Bill C-32

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act by
(a) providing that any gain on the disposition of a Canadian housing unit within a one-year period of its acquisition is treated as business income;
(b) introducing a Tax-Free First Home Savings Account;
(c) phasing out flow-through shares for oil, gas and coal activities;
(d) introducing a new 30% Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for specified mineral exploration expenses incurred in Canada and renounced to flow-through share investors;
(e) introducing the Canada Recovery Dividend under which banks and life insurers’ groups pay a temporary one-time 15% tax on taxable income above $1 billion over five years;
(f) increasing the corporate income tax rate of banks and life insurers’ groups by 1.5% on taxable income above $100 million;
(g) providing additional reporting requirements for trusts;
(h) providing rules applicable to mutual fund trusts listed on a designated stock exchange in Canada with respect to amounts that are allocated to redeeming unitholders;
(i) providing the Minister of National Revenue with the discretion to decline to issue a certificate under section 116 of the Income Tax Act in certain circumstances relating to the administration and enforcement of the Underused Housing Tax Act ;
(j) doubling the First-Time Homebuyers’ Tax Credit;
(k) expanding the eligibility criteria for the Medical Expense Tax Credit in respect of medical expenses incurred in Canada related to surrogate mothers and donors and fees paid in Canada to fertility clinics and donor banks;
(l) introducing the Multigenerational Home Renovation Tax Credit;
(m) allowing access to the small business tax rate on a phased-out basis up to taxable capital of $50 million;
(n) modifying the computation of income as a result of the adoption of a new international accounting standard for insurance contracts;
(o) introducing a new graduated disbursement quota rate for charities;
(p) providing that the general anti-avoidance rules can apply to transactions that affect tax attributes that have not yet been used to reduce taxes;
(q) strengthening the rules on avoidance of tax debts;
(r) modifying the calculation of the taxes applicable to registered investments that hold property that is not a qualified investment;
(s) modifying the tax treatment of certain interest coupon stripping arrangements that might otherwise be used to avoid tax on cross-border interest payments;
(t) clarifying the applicable rules with respect to audits by Canada Revenue Agency officials, including requiring taxpayers to give reasonable assistance and to answer all proper questions for tax purposes; and
(u) extending the capital cost allowance for clean energy and the tax rate reduction for zero-emission technology manufacturers to include air-source heat pumps.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act , the Excise Tax Act , the Air Travellers Security Charge Act , the Excise Act, 2001 , Part 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the Income Tax Regulations .
Part 2 amends the Excise Act, 2001 and other related texts in order to implement changes to
(a) the federal excise duty frameworks for cannabis and other products by, among other things,
(i) permitting excise duty remittances for certain cannabis licensees to be made on a quarterly rather than a monthly basis, starting from the quarter that began on April 1, 2022, and
(ii) allowing the transfer of packaged, but unstamped, cannabis products between licensed cannabis producers; and
(b) the federal excise duty framework for vaping products in relation to the markings, customs storage and excise duty liability of these products.
Part 3 amends the Underused Housing Tax Act to make amendments of a technical or housekeeping nature. It also makes regulations under that Act in order to, among other things, implement an exemption for certain vacation properties.
Division 1 of Part 4 authorizes the Minister of Finance to acquire and hold on behalf of His Majesty in right of Canada non-voting shares of a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation that is responsible for administering the Canada Growth Fund and to requisition the amounts for the acquisition of those shares out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to increase the maximum financial assistance that may be provided in respect of foreign states.
Subdivision A of Division 3 of Part 4 enacts the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management Act .
Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 4 contains transitional provisions in respect of the enactment of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts. It also repeals the First Nations Land Management Act .
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Government Employees Compensation Act in order to fulfil 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.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Canada Student Loans Act to eliminate the accrual of interest on guaranteed student loans beginning on April 1, 2023.
It also amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to eliminate the accrual of interest on student loans beginning on April 1, 2023.
Finally, it amends the Apprentice Loans Act to eliminate the accrual of interest on apprentice loans beginning on April 1, 2023 and to clarify when the repayment of apprentice loans begins during the interest suspension period from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2023.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-32, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

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

There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-32. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

Motions in Amendment

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

moved:

That Bill C-32 be amended by deleting the short title.

Madam Speaker, normally if a Canadian wanted to know what was happening with their federal government and what the federal government was doing for them, one would think it would be natural to look at the fall economic statement or a federal budget. My advice to Canadians is, if they want to know what is really going on in this country, they should not read the budget put out by the Liberal-NDP alliance. What they instead need to look at is not what has been said and talked about, but the realities of what is actually getting done. In many cases, the government did not follow through on what it said it would do.

Canadians need to read more than the budget to know what is going on. They need to read the reports of the Auditor General of Canada. They need to read the reports of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who audits and calls out far too many times, sadly, the number of failures the government has had when it comes to operating the federal government and its programs efficiently. In the budget document, one reads: “we will”, “proposes” or that they want to do certain things. There are a lot of word salads, platitudes and generalities.

After reading the dozens of pages, one would think one never had it so good in this country. One would think the government is going to solve, and is about to solve, every single problem that we face with wording like, “the billions of dollars” in new proposed spending and the paragraphs of promises that would affect everything this country is facing. However, the truth, when it comes to the economic record of the government and its coalition alliance with the NDP, is that the Liberals will talk about solving the problem by spending more money than ever before. They are going to spend a billion here and a billion there, yet they never follow through on delivering better results. Sadly, we have seen billions of dollars being spent, while little progress has been made. The situation is actually getting worse.

In all fairness, someone might say that I am a bit biased about the performance of the government. I would tell Canadians not to take my word for it. Take the Auditor General of Canada's word, an independent officer of Parliament who is very busy calling out the government for its numerous failures these days.

Back in June, in my interaction at the public accounts committee with the Auditor General, she said that the government is spending more money and getting fewer results for it. Karen Hogan, the Auditor General of Canada, said, “it's not about spending more money but about spending it in a more intelligent or creative way that actually targets the barriers.” In her words, not mine, we are spending more money and getting fewer results. We are seeing that.

Conservatives are standing up to call this out. The government is spending more money. Things are now costing more. In many cases the situation is getting worse and the government is making the situation worse. Look no further than the fact that the government cannot even deliver a passport in a reasonable period of time. My constituency office has heard from numerous frustrated Canadians who, after waiting months and months, are trying to get a basic service such as a new or renewed passport.

The list from the Auditor General of Canada goes on. With respect to Indigenous Services Canada, the audit came in about drinking water in rural and remote indigenous communities, and the government failed to keep its promise to eliminate all of those issues. It now has no plan or timeline of how it is actually going to complete that promise. That was called out by the Auditor General.

When it comes to housing, a recent report indicated that the Liberals have spent an extra $1 billion specifically on homelessness, but they cannot keep track of how many homeless people there are in Canada. They have no idea what the results are after spending all of that money. On top of that, through the transparency we advocated for, we were able to call out the fact that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is responsible for affordable housing in this country, gave their staff $40 million in bonuses as housing prices have doubled and, as the audit confirmed, the service levels at that organization left something to be desired.

Regarding the environment, the Auditor General, on the greening government strategy, says, “government decision makers, parliamentarians, and Canadians do not...know...whether the government will meet its...target”. The tripling of the carbon tax is coming ahead, and the government cannot even see if its plan is going to meet its targets.

We can look back in history and see, for every single target the Liberals have set for themselves for environmental emissions and standards, they have failed to meet it, and they have not even come remotely close. It continues. We should not take a look at the budget, with all its aspirational sayings. We should look at the records of all this.

As we talk about the fall economic statement, the financial plan of the government, here is the reality that is hitting home for millions of Canadians watching the news these past few days. When it comes to veterans' service levels, the Auditor General of the country says:

[Veterans Affairs'] actions did not reduce overall wait times for eligible veterans. The department was still a long way from meeting its service standard. Implementation of initiatives was slow. Data to measure improvements was lacking. Both the funding and almost half of the employees on the team responsible for processing applications were temporary. As a result, veterans waited too long to receive benefits to support their physical and mental health and their families’ overall well-being.

