, a rising protein demand in Asia and the need for trusted markets. Canada could and should meet these new global demands, if only the government would let it.

Production and processing capacity is not the only bottleneck in the agriculture value food chain. We must also improve the resilience and reliability of our transportation system. There is no mention of investing in transportation to export our agri-food products faster and more efficiently. I think all members of the House would agree with the notion that our country is too reliant on a few transportation systems.

We saw this last year when the flooding in B.C. completely landlocked our ability to export product. Imagine the drastic consequences of not being able to feed the world because we could not get our agri-food products to tidewater.

I am noticing a consistent theme with this Liberal government. It is more focused on the farming of the past than on the farming of the future. The Liberals try to be visionaries in many areas, but never in agriculture. The lack of thinking is limiting our nation's potential and starving the world. If the Liberals want to grow our economy, I can tell members how: It is through agriculture.

Not only does the budget fail to prioritize increased food production, but it also fails to address the restrictions and regulations that are preventing Canada from becoming an agriculture superpower. We know that this government's carbon tax is restricting our ag industry's competitiveness and driving up the cost of food from the day it is planted until the day it is consumed.

APAS reported that the government's carbon tax would add an additional $12.50 of input costs per acre on wheat by 2030. At the same time, when the world is desperate for wheat, it is absurd that this government is actually making it more expensive to produce such an essential commodity.

The government also appears to be drafting regulations that would restrict fertilizer usage for Canadian farmers in the name of the climate agenda. Any plan to meet fertilizer emissions reductions should not be at the cost of production. Is the government aware that there is a global fertilizer shortage? The less fertilizer that is available, the less food we can grow.

MNP reported that reducing Canadian fertilizer use to achieve 30% emissions reduction would result in yield losses. Corn, for example, would see losses of over 67 bushels per acre per year, which is about 40%.

Where is the investment in creating a more competitive fertilizer industry? Where is the focus on exporting Canadian fertilizer? I did not see that in the budget.

I also learned last week that Health Canada has yet to release its regulations on gene editing. This innovative plant science technology is an important tool in helping Canadian farmers be more productive and efficient. Plant science innovations have been responsible for a 50% increase in crop productivity over the past century. Without these innovations, prices would be 45% higher, on average, for many food staples.

The government should create an investment environment that fuels plant science research and development. There is no reason why Canada cannot have the fastest and most responsible regulatory process in the world. Where was this investment in the budget? I did not see it.

The world is facing a food crisis. Food is becoming unaffordable for millions of people and, for some, food is becoming unavailable. Millions will starve if Canada does not step up to the plate. Instead of focusing on fulfilling the basic needs of society, this government continues to focus on a political agenda. This government's disregard for the food crisis before us is deeply disturbing.

Not one page in the budget is focused on agriculture and agri-food. That should concern every single member of the House. It is time to focus on the future of farming. It is time to make Canada an agricultural superpower, and it is time for Canada to feed the world when the world needs us most.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I sit on the agriculture committee, and all parties work together. We are doing a lot of the things that the member actually said that we were not. I would hope that he would speak to his colleagues, and he is always invited to come and speak to us.

We have programs such as the natural climate solutions fund, the nature smart climate solutions fund, the agricultural climate solutions program, the on-farm climate action fund and the agricultural clean technology program.

Can the member opposite comment on some of those programs, and add to that his opinion?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, the problem with all of these programs and all of these things is that they are all based off of the carbon tax, which is a foundational problem for all of us in rural Canada. It is disproportionately applied. As I said in my speech, it is increasing costs by up to $12 an acre for farmers. This Liberal government's approach to this is just basically not acceptable.

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

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of problems with the budget, but it also contains measures designed to help people.

Thanks to the agreement that the NDP negotiated with the Liberal minority government, we are going to be able to give the poor and the middle class access to dental care.