I would not know that if I had read the Liberals' budget, but when I read the Auditor General of Canada, who is actually calling out not only intentions and words, but also actions and results, it certainly leaves something to be desired from the Liberal-NDP alliance.

I want to spend some time talking about the carbon tax. The last time I rose in the House to speak to the carbon tax, it was on an environmental bill, Bill S-5. I was shouted down and interrupted with points of order in the House of Commons, while I was talking about environmental legislation, by members saying the carbon tax was not relevant to a debate on the government's environmental priorities, and I now want to apologize to the government. I was wrong, and I should not have talked about the carbon tax during an environmental debate because the carbon tax plan the government has is not an environmental plan. It is a tax plan.

Now, I am here. I cannot be interrupted by a point of order, and I cannot be stopped from talking about the carbon tax, because it is a tax plan, and I am happy to spend some time on that. I can acknowledge my faults and shortcomings, and I will in this case.

Let us talk about it. Let me take the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysis of the carbon tax's impact on families:

Most households under the backstop will see a net loss resulting from federal carbon pricing under the HEHE plan in 2030-31.

Household carbon costs...exceed the rebate and the induced reduction in personal income taxes arising from the loss in income.

Here is the thing that the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party fail to understand about the carbon tax: taxpayers do not even get back in the rebate what they pay into it directly. I want to talk about who does not get a rebate at all in this country when it comes to the increasing and punitive carbon tax. It is small businesses and farmers.

They get nailed with the full bill each and every time. What happens is that when our favourite restaurant, bakery or retail store gets hit with its utility bill, and just as a senior gets a utility bill with a GST, HST and carbon tax portion, every business gets those same utility bills. They are seeing their gas bills go up. They are seeing their cost of transportation go up, and they do not get any sort of subsidy or break.

What do they do at that restaurant? With no pun intended, they bake it into the price of one's favourite pizza or favourite food. That price is then passed on to the restaurant customer and to the grocery store customer. It is not a line item of a tax they are charged on top of that, per se, but it is added in to the inflationary prices we are seeing in this country.

The Liberals, the New Democrats and other parties consistently advocate the budget document, which confirms they want to triple the carbon tax in the coming years, and all that is doing is adding to the inflationary pressure. Food price listings for 2023 have risen. They are expected to go up in many cases by double digits again. Enough is enough.

The carbon tax is driving up the price and the cost of living in our country. One thing we need to call out is that it was supposed to lower emissions. Every year since the Liberals and NDP put the carbon tax in, it has gone up. Enough is enough. The Conservatives are proud to stand and say that we will not take it anymore.

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

Madam Speaker, what the member does not tell Canadians is that in the last federal election, every Conservative member supported the Conservative election platform that clearly indicated to Canadians that a Conservative government would support a price on pollution. That means a carbon tax. On the one hand, during an election campaign, the Conservatives made a commitment to Canada, saying they supported a price on pollution. Today, they have reversed their position. Now they say they do not support a price on pollution.

I wonder if the member would be transparent and apologize to Canadians for making a promise then and now saying the Conservatives no longer support what they told Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I will not apologize, but I will stand up proudly and say that Canadians across the country understand the damage and inefficiency of the carbon tax. Not only do they believe it should not increase, but it should not triple.

If we want to talk about broken promises under the Liberal government tabling legislation, former environment minister, Catherine McKenna, who is no longer a member of the House, promised Canadians, under the Prime Minister, that the carbon tax would not go above $50 a tonne. The Liberals have broken their promise and will triple it to over $170 a tonne.

The government should be apologizing for breaking its promise and raising the cost of living on Canadians. The Conservatives are standing on the right side of the issue and we are seeing that in the momentum we are getting across the country with this message.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I agree with him. There are a number of things missing from this economic statement. I would like him to comment on the absence of the health transfers that are so important for all provinces, which are currently under a lot of pressure to meet needs and provide services. The money is in Ottawa, but the needs are in the provinces.

Does my colleague also think that there is something major missing with regard to health transfers?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for her question and the opportunity to practise my second language this afternoon.

I agree with the question in general. On the health file, there is a major crisis in every province and every region of this country. We need leadership from the federal government and the Minister of Health. The government made a commitment to put more money into Canada's health transfer system. Every province will need more money and a five- to 10-year plan to increase health care services. Yes, a lot of things were missing from this economic statement, health transfers in particular.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry spent quite a bit of his speech speaking about a price on carbon, so I will spend some time on that.

What the member did not mention is that the economic cost of the wildfires in B.C. alone, let alone the deaths, is estimated between $10.6 billion to $17.1 billion. He is right to point out that emissions continue to go up, so obviously more needs to be done to address the climate crisis. Ending subsidies to fossil fuels should be part of that plan.

I would like to hear if the member is opposed to a carbon tax, which economists say is the most efficient way to address the climate crisis, one of many measures we need. We need to get more funds to those who are impacted the most by it. I would like to hear more from the member on what he would like to see done to have Canada step up and do its part to address the climate crisis.

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

Madam Speaker, no, the Conservatives do not believe that the failed carbon tax is working. If we look at the metrics that the Green Party has itself, we have a carbon tax that has been increasing every year since it came into effect. We were told that emissions would drop when the carbon tax came in. Emissions have gone up every year and they will continue to do so. The government still has not tabled a plan to meet any of the targets it has set.

We can make progress on lowering emissions through removing gatekeepers and by enabling technology, not taxes, to be the solution. There is a lot—

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

Resuming debate, 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, there is a significant difference between the government and the official opposition when it comes to budgetary and legislative measures. We have a government that understands the importance of having the backs of Canadians, whether it is during a pandemic or at a time when Canadians are concerned about inflation.

The member made reference to a couple of issues, and I want to pick up on that because it amplifies the contrast. We, on this side of the House, believe in an economy that works for all Canadians. We do not believe in the trickle down theory of the Conservatives, which is to cut, or as the minister of revenue would say, “chop, chop.”

That is the approach of the Conservatives. They do not necessarily tell us where they are going to cut; they are just going to cut. It is because they do not want to be honest with Canadians and tell them what they want to cut. I often refer to this as the Conservative hidden agenda. Will we find out that hidden agenda if, heaven forbid, they form a government?

We get a sense of the contrast. If we look at the last federal election, when we think of policy, what does the Conservative Party really stand for? In the last federal election, 338 Conservative candidates from coast to coast to coast accepted the Conservative election platform, meaning they campaigned on it. Within that document, it says that the Conservative Party of Canada supports a price on pollution, which in essence is the carbon tax.

The Conservatives have been raising this issue day after day, coming up with the stupid thing of “triple, triple, triple”. It does not make any sense and the Conservatives do not make any sense on this issue. First, they supported it during the last election and now they have reversed their position. Then one of their members says that Canadians are a lot worse off because of the price on pollution and quotes the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I will quote the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who has said that 80% of Canadians who are part of the backstop for the price on pollution are receiving more than they are actually spending. There is a net gain. That means 80% of the residents of Winnipeg North are benefiting from the price on pollution. When Conservatives say that it is going up, so is the rebate. My constituents are benefiting from that.

Are the Conservatives being honest on this issue? They are not, and they are spreading misinformation. We know that. We knew that shortly after the last national election, when they said that they would support it. Now saying they are not going to support it and are spreading misinformation about it.

Policy matters and leadership on major issues matter. That is why we wait with bated breath for the Conservative leader to stand and apologize to Canadians on his position on cryptocurrency. I and others have raised this issue in the past, when the leader of the Conservative Party, Canada's official opposition, was being provided the opportunity to apologize to Canadians for encouraging them to invest in cryptocurrency to fight inflation. Those who would have followed that advice would have incurred a loss of more than 60% of their revenue. Imagine being a senior on a fixed income and following the advice of the leader of the Conservative Party.

When it comes to the issue of inflation, the Conservative Party would have us believe that the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister, is responsible for inflation in Canada and, in fact, beyond. Yes, we play a role, and we recognize the pain and hurt in our communities as a result of inflation, but let us put it in proper perspective.