Does my colleague not think that it is a positive development for the people in his riding, including children, youth and seniors, to have the opportunity to go to the dentist?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a matter of priorities. As a farmer, if I were in eastern Canada, knowing that my government has put a 35% tariff on the fertilizer I need to buy to put in this crop, I would be absolutely horrified and so frustrated. There is no one in the House, except the Conservatives, standing up for farmers across this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I could not agree with my hon. colleague more about the importance of focusing more on agriculture. It is important, as farmers are definitely in a position to take a lot of leadership in changing agricultural practices, not only for soil conservation and carbon sequestration in soils, but also for local food security. We learned a lot during COVID about the importance of supply chains and being able to be food secure within Canada. I would like more of the member's comments on that question.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, the main concern is the total lack of focus or even mention of this in the budget. That should be very concerning for us. We are in a very pivotal time in our country and in the world. Countries are at war, and 25% of our food supply is in jeopardy. The government is doing absolutely nothing, and I find that just terrible.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member outlined that the Liberal government is going to be forcing farmers to reduce their fertilizer use. In light of his comments, 100 million people may starve to death this fall because of the impacts on agriculture in Ukraine. Now we are hearing from the Liberal government that it is going to force us to reduce our fertilizer use, but we know farmers do not use more fertilizer than they need. The reason they use fertilizer is to increase the food that they create per acre.

If the member could comment on the importance of fertilizer, how it helps Canada feed the world and how detrimental this policy would be to those around the world who depend on Canadian food, I would greatly appreciate it.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the great work she does in her riding.

Fertilizer is the game-changer for modern-day agriculture. If we did not have nitrogen fertilizer, we would not be feeding the people we are right now on the landscape. If the Canadian government, especially the Liberal government, decides to take that tool away from us, it will have detrimental impacts on not only this year's crop, but also future crops to come.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to share some reflections with respect to the budget and the implementation act, Bill C-19.

I want to start by talking about housing. In my view, the extent to which all levels of government work together to address the skyrocketing cost of housing will define my community over the coming years. I am sure this is true for the communities of many other members in this place as well.

Last year, as I have shared before, there was a 35% increase in the cost of housing in Kitchener. What does that mean? It means we have seen, by the last point-in-time count, a tripling in the number of folks who are living unsheltered. We are seeing encampments continue to grow, where folks are resorting to living in tents. We are seeing students who are unable to move out of their parents' homes and unable to afford rent, as well as seniors on fixed incomes whose anxiety continues to rise as they see their rent rising too. I often think of the health care workers I met this past summer, who shared with me that they were planning on leaving and heading further west because they, too, could not afford the soaring cost of rent.

As I have done here before, I want to start by sharing what I appreciate about what is in the budget, and that is some early signs that the federal government may be finally beginning to take some meaningful action when it comes to addressing the cost of housing.

A specific example is that there is significant investment in this budget with respect to co-op housing. Back in the eighties, in 1982, there were 6,500 units built that year alone of deeply affordable, dignified co-op housing. I have personally had the experience of living in co-op housing. I can attest to how important co-ops are and ensuring that units remain affordable in perpetuity. In this budget, there is a commitment to build 6,000 units. Now, that is not in one year but over several years, but it is significantly more than the 477 that were built in 2020. It is a $1.5-billion investment. Those are the kinds of investments I would like to see more of.

There is also a commitment to reinvest more funding in the rapid housing initiative, a program that has been oversubscribed. What does that mean? It means that great organizations like Indwell, which is looking to repurpose faith communities to build affordable housing, have not been able to get funds in the past. My hope is that, with a renewed commitment to the rapid housing initiative funding, which has $1.5 billion allocated to it, more organizations like Indwell will be successful in securing funds to build more affordable units.

There is also a commitment to end the blind bidding process, which we know would only allow for more information to be shared that could also address the crisis we are in.

I want to mention two items that were in the budget but are not in Bill C-19. One is removing the preferential tax treatment currently given to house flippers. I hope the government will ensure that this is in future legislation. It was committed to in the budget, as well as the housing bill of rights. It would ensure the requirement of a home inspection, which is one of the things that would help address the overheated market.

Of course, we do need more investments from both the federal and the provincial governments in non-market housing and other ways to reduce the commodification of housing.

There are several items I remain deeply concerned about. I will start with climate, because no doubt we need to be honest. If we want even a 50% chance of keeping global average temperature increases below 1.5°C, which is what is required for a livable planet, and we do our fair share of the global carbon budget, it means 86% of our known fossil fuel reserves in this country need to remain unextracted. To do so means that we will need to invest in workers, in their upskilling and retraining, to ensure they have access to the economy of the future.

There are organizations like Iron & Earth, a worker-led not-for-profit that has been calling for $10 billion to go to workers for a prosperous transition, to ensure they have access to the support they need. Instead, what is in the budget is $7.2 billion directed toward carbon capture and storage, a new fossil fuel subsidy, at a time when we are being told these would be phased out. That is exactly what we need to be doing. We need to be phasing out these subsidies and prioritizing those funds to workers and to proven climate solutions.

When it comes to health care, this pandemic has exacerbated existing gaps, so I want to pause to reflect on a few other significant gaps that I would encourage the governing party to move forward on.

The first is with respect to mental health. Many parliamentarians will say the words “mental health is health”, and I am glad that more folks are saying those words, but we need to treat it that way. Mental health advocates across the country have been calling for a new Canada mental health transfer to provinces. While the budget mentions an intention to engage in this, the only commitment is to a wellness portal. While I am sure this is a worthy investment, we need to be mindful of the significant dollars that are required from the federal government to move toward parity in mental health funding so that it is true that mental health is health and we can eliminate the wait times we see across the country, and certainly in Waterloo-Wellington. I am hearing that this remains the case in our community as well.

When it comes to long-term care, I had the chance to ask the Prime Minister directly last week about the safe long-term care act, which has been talked about in the supply and confidence agreement between the Liberals and the NDP, and when there will be plans to introduce that act. There is no mention of that in Bill C-19 or in the budget. In fact, the only mention of long-term care in the budget was the money that was allocated in 2021.

Just a few days ago, I was speaking with a woman who was reflecting about her mom, who is waiting for a bed in long-term care. With tears in her eyes, she shared that she did not know whether her mom would make it out of hospital and into long-term care. I think of the personal support workers I have spoken with, who have shared that they do not get to give four hours of care. They are lucky if they do four minutes of care a day. We know there is more that the federal government can and should be doing to put standards in place when it comes to investing in long-term care. I would encourage the governing party to prioritize doing so.

Last, I will pause to reflect on following through with promises made to Canadians with disabilities. It is actually one of the areas that I have been encouraged by in my time in this place. We now have 100 MPs from all parties, including four colleagues in the Waterloo region, who have all said that it is time to follow through.

We know that Canadians with disabilities are disproportionately living in poverty across the country. About 40% of those living in poverty are Canadians with disabilities, and it is 1.5 million people across the country. The governing party has promised to introduce substantial legislation for the Canada disability benefit, a guaranteed income for every Canadian with a disability across the country. In this place, I have had the chance to share stories of folks in my community about what it means to them not to have access to this and what it means to be living in poverty as a result of not getting appropriate supports.

I continue to encourage the governing party to introduce substantial legislation for the Canada disability benefit. I will pass my thanks again to the 103 MPs from all political parties who have come together to say we can do better and we must.

Some might say, “Well, wait a second. This all sounds well and good, but can we afford these things?” I want to close by sharing some of the ways we can afford these significant and important investments, and we do not need to do it simply by increasing debt.

We can and should stop gifting oil and gas companies, which are making record-breaking profits, billions of dollars and should reinvest it. We have had a lot of promises about taxing the rich, but the budget reduced the campaign promise for a 3% surtax on some of the largest companies, whose profits soared in the pandemic, down to 1.5%. It avoids any talk of an inheritance or a wealth tax. Even the vacancy tax, as I have shared in this place before, in Bill C-8 was down to 1%, and it exempts every Canadian and every corporation in the country. In Vancouver it is up to 5%, and in doing so, they have been able to reinvest millions of dollars in affordable housing. Of course, there is no talk of closing corporate tax loopholes, which we know is a measure we need to do.

With that, I will close and welcome questions.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and for his advocacy. We share a region and a city. I know he mentioned an organization called Indwell, which is an affordable housing provider. We have met with them, and we are all advocating together.

I wonder if the member could explain the importance of programs, and the benefits of federal programs such as the rapid housing initiative, with the understanding that the federal government can and will do more. Also, could the member explain the importance of wraparound services? We cannot have housing without supports and we cannot have supports without housing. Then, basically related to that, could the member explain how provinces, and in our case the Province of Ontario, need to step up with more health supports for affordable housing?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me share what a joy it is to be working alongside the member for Kitchener—Conestoga. He brings a tone to this place that I think we need more of: It is a more collegial tone: one of actually working together to get things done.

When it comes to the rapid housing initiative, I could not agree more. Indwell is a great example of an organization that we hope, through new investments in the rapid housing initiative, has that much better of a chance of building exactly the kinds of investments that we know we need. When it comes to wraparound investments, this is a great chance to talk about shelter care.

In our community, the organization House of Friendship has learned exactly what it takes to not only provide housing but to ensure that those who are living in shelter have access to the mental health and addiction support services they need on site. With him, I am so proud to continue to let others across the country know about the success that House of Friendship has had in our community. It could be replicated in other organizations across the country.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, one thing the member spoke about was mental health. That is something that I have seen that is absent from the budget.