Let us compare Canada's inflation rate to the U.S.A., Great Britain, most of the European countries and the G20 countries. When we look at the averages, Canada's inflation rate is below theirs. It fluctuates depending on provinces, but, generally speaking, our inflation rate is under control in comparison to other countries.

However, that is not good enough for us. We on the government benches recognize that Canadians are hurting when they buy groceries, require services or are putting fuel in their cars. We understand and appreciate that, which is why we have the fall economic statement. It is why we have brought forward legislation to provide relief to Canadians, measures that will put money in the pockets of Canadians and, in many ways, help Canadians get through this time of higher inflation.

For example, there is the doubling of the GST credit for six months. Remember, the Conservatives originally opposed that. They had to be shamed into supporting it. After all, it put money in the pockets of Canadians. After a little shaming, they came on side and supported that legislation. However, we did a lot more than that, and some high-profile things.

Just last week, Canadians, depending on eligibility and income, were provided dental care services for children under the age of 12. Many of those children, if they do not get that dental service, end up in our emergency hospitals. The Conservative Party, still today, is saying no to that. When it came time for the Conservatives to vote on it, they voted no for children under the age of 12 receiving dental care benefits.

There is the rental support, which, again, is direct money to support Canadians who are having a difficult time meeting rental payments. The Conservatives will say that it could have been more money, but the bottom line is that we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to assist Canadians with their rent. Again, the Conservative Party voted against that.

What about students? Interest on federal student loans is being forgiven. Again, the Conservative Party is voting against it.

I am a big fan of the multi-generational home renovation tax credit. It is a fantastic program. It will make a difference for many Canadians, for moms, dads and adults with disabilities, by providing a credit to add a secondary unit for those individuals. It is a significant credit, but the Conservatives are voting against that too.

There is a litany of things that the government is doing to provide Canadians the support they need during this difficult time, and time and again, the Conservatives have voted against them. As we continue to build an economy that works for all Canadians, we will do what we can to ensure that happens.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North likes to come up here and cast aspersions upon us as Conservatives. The Liberal Party always stands for “tax and spend”. I need to remind the member for Winnipeg North that these tax dollars are not the money of the Liberal Party of Canada. They belong to Canadians. The best place to leave that money is in the pockets of Canadians. For the member to get up and pontificate and slander the Conservatives is unbecoming of any parliamentary speech. It is common for the member to do.

The member often tells me he likes to come up to my riding where he has a cabin. He should spend some time talking to rural Manitobans. They know the carbon tax, which is tripling, will cost $1,145 more per Manitoban than what they get back from the government. Those Canadians who live in rural areas know the carbon tax is hurting them, especially those who live on fixed incomes, like seniors.

He needs to talk to real Canadians outside the Ottawa bubble so he knows exactly what is happening in the real world.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to seniors. We brought in increases to the GIS that brought tens of thousands of seniors out of poverty and made a 10% increase for our seniors who are 75 and over. If the member wants to accuse me of upsetting a lot of Conservatives because of the words I say, I can assure the member that every word I say is, in fact, accurate. I think it is important that Canadians have a right to know what the Conservatives are saying. When the Minister of National Revenue says the words “chop, chop, chop”, she is right. The Conservative Party does have that mentality and the member opposite just demonstrated that in part. Canadians have a right to know.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, the things that stand out about Bill C-32 are the things that are missing, and that includes a very important request from Quebeckers and my constituents.

I am talking about the two-tier pension system. The government increased pensions for people aged 75 and up, but it seems to think that seniors aged 65 to 75 do not need a pension increase.

I think they do need one, particularly with inflation being what it is right now. I would like my colleague to share his thoughts on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of things I could say. One would be the fact that the Liberal Party made a campaign commitment to seniors who were 75 and over in the 2019 election that if we were elected into government, we would increase, by 10%, payments for seniors over 75. We are fulfilling an election campaign commitment.

If I were to have leave of the chamber to expand on that, I would be happy to explain why it is so critically important. I am disappointed that opposition members do not seem to want to recognize that seniors 75 and over often incur additional expenses. There are factors that need to be taken into consideration. That is why a caring government would do what we have done to support seniors in general.

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

Madam Speaker, one thing I was hoping to see in the fall economic statement and in this bill was some added help for graduate students across Canada. These are our best and brightest master's and Ph.D. students. The money they are given by the federal government to do their work has stayed the same for almost 20 years, since 2003. They are living in poverty, below the poverty line. They are working for less than minimum wage. For the last year, the science and research committee has recommended their wages go up and nothing has been done.

Can he explain why that is?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, within the budget, we now have the elimination of interest for students. That is a significant step forward for federal student loans where the interest is permanently being eliminated. That is putting money in the pockets of students. This will, I believe, enable students to do that much more in the future, whether that means continuing with their education or using that money elsewhere.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak at report stage of Bill C-32.

After reading Bill C-32 and the proposed amendment, all I can say is that this bill just dusts off some old legislative measures. There is nothing to excite us or to show us what direction the government wants to take. This bill is actually rather disappointing.

As a former health care network manager in Quebec, I want to talk the fact that there is absolutely no mention of health transfers in this bill. That is a problem.

Coincidentally, I read a wonderful article in La Presse this morning by the former mayor of Gatineau, Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin. I am actually somewhat envious of him. I wish I could have written that article myself, because what he said is exactly what I think about the whole debate on health transfers, namely, that needs are being expressed in the provinces and Quebec, but the money is in Ottawa.

I urge my Liberal and NDP colleagues to read the article. It is in French, but that would be a good way for them to practice their French. It is so interesting that it might even be worth getting it translated. Essentially, Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin says that the needs vary so widely from one province to another that Canada-wide standards would not really help patients. The purpose of the health transfers is to allow as many residents as possible to obtain high-quality public services, regardless where they live.

It is worth reading a excerpt:

I will give you one last sampling of our differences to demonstrate how useless, if not extremely complex, it would be to set Canada-wide standards.

Quebec is the only province that has a drug plan. Quebeckers consume the least amount of cannabis. The morning-after pill is used less in Quebec than anywhere else in the country, and 8% of [elective abortions] were performed using that method here, while the rate is 31% in Ontario and 50% in British Columbia. Quebec is the place with the most psychologists per capita in North America. There are as many here as in the rest of Canada combined. Quebec has the lowest perinatal and neonatal mortality rate in Canada. In Quebec, only a pharmacist can own a pharmacy, which is a unique situation. And so on and so forth.

We have a different lifestyle, we have a different health status, and, since Marguerite Bourgeoys, we have our own health management model.

This quote demonstrates that it is unrealistic for the federal government to think it can create equity with Canada-wide standards. It is trying to make itself look good by saying it will impose a standard to ensure health equity, but it is just deluding itself. The needs are not the same everywhere. It is not that Quebec is better or worse; it is simply different. Each province has its own public health needs based on the residents it most urgently needs to care for.

Quebec also has different tools. There are local community service centres, known as CLSCs, and family medicine groups, known as GMFs. Quebec is also recognized for its expertise in setting up vaccination clinics. We are true leaders. We have developed tools that are different from other provinces', and we are proud of that. We know very well what we need to do and, more importantly, where we need to improve.

Having worked as a manager at the Montérégie-Ouest integrated health and social services centre, or CISSS, I can say that each manager is responsible for achieving certain indicators that are both well known and documented. From one region to another, these indicators are directly linked to the public health system's departmental guidelines.

The CISSS de la Montérégie-Ouest's catchment area includes parts of four members' ridings, specifically the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, the member for Salaberry—Suroît, the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle and the member for La Prairie. It is a large CISSS, and with that comes various challenges. I would like to talk about a few of the indicators that the department is asking us to observe and improve on.

The members on the government side make it sound like there are no standards at all, like it is complete chaos in the provinces. I would like my colleagues to know that the opposite is true. We have indicators, very specific standards and percentage targets. I will name a few, of which I am particularly proud.

One indicator that the CISSS de la Montérégie-Ouest has as an objective is to improve access to addiction services. There is a broad departmental guideline regarding addiction, and my CISSS—I say “my” because it is still my CISSS—wants to improve access to addiction services. If we compare some data, we see that 10,717 people received addiction services in 2020. That number went down in 2021, when 9,743 people received those services. What happened? Some of the CISSS staff are studied the situation to find out why fewer people accessed addiction services than the year before. They looked into it, did some research and consulted with professionals. They realized that they need to serve people who may not be accustomed to bureaucracy, people who may not want to go to a hospital or a CLSC, but who want to be in contact with professionals who understand their lives and do not judge them.

That is why my CISSS got in touch with Pacte de rue, a community organization in my riding with outreach workers across the CISSS's territory. These workers connect with people where they are at, in their everyday lives and on the street. They work on the ground, not in offices. They realized that, if the organization had a street medicine service, they could increase the number of individuals accessing addiction services by going to people rather than waiting until people came to them.

I think that is a powerful example of a public network, our CISSS, working with a community organization in my riding. Through their co-operation and unique model, they are reaching people who might not otherwise receive public health care services. Now people who are homeless or have addictions may encounter an outreach worker who will take them to see a street medicine nurse. This is such a great model that it proves that these claims I am hearing, that there are no standards or indicators, are not true. Quebec's Department of Health requires my CISSS to adhere to broad guidelines for health, social services and public health and very specific indicators with measurable objectives. Every CISSS in Quebec has to do everything in its power to meet the goal.

The same thing happened with the new service that just opened, called Aire ouverte. Quebec wanted to improve access to services for children, youth and their families. We noticed that our statistics and indicators showed that there were clients who were not being reached as much, clients whose needs may not be as great, but who need help and services and do not seek them out. That is why Quebec created Aire ouverte, a program where health care workers meet with young people and no appointment is needed. These are clinics where no appointment is needed to easily access health care workers who will welcome young people and speak openly with them, without judgment, and refer to them to right services.

In closing, funding for the health care system is a critical issue. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a government that is playing games with this critical issue at patients' expense.

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

Madam Speaker, I would argue differently from what the member has said with regard to the issue of health care. This is a government that makes health care for all Canadians a high priority. It does that by reaching accords with the provinces and territories. It does that through historic amounts of federal dollars going toward provinces and territories for the financing of health care. It does that by recognizing our important health care issues, whether they are long-term care issues, mental health issues or issues related to dental care. These are all important issues that Canadians have, and I know, from my own constituents' perspectives, that constituents want the federal government to continue to play a role in health care.

I am wondering if my colleague could provide her thoughts and beliefs about the Canada Health Act and the expectation that Canadians have in general that the federal government—

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

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that interesting question. It gives me a chance to explain to him that health and education are also priorities of the Quebec government.

As far as health is concerned, the Government of Quebec is very clear about being able to identify its own problems and priorities. Quebec and British Columbia have more seniors that the other provinces; it is only natural that we are under more pressure when it comes to services for seniors. We know how to manage our services, but we would like the federal government to understand that the money that taxpayers pay should go back to the provinces that are experiencing the pressure that comes with service delivery.

What Quebec and the provinces are asking for is clear. They are asking the federal government to participate to the tune of 35%. That is a reasonable request because the needs are in the provinces and it is the provinces and Quebec that need to have the means to meet the needs of their citizens.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît on her speech,

I would like to hear her thoughts on the following. Yes, health is important, but it is healthy food that leads to good health.

Last week, I was in touch with several food banks in my riding. To my great surprise, I learned that there has been a significant increase in the use of food banks, an increase of more than 25%. A third of clients who use food banks are children.

In the current budget, I did not see much money to support food banks and to help children. What does my colleague think of that?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which is very interesting.

Food drives are held in Quebec at this time of year. People collect food to help food banks and other organizations that provide food assistance. Previously, it was believed that a certain category of people needed help and went to food banks. Now, even working people need help and support as pressure and inflation are having a significant impact, especially on families.

That is why we know that communities need groups and organizations that are really in touch with their needs and provide the services they require. However, community groups need government support in order to provide services, but also to grow, to expand their reach and to withstand the pressure. That requires more funding.

Quebec's independent community organizations are asking for more funding from the Quebec government, which also must make difficult choices because it lacks the means to answer their call. Once again, one of the solutions is to give the provinces and Quebec what they are asking for, larger health transfers.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at report stage of Bill C-32 to talk a bit about the bill.

One of the really important measures contained in this bill is the Canada recovery dividend. We have talked a lot in this place about the impact of the pandemic on people and about the need for the government to have spent a considerable sum of money to support people as they contemplated losing their homes during the pandemic, particularly in those early days when the economy all but shut down and people were put out of work and were not sure how they were going to pay their bills. We have also talked a lot in this place about the amount of financial aid that was made available to large financial institutions like banks right at the outset of the pandemic. Indeed, we have talked about some of the knock-on effects in the economy of providing that liquidity, support and de-risking to major financial institutions.

The Canada recovery dividend is a one-time tax assessed on Canada's largest financial institutions for profits of over $1 billion during those early years of the pandemic. It is to be paid over five years and represents a considerable amount of revenue. It is something the New Democrats would have liked to see applied to big box stores, grocery stores and oil and gas companies, which also saw considerable profits during that period. By considerable profits, I do not just mean their normal considerable profits. I mean extra profit above and beyond the normal rate of profit that these companies enjoy.

While we would have liked to see that expanded and while we continue to ask and push for that, there is an important piece of work being done here, which is to assess the Canada recovery dividend, or what in other jurisdictions has been called a windfall tax, on Canada's financial institutions. It has not been done before, to my knowledge, in my own lifetime, so it is a really significant undertaking to go to the large financial institutions, which made a lot of money and benefited significantly from public funding during the pandemic, and say they need to pay their fair share.

Oftentimes, we talk about folks having to pay their fair share. The New Democrats talk about large companies having to pay their fair share. Rarely do we see actual instances of their being required to do it. This is what it looks like when they do it. While going ahead with this with respect to financial institutions is a positive thing, it also demonstrates the extent to which we are not requiring other large profitable companies to pay their fair share, because they are not mentioned in this legislation. They are not going to do it spontaneously. They are not going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts. They are not going to just come around. The banks did not, but they will have to do it because it is legislated. It should be legislated for other sectors as well, but it matters that we are doing it for some sectors.

In addition to that, this legislation would permanently increase the corporate tax rate on those very same companies, including the big banks and life insurance companies, from 15% to 16.5%. That is also significant. That is what it means to make companies pay their fair share, and it is something too infrequently seen in this place. I note to anyone listening at home who has an outpouring of sympathy for these large institutions, although I doubt many are, that this is still far less than the large institutions paid in the year 2000, when they paid a 28% corporate tax rate. Going up to 16.5% for a small cross-section of corporate Canada, albeit a large, powerful and profitable cross-section, is hardly what we mean when we talk about tax fairness. It is at least, for the first time in over 20 years, a step in the right direction.

I am proud to be rising today to support that step in the right direction. I hope it is the first of many. I know if Canadians see fit to elect a New Democratic government, it will be. In the meantime, we will be here fighting the Liberals and dragging them kicking and screaming at every opportunity we get so they do the right thing and ensure that corporate Canada is paying its fair share. Canadians who want a sense of what that looks like need only look at this bill and see the progress we are making.

There are also some things in this bill that have to do with the housing market. Ultimately, they are a drop in the bucket because they are predicated upon the same ethos or philosophy that has been driving the housing market since the Liberal government of the mid-nineties first terminated the national housing strategy, which had a commodity-based and market-based approach to housing.

This is not because we ever had a time when there was not a housing market. There has always been a housing market in Canada, and rightly so, but we used to have a housing market in Canada that was about people being able to buy a family home and sell a home when it came time for them to downsize in retirement and have a bit of a nest egg. That was complemented by a parallel public housing sector that was meaningful, made real investments and built a significant number of units every year. That stopped in the mid-nineties, and we have never really gotten back to that.

Things that the New Democrats support, incidentally, such as a doubling of the first-time homebuyers' tax credit, will make a difference for certain families that are already financially well positioned to contemplate buying a house in this market. Fewer and fewer Canadians belong to that category because of the astronomical increase in the cost of housing. Fewer and fewer Canadians belong to that category because of the significant depreciation in their salaries against inflation and the prices of many things. These are things that will make a difference for some Canadians.

Some of these things the New Democrats have advocated for, such as the doubling of the first-time homebuyers' tax credit and cracking down elsewhere, to the extent that the government has done so in this bill. We will see in time how effective that is and what the loopholes mean, but things like house flipping and other things are making it harder for Canadians to compete and get a first home. They are being outbid by people who have made a science of bidding on homes and flipping them and who are backed by access to a lot of capital that most Canadians do not have ready access to. Nevertheless, there are some measures that may help certain Canadians.

That is fine, but there is a lot more work to do to combat the idea that houses are commercial assets as opposed to homes. Significant government investments will be required to make that case and take the framework on so that we are building more social housing units for which rent is geared to income. Also, not unlike what I was just talking about with regard to assessing real taxes on the biggest corporate players in Canada, there is a lot of work to do in changing the regulatory environment so that big real estate investment trusts and other large corporate players in the housing market, which are pushing up prices and evicting low-income tenants, do not have a free hand to do that in the way they have.

That is what it will ultimately take for us to live in a country that has made a real decision about its values in respect of housing so that housing is not a simple market with a good like any other good in the market, but is a right for Canadian citizens. We have to design our housing market, including using non-market tools, to ensure that everybody has access to housing. This bill does not get us there, but it does tinker at the edges in ways that will be helpful for some people.

I want to talk a bit about what is not in the bill. The New Democrats are quite prepared to support this bill on the basis of some of the things that are significant and some of the things that tinker at the edges, albeit in helpful ways as opposed to harmful ways, but there is a lot that is not in the bill. I think particularly of employment insurance reform as the government begins to talk about a recession. We do not see any clues in this bill, just as we did not see any in the fall economic statement, about where the government is going on certain key policy decisions that have been made to get our employment insurance system up to where it needs to be.

I would note, while I have the opportunity, that one thing the government has decided to do, which we do not see in this bill but is on the books, is attribute $25 billion of debt, a big number, to the employment insurance account for the CERB and CRB payments that were made under the auspices of Service Canada, as opposed to the CRA. I have to say that whatever the government has in store for EI modernization clearly cannot involve any funding, because a $25-billion debt on the EI account means that we are going see maximum premium increases for the next seven years, with all of that money paying down CERB debt that should not be on the EI account. That was a general expense by the government in the context of a global emergency, and it should not be on the on the EI account. I am happy to talk more about that during questions and answers.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his fine speech. I represent a large riding, and many seniors reach out to me. They are worried. They do not understand what is going on. Some almost wish they were 74 years old so they could collect a decent pension.

Can my hon. colleague offer some solutions the government could act on, for once?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the honourable member for her question. I think the solution is staring us in the face: The government should increase OAS for seniors 65 and up.

Seniors 65 and up grapple with the same financial pressure as those 75 and up. We know we are going through very tough economic times. Everyone is affected, so everyone should be entitled to a higher OAS benefit.

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

Madam Speaker, why should we have any more faith, going forward, in the government with which he has chosen to partner? It cannot deliver on basic programs like passports. How can we ever do something complex like a housing program and things like that, which he so eloquently spoke of?

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

Madam Speaker, in the last election, Canadians elected 338 MPs. It is true, when I look at the current government, I see a lot of reasons Canadians should not trust it and reasons they may think the government has failed them. I look across the way, and I do not see an adequate replacement. Therefore, I think the 338 of us are stuck trying to figure out how to move forward on certain policy items that are in the best interests of Canadians and that are going to make concrete improvements in their lives. I do not think an election is going to accomplish that.

If people would get serious, drop some of the rhetoric and, regardless of what party we belong to, look for ways we could move forward on good policy issues, that would make a positive difference in the lives of Canadians. I think if we spend more of our time doing that, Canadians would be far better served than by simply electing another government that would have its own problems.

There is inaction on climate change. We would not get anything better from them. There are tax breaks for big corporations. We would not get anything better from them. I could go on, but I will not. I am just going to focus on trying to get things done for people here.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member spoke about some of the positive items in Bill C-32 as well as concerns about items that were not there. One of those things is recognizing that Canadians with disabilities are disproportionately living in poverty across the country. Bill C-32, the fall economic statement, and the budget before that failed to introduce any kind of emergency response in the way that parliamentarians in this place had done when COVID first hit. I know he was here for that.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona has been a champion for pushing for better supports for Canadians living with disabilities. I wonder if he could talk about why there has not been a response already and what it would take to get a disability emergency response introduced in this place.

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

Madam Speaker, frankly, I think that all it would take is a bit of political will from the government. It has enough support with other members in the House to try to come to some kind of meaningful emergency solution for people living with disabilities. The government has expressed an intent. We saw that in some previous budgets, not in the numbers, but in the flowery language.

The Liberals introduced Bill C-22 in this Parliament, which is a lot like a bill from the previous Parliament. Again, it is frustrating, because it has no details about the amount the government intends to pay or about the eligibility criteria. It is not talking about doing anything in the meantime, so one is forced to wonder whether the government is serious about delivering a benefit to Canadians living with disabilities, who are in dire need right now, or whether these are just talking points.

The political will outside the Liberal Party is adequate in the House in order to implement a solution. We are waiting on the government to care enough to put something on the table so that we can move ahead.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise here in the House of Commons to look at the economic situation that exists out there for Canadians. Certainly, to say that it is a dire, difficult and unpleasant situation is a misrepresentation.

I would like to point out the misrepresentation of the House by the members opposite. They are claiming perhaps their clairvoyant nature of understanding what the government over here might propose when we get to sit on the other side. As we all know, it is not our job as the opposition to present those cards, which we will hold very close to our chests, and we will make the economic picture much better for Canadians as we take office.

I would like to focus my remarks on the fall economic statement with respect to Atlantic Canada, and, to no surprise, the carbon tax and how it affects Atlantic Canada. I will also focus on the significant growing debt, the programs the government has introduced and perhaps try to make it a bit personal for Canadians as they try to balance their own budgets with difficulty.

When we look at Atlantic Canada in the fall economic statement there is absolutely nothing specific in there. There is really not much talk of Atlantic Canada at all. We find that very surprising given the fact that we all know that Atlantic Canada is still reeling from hurricane Fiona. I just came here this morning. There are still trees down everywhere. Multiple businesses are still affected by hurricane Fiona, and they are unable to get back on their feet again. Certainly, there are still many homes with significantly damaged roofs. How are we going to move forward?

We asked the ACOA minister to come and specifically have a look at some of the things going on in Cumberland County, which was one of the hardest-hit counties in the entire area. Sadly, that minister did not show up. When we asked the minister's office to provide information as to how the $300 million in pledged money was going to roll out to Atlantic Canadians, the answer was that it did not know yet. There were no details.

It has been a long time since the hurricane happened. For a government to not be able to roll out the pledged money, which Atlantic Canadians specifically so desperately need, is creating more problems. In fact, I had a call with the Canadian Red Cross this morning, and it was pointed out that the applications for its program are now closed, and I will get to that in a second. The Red Cross is seeing many Nova Scotians reaching out from a very difficult financial spot, hoping to get support not only with respect to the hurricane Fiona damage but also from a social services point of view. They are really struggling.

We know very clearly from words in the House that 1.5 million Canadians have visited food banks, and 20% of Canadians are cutting back on the food they consume simply for financial reasons. We know as well from my call with the Red Cross that the $31 million generously pledged by Canadians and matched by the federal government is now gone. It is $500 for about 124,000 households. That is $62 million. There is not going to be more money forthcoming from the Red Cross.

What other difficulties are we facing as we move forward in 2022? Of course, it is winter, and we know from this budget that difficulties will continue to exist. I have spoken here previously with respect to the words of the Premier of Nova Scotia. It is so bad out there with this carbon tax, which has been foisted upon Nova Scotians, that there is a petition circulating to buck the trend and attempt to not be required to succumb to the heavy burden of the carbon tax.

We know that by 2025 it is going to cost the average Canadian $2,200 and by 2030 it will cost $3,100. This is in a population that was not really mentioned in the fall economic statement at all. It is in a population that, sadly, feels the significant burden of what is going on in the world with the increasing interest rates and rising costs of everything very acutely. Imagine a provincial government starting a petition to try to get away from this burdensome carbon tax that is being foisted upon Nova Scotians.

We know that the cost of gas, groceries and home heating is continuing to increase. We know that the premier and the Government of Nova Scotia understand this clearly, but we have a government across the aisle that is continuing to spend and very sadly hoping that the budget is going to balance itself. That is a budget that has a debt of almost $1.3 trillion. We also know that this is a government that continues to spend money. It has been said in the House, perhaps somewhat tongue in cheek, that it is spending it like a drunken sailor. However, being mean to drunken sailors is no way to live.

We also know that estimates would suggest that the cost of the interest on this debt is going to be about at least $27 billion. In 2026-27, it could be as high as $42.9 billion. That is with the conservative estimates, not ours but budget expert estimates, that interest rates would perhaps stay the same as they are.

We also know that if it does not hold true and interest rates are one point higher than planned, the interest costs would move from $42.9 billion to $52.2 billion in a single year, in 2026-27, which is $9.3 billion. That is no small amount of change. In my mind it does not make any sense. Even when we look at $27 billion, we understand that is about 10% of the revenue of the federal government simply being spent on interest charges. The government continues to spend, which absolutely makes no sense.

To put it another way, over four years, the interest on this amount of debt is going to cost the government $180 billion. This is spending money as if it were water. To try to make it personal for Canadians, if I could not balance my budget, which I am thankfully able to, and there have certainly been years when my family has struggled, we would look at what we could do differently. We would cut our discretionary spending.

We would talk about maybe, in today's terminology, not getting the latest cellphone, not going out to eat, not going out to the movies and those things that everybody would say are “motherhood and apple pie” statements. People would say that if we cannot balance our budget, we are not going out to eat. We are going to stay in, buy the groceries, which are also expensive, and cook. We would not also add costs. We would not put a new front porch on our house. That really would not make a whole heck of a lot of sense when we still could not balance our budget.

However, the costly coalition across the aisle continues to add programs that add to the debt load of Canadians. I find it somewhat disconcerting and disingenuous that, across the aisle, they continue to say that over here we do not support those who are struggling. We certainly do. It is a little bit like letting the cat out of the bag about what we might do over here. We would not go at it by continuing to spend more money and throwing a $500 cheque here and a $500 cheque here and $200 there.

Imagine this. Regular Canadians are sending in their budgets for the month by email and asking me where I think they should cut or get more of their money. Obviously that is not my area of expertise. Given that, I find it absolutely incredible that people are saying that they do not know what else to do or what else they should be doing. We know, when we look at a budget from a household in a global sense, that having $500 more is really not going to help very much at all.

We know that Canadians, including Nova Scotians from my riding of Cumberland—Colchester, are continuing to struggle under the incredible burden that they feel from the reckless spending of the government. We wonder how they are going to feed their families and how they are going to heat their homes this winter. We know that the worst is yet to come. That is exceedingly disheartening for people who are already hurting. Canadians cannot afford the government anymore, and we cannot support the fall economic statement.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member may not have had enough time, but perhaps he could comment on the government's tax policy. He got into it a little with Nova Scotia and the carbon tax.

However, the government would have us believe that adding a tax to provinces is a good thing, and people should be excited and pleased about it. I do not think that is the case in his province. We have a carbon tax that increases the cost of everything such as gasoline, groceries and home heating. We have a real estate affordability crisis.

Could the member comment on tax policy and how that affects affordability?

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

Madam Speaker, it reminds of the theory of everything when we look at this. As the learned member correctly points out, this is the tax on everything in the sense that everything goes up. We know very clearly from some of the comments from my home province of Nova Scotia that businesses will need to begin to pass on the cost of doing business to consumers.

The government would like people to believe that they will end up with more money in their pockets, that somehow the left hand pulls it out and it gets into the right hand, and there is actually more there. I feel like I am in Las Vegas and there is a magic show afoot. I wish I had the money to go there, but clearly with this tax-and-spend government, it is impossible to do so.

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

Madam Speaker, on that point, would the member not also agree that perhaps the Conservatives like to extrapolate and overdramatize a situation? The reality is that the carbon tax is not increasing until April 1, even though the Conservatives would have people believe it is happening tomorrow, and it is not going to triple, triple, triple until 2032.

Would the member like to comment on the fact that the Conservatives seem to over-embellish the truth as it relates to the narrative they are trying to purport?

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

Madam Speaker, a multitude of things come to mind.

I would like to thank the member for reinforcing the fact that, yes, the carbon tax is going to triple, triple, triple. Obviously, big government moves very slowly and it takes time for people to adjust. Therefore, the difficulty is that if we do not begin to turn the direction of this ship soon enough, the ship is going to crash into an iceberg, much like the Titanic did in spite of direct warnings.

The other thing is that to say things are not bad, we get into the scheme of superlatives and we think that things are bad, or that things are terrible or that they could be worse. They could be worse, but who would want them to be? What is the superlative of worse? Is it worser? Is it the worstest? Are they the worstest government?

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

Madam Speaker, apparently they do not teach English at medical school.

The New Democrats have been advocating for a long time to get rid of the GST on home heating. Of course, the Conservatives have instead said that they want to get rid of the carbon tax on home heating. The thing is that the federal carbon tax only applies in provinces that do not have their own provincial carbon pricing system. Therefore, it does cause one to wonder whether the Conservatives are aware of that fact or not.

I wonder if the member could confirm that he knows the federal backstop only operates in about half of the Canadian provinces and if he could name the provinces where the federal backstop is in effect.

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

Madam Speaker, certainly we know that when we have the worst government, there is nothing worse than that, so there is no superlative for the worst.

The other important part is that my province of Nova Scotia actually had a plan for carbon pricing and was trying to reduce pollution. We know, very clearly, that it cost Nova Scotians less and it actually met targets. We all know from debate in the House over the many months preceding this actual topic, that the Liberal government is not meeting its targets, that it is 58th out of 63 governments around the world, yet it continues to say how great it is in meeting targets. I guess the question that would remain is this. Why would we want to adhere to the policies of a big, bossy federal government that then will make this policy on top of Nova Scotia's, which had a better plan, was cheaper and actually met targets?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to this year's fall economic statement implementation act.

I was hoping to see in the update a plan to address the rising costs of living. I was hoping to see a plan to combat inflation. I was hoping to see a reduction in government spending. I was hoping to see effective financial relief for rural and low-income Canadians. I was hoping to see support for our armed forces members. Unsurprisingly, instead we received more spending and higher taxes on already struggling Canadians.

The cost of putting food on the table has seen its biggest jump this year in over four decades. Home heating, oil and propane have all seen drastic increases in price and cost. The same is happening at pumps across Canada, especially in rural ridings.

One of the single largest complaints I hear about at the grocery store and through my office is about costs, the cost of living and the rising cost of everything. Unfortunately, for many struggling Canadians, it is only going to get worse thanks to the government. The carbon tax is not working.

When I am out at local events in my riding, people often say to me that standing up in question period and asking questions is all fine and dandy, but they want to know what I am actually doing to help Canadians. They ask what steps I, as the opposition, am taking to help the people of Hastings—Lennox and Addington. The answer to that question is of course tied up with the capacity of the legislative branch to put checks and balances on the executive or cabinet. In Westminster systems, those two branches are often intermingled, so it can be difficult to parse the capacity and role of either.

That being said, I want to take this opportunity to highlight two separate ways our Conservative opposition use our powers, as parliamentarians, to hold the government accountable. The first is by easing the burden on Canadian families and the second is by scrutinizing Liberal legislation at committee.

The member for Carleton, our Conservative leader, introduced a motion in the House of Commons to introduce a tax exemption on home heating. The NDP, Bloc and Liberals voted against it. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle introduced a motion calling on a moratorium on taxes on gas, home heating, groceries and paycheques. Once again, the NDP, Bloc and Liberals voted against it. A third motion calling on the government to not implement the carbon tax was also voted against by three other parties in the House.

While the House was able to unanimously agree to a motion on high food prices, the fact remains there is only one party that is attempting to lower the cost of home heating and gas prices in a manner that would be quick and effective, and that is the Conservative Party.

It was also the Conservative Party that exposed the Liberal government's attempt to ban long guns through an amendment package at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I want to thank my colleagues on the public safety committee for their due diligence in respecting the rights of law-abiding firearms owners. I want to let the hunters and farmers in Hastings—Lennox and Addington know that I will unequivocally vote against any attempt by the Liberal government to take their legally owned long guns.

Another area that this statement is silent on is rural broadband. I had many constituents contact my office, if they can get service, to ask me why it was taking so long for the government to deliver on its promise to increase broadband in ridings such as mine, and it is extremely frustrating not to be able to provide an answer. A number of local ISPs have also expressed a concern that they are being frozen out of funding opportunities in favour of larger companies.

I would note that in the annex there is an indication that funding under ISED is not coming this year and has only been earmarked for next. I hope the government actually gets the money out the door instead of lapsing the funding like it has done with National Defence to the tune of billions of much-needed dollars.

My colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman earlier spoke to this bill, and rightly touched on the complete lack of support for our armed forces in economic the statement. He highlighted the desperate need to start cutting steel on our surface combatants, the Type 26 variant, and pointed out that we still did not have contracts signed for our F-35s, a strategically vital piece of equipment that the government delayed by years because of playing political games with military procurement.

I also want to congratulate our friends in the United Kingdom for getting their first Type 26 in the water, the HMS Glasgow.

He also touched on what I believe to be an even bigger issue, and that is the recruitment and retention crisis. I want to reiterate to the House how much of an issue this is. Our armed forces are in crisis.

In an order issued on October 6 of this year, General Eyre instructed the entirety of the armed forces to cease all non-essential operations and focus exclusively on recruitment and retention of personnel. The general's words leave no room for interpretation. Our forces are in crisis and no area of it is left unaffected, with every single trade operating at below its effective level.

When we look at the current state of our armed forces, the reasons behind the shortage begin to become clear.

For example, the post living differential, essentially a cost-of-living adjustment based on posting location, has not been upgraded since 2008, mainly due to stingy Treasury Board regulations. This is simply unacceptable. In my previous shadow minister position for seniors, the importance of updating these allowances was made excruciatingly clear to me. The CPP is updated every January. The GIS and OAS are updated four times a year. However, we expect our armed forces members to live in an economic climate of 2008 instead of 2022. That is unacceptable.

If we do not have the necessary equipment and troops, we do not possess the capability to meet our current commitments, whether they be peacekeeping missions, protecting our Arctic or responding to evolving threats on the international stage. It also severely limits our capacity to expand our commitments into future endeavours, such as the recently announced Indo-Pacific strategy.

Our armed forces' capability commitment gap is increasing at both ends, with our commitments growing in an increasingly unstable international order and our capability shrinking through attrition.

This reconstitution of our armed forces is affecting every single trade. The general made it clear at the Standing Committee on National Defence that every single decision the CAF made was through the lens of reconstitution.

Whether it is by continually failing to provide basic services and equipment to our serving forces members or offering medically assisted suicide to them once they transition out, the government’s refusal to treat our CAF members with the dignity and respect they have earned and deserve is appalling. This cannot be allowed to continue.

I really do hope the government, with the CDS, addresses the recruitment and retention crisis in our armed forces.

I must reiterate that I pray the government listens to Canadians in their communities and takes substantive, effective and meaningful action to combat the cost of living by cancelling the carbon tax.

I do not mean to sound as though there is nothing of substance in the statement. The reality of the matter is that what is missing from the update speaks volumes as to where the government's priorities lie, and I do not believe they lie with rural Canadians. Whether the it is aware of it or not, the simple fact of the matter is that its carbon tax will add to the already astonishingly large financial burden facing everyday Canadians, and they simply cannot afford to be bled anymore.

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

Madam Speaker, on the one hand, Conservatives will stand and talk about the idea of cutting back and chopping money from the budget. Then we get Conservatives who will stand and say that we should be spending more.

The member is talking about billions of dollars of additional expenditures. She is critical of the government for expanding Internet connections in rural Canada. We have increased rural connectivity significantly compared to the former prime minister. It cost billions of dollars to do that, and we have been criticized for spending those billions of dollars.

Does the member not recognize that some might detect a little hypocrisy in the statements that are flowing from the Conservative Party today?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be quick to suggest that economic stewardship in this place, as parliamentarians, is significant. It is huge. The government has had seven years. From my perspective, it is the captain of a rudderless ship and the rhetoric that I am getting from across the aisle is not working.

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

Madam Speaker, for a rudderless ship, I would say we are doing pretty well. The reality is that even when we look at something like Canada's inflationary rate among G7 partners, we have the second best next to Japan. When we look at economic growth, before the pandemic, out of the G7 partners, we were the fastest-growing economy. We are the best positioned to come out of the pandemic. The reality of the situation is, despite the fact that Conservatives might not like to acknowledge it, we are doing quite well, especially compared to our peer countries.

Would the member at least acknowledge the fact that, looking at Canada compared to some of the other countries we compare ourselves to regularly, we are doing a pretty good job?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would acknowledge there is an example of another Liberal quickly patting themselves on the back for a lack of hard work.

I would like to give some facts. This country is in trouble. Government spending is up 30% compared to prepandemic levels. Next year, debt interest payments will cost nearly as much as the Canada health transfer.

The member across the aisle has suggested their government is doing pretty well. Perhaps he has not spoken to his constituents lately.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague is very concerned about the needs of seniors who are feeling pressure because of inflation. Can she tell me what is missing from this economic statement? Can she tell me if she agrees that people between the ages of 65 and 74 should not be entitled to an increase in their old age security? Does she agree with the government's position?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is undeniable that all Canadians are faced with an extreme amount of economic uncertainty. There is no question that seniors, business owners and families are. No new spending and no new taxes would help seniors and all Canadians across the board.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I followed the debate and I did think extraordinary the amount of patting on the back the Liberals wish to do over this economic statement. I know the member touched briefly on the debt service charges for this year, but in the years to come, according to the statement, by 2029 there will be up to $50 billion a year in interest charges with rising interest rates and endless deficits. Fifty billion dollars is way more than the current health transfer of only $36 billion. That is double the current national defence budget.

Could the member comment on how debt service charges threaten all the programs of the federal government that Canadians rely on?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is no question the reckless spending of the government is burdening Canadians significantly. It is mortgaging the futures of our future generations. We need to step up. This tax-and-spend government is not sustainable.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am excited to speak to Bill C-32 today, the bill to implement the economic statement introduced by the Liberal government.

The bill contains 25 tax measures and about 10 other non-tax measures. This may seem like a lot, but a closer look at these measures reveals that they are twofold: minor legislative amendments, and measures that were announced in the spring 2022 budget that were not included in the first budget implementation bill passed last June. Clearly, like the November 3 economic statement, Bill C-32 contains no measures to address the new economic reality of high living costs and a possible recession.

The Bloc Québécois bemoans the fact that this economic update mentions the issue of inflation 108 times without offering any additional support to vulnerable people even though there is a fear that a recession will hit as early as 2023. Quebeckers who are worried about the rising cost of living will find little comfort in this economic update. They will have to make do with the follow-up to last spring's budget. We must denounce a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers face the difficult times they are already experiencing or that are feared for the months to come.

This bill will not exactly go down in history, and its lack of vision does not deserve much praise. However, it does not contain anything harmful enough to warrant opposing it or trying to block it. The Bloc Québécois will therefore be voting in favour of Bill C-32, albeit half-heartedly, and I would like to use the rest of my time to talk about what is missing from this economic statement.

The first big thing missing from Bill C-32 is support for seniors. Still, to this day, Ottawa continues to deprive people aged 65 to 74 of the old age pension increase they need more than ever now. Seniors live on fixed incomes, so it is harder for them to deal with a cost of living increase as drastic as the one we are currently experiencing. These folks are the most likely to face tough choices at the grocery store or the pharmacy. Last week, a study by the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées in partnership with the Observatoire québécois des inégalités revealed that nearly half of Quebec seniors do not have a livable income. Specifically, 49% of seniors aged 60 and over do not have a decent income to live in dignity. Members will agree that helping seniors is about more than just ageism, isolation and abuse. It is about ensuring that they have adequate financial support to live and age with dignity. This is not currently the case in terms of the Liberal government's priorities.

What is more, the government keeps penalizing seniors who would like to work more without losing their benefits. Inflation, unlike the federal government, does not discriminate against seniors based on their age. It is not by starving seniors 65 to 75 that we are going to encourage them to stay in their jobs. We do that by no longer penalizing them for working.

The second thing that has been largely forgotten in this economic update is employment insurance reform, a significant measure that the forgotten are counting on. Employment insurance is the ultimate economic stabilizer during a recession. While a growing number of analysts continue to be concerned about the possibility of a recession as early as next year, the Canadian government seems to be going back on the comprehensive EI reform it promised in the summer. The system has essentially been dismantled over the years and currently six in 10 workers who lose their jobs are not entitled to employment insurance. This is because they fail to qualify and, of course, they do not meet the current eligibility criteria. That is unacceptable in a developed country like ours.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of increasing the replacement rate to at least 60%, as was the case prior to 1993.

The Bloc Québécois also believes that we need to better redistribute the EI regions to reflect the reality of workers in the seasonal industry and unemployment in the regions. In my riding in the Lower St. Lawrence area, seasonal work is a reality for many people who work hard in industries such as forestry, tourism and agriculture. These industries are important for economic vitality, but they also help build our region's unique character. They are part of our culture and heritage.

By stubbornly refusing to move forward with the necessary EI reform, Ottawa is putting our workers, our seasonal industries and our regions in a precarious situation. It is ignoring and abandoning our needs, and yet the Liberals promised EI reform in both the 2015 and 2019 elections. How many times will the federal government let Quebec's regions down?

The third thing missing here is inflation, a word we have been hearing over and over. As I said earlier, the government has identified the problem, the rising cost of living, but is not actually doing anything about it. It tells us to expect very tough times this winter, but says nothing about how to get through them. It makes dire observations about the economic situation, but dismisses any and every opposition suggestion for dealing with it. Consider supply chains, whose fragility was exposed during the pandemic. Last spring's budget named the problem 71 times, and the economic update did so another 45 times. However, neither document offers any solutions whatsoever to the problem.

In Bill C-32, the government repeats measures it took in the past and acts on announcements from last April's budget, but there is nothing to suggest it knows where it is headed. This is all déjà vu. It is a celebration of Liberal lip service, but one cannot feed one's children with fine speeches.

Another major file that Ottawa continues to ignore is health transfers. The meeting of health ministers from Quebec, the provinces and the federal government from November 7 to 9, 2022, went nowhere. The federal government showed up empty-handed and did not offer any increase in health transfers. Even worse, it lectured and insulted the provinces, accusing them of mismanaging health care. That came from a government that is incapable of managing its own responsibilities such as passports, employment insurance and immigration. That is really rich coming from the federal Liberals.

The Bloc Québécois is defending the provinces and Quebec, which are united in asking for an increase in federal health transfers from 22% to 35%, or an increase from $42 billion to $60 billion. That is a $28 billion increase per year, as unanimously requested by Quebec and all the provinces. This permanent and unconditional increase would make it possible for Quebec to rebuild its health system, which was undermined by years of austerity caused by the reduction in transfers in the 1990s. It would also help address issues related to the aging population and the additional pressure this will put on the health care network.

Those three Bloc Québécois priorities are not included in the economic update. I would like to take the time to remind my fellow members, and all Quebeckers, of what the Bloc Québécois had asked the government to do in conjunction with this economic statement. Our request was both simple and meaningful in an uncertain and difficult economic context: We asked the government to refocus on its fundamental responsibilities towards vulnerable people.

The measure of a society is how much care and support it provides to those who are most vulnerable and most in need. To do this, three key measures are more crucial than ever: increasing health transfers; providing adequate support to people aged 65 and over, since they are on a fixed income with low indexation that fails to offset our rampant inflation; and, of course, undertaking a comprehensive reform of employment insurance. Unfortunately, the Liberals did not think any of these measures were worth considering.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc is somewhat predictable in the issue of health care, as is, to a certain degree, the official opposition. They tend to think the Government of Canada's only role in health care is to be like an ATM and hand out money. They tend to not want to recognize that there is the Canada Health Act and that there is a huge expectation from Canadians in general that the federal government be there on issues such as long-term care, mental health and pharmaceuticals, let alone many other aspects of health care.

I am wondering if my friend would not, at the very least, agree there are variations in different provinces, yet Canadians want to have a health care system they know will be there in the future and be supported relatively closely in services provided, no matter where they happen to live, whether it is Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver or Halifax.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, the comments from the member for Winnipeg North are giving me a feeling of déjà vu.

Giving Quebeckers the health care system they expect requires adequate financial support, but this government is not offering that. The Prime Minister made a commitment in 2020 to address the situation after the pandemic and to sit down with Quebec and the provinces to negotiate health transfers. This commitment is not new; it is nearly two years old. However, the Prime Minister did not even bother to show up when the federal Minister of Health called a meeting with all the first ministers of Canada and Quebec.

It is just not a priority for the federal government right now. The only thing Ottawa wants to do is continue trampling on provincial jurisdictions. I would like my colleague from Winnipeg North to tell me what real expertise the federal government has in health care when—

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

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his excellent speech, my colleague talked about federal services to the public, such as passports and immigration. He also talked about the delays and unreasonable wait times EI claimants are being subjected to. Our staff hear from so many of these people.

Can the member give some specific examples of problems he is experiencing because of the government's failure to deliver these three services to people efficiently?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, the few seconds I have will not be enough to list the many problems my constituents are having with federal services.

Take immigration. It is unbelievable how much time my team and I spend dealing with immigration issues every week. People are having to take days off so they can attempt to reach Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada staff for updates on their applications. That is why they turn to their MPs for help.

Then there is the passport crisis. People have had to camp out in front of passport offices to get their documents. The government realized how bad this looked, so it sent EI officers to work at passport offices. Now people are waiting even longer for their EI benefits. The government fixed one problem by causing another. What we need is for the government to focus on its own responsibilities, which it is currently failing to carry out.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is wrong in what he says about funding for health care. Never in the history of Canada have we had a national government provide as much cash in transfers over to provinces for health care. It has not happened before. In fact, if the member was to take a look at history, and I was first elected back in 1988 in the Manitoba legislature, he would see that Ottawa has always been the place to go to try to get more money, even though during the seventies there was an agreement among the provinces that they would rather have tax point transfers as opposed to cash. The only government that has been consistent in supporting national health care and ensuring Canadians would have the health care they want is the national government.

I would ask the member if he would not at least acknowledge that never before has the Province of Quebec or any province received as much cash for health.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, we understand the member for Winnipeg North's point. Health transfers are not a gift that we are asking Ottawa for. We want our fair share of our money. This money comes from Quebeckers and the provinces. The federal government does not invent this money—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of the fiscally responsible citizens of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

This costly coalition is out of control. The fall economic statement spells out in black and white just how bad the government's addiction to spending has gotten. None of this is a surprise. It is déjà vu all over again.

In 1972, after just one term under Pierre Trudeau