Sixty-two per cent of Canadian parents are saying that they have seen the mental health of their children get worse. The Canadian Paediatric Society is seeing more self-harm. When it comes to things like self-harm and eating disorders, they are two to three times higher.

I am looking for the member's thoughts. What should we be doing for mental health, and how should the government be helping out more?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member in particular for her leadership on the status of women committee. We need to recognize how having women chairing committees like that changes the substance of the conversation in really productive ways.

When it comes to mental health, we need to only be looking to what mental health advocates across the country have been calling for, and that is parity in funding. There is a significant funding gap. Specifically, what they have been calling for is 12% of health funding to go towards mental health. We need to be honest with ourselves. That is the kind of investment that is both significant and necessary if we are going to eliminate the wait times that are plaguing areas across the country.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, when the budget was presented on April 7, the government was talking about sending infrastructure transfers to the provinces as long as the federal government approved of the provinces' plans for the money.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that. Does he think that transfers for infrastructure or anything else should be contingent on whether the federal government approves of what Quebec and the provinces intend to do with the money?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Repentigny for her question.

If I am honest, it is something I continue to learn about in this place. I spoke to the mental health transfer, for example. This is an example where funds would be allocated to provinces within their jurisdiction to spend appropriately.

When it comes to infrastructure, I would be glad to sit down with the member to better understand what she thinks the best way to approach it would be, and to have that conversation with her.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really want to bring to the discussion some of the key things that are happening in Elgin—Middlesex—London. These are the key things that we are still waiting for an answer from the government on.

As a girl from a rural community, I think we need to talk about fertilizer. We need to make a plan. I was happy enough to sit on the agriculture committee the other day, just seeing some of the fine work that was being done there, but we know that we have people in Elgin—Middlesex—London who are seeding right now. Fertilizer has a 35% tariff applied regardless of whether one bought it prior to March 2 or not.

We know that boats have continued to sit at sea. We know that there continues to be issues, but we need to have a plan. The farmers need to know what is going to happen next. They start buying, and they start preparing even for next season, for 2023, and they will be preparing in October through December. We need to know what is going on and the government needs to come up with a plan.

Is it going to be helping out? Are they going to get 35% of this back from the coffers that are sitting there taking in these tariffs right now, or is that 35% tariff going to be applied to the food and to everything else that Canadians are consuming? I wanted to bring up fertilizer and ask the government to please come up with an answer. We are waiting.

I want to talk about passport services. Golly gee, we have heard a lot about passport services, but I just want to remind the government that 10-year passports are due. That means that they are going to be there, so it needs to come up with a plan. We are just waiting. We have people who are being told, as I heard earlier today, to come at 1 a.m. to line up.

Back in 2007, I believe it was, when we knew the U.S. government was putting in this plan, I can tell members, as I was a constituency assistant, the government was prepared. We had line-ups that were eight and nine hours long, but the government was prepared, and within eight weeks, people were still able to get their passports. We know that with this government right now, it is the same situation, but there is no passport service. Please, get the services back to being Service Canada.

I also want to talk about the cost of living. This is just really simple. I want to just make sure I read this one to members. A constituent wrote to me, “Good morning. Yesterday, I went to put gas in my car and my heart sank when I saw how much I had to pay for a litre. Right now, I work three jobs, so that my wife can stay home and home-school our kids. How many more jobs do you want one person to work?”

I think that is the question. He already has three. They home-school their children. I am sure they are very frugal, like many families are, but what is the government going to do when it comes to the cost of living?

This morning, my husband filled up for $1.99 in the city of St. Thomas. Last year at this time, we know it was closer to two-thirds of that cost.

I am asking the government to do some work, to start thinking about what it is like to be a regular Canadian who has to pay these bills, who has to feed their children and who has to buy food and clothes and shelter. I am just asking for some compassion, and I am hoping that the government will get to work.

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

It being 6:45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment to the amendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, I request that the vote be adopted on division.

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote.

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

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 10, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 7:00 p.m.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

The House resumed from May 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

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

It being 3:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the amendment on the motion at second reading of Bill C-19.

May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

[Chair read text of amendment to the amendment to House]

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #80

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

I declare the subamendment defeated.

The next question is on the amendment.

May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

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

[Chair read text of amendment to House]

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

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #81

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

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main 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.

The hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #82

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

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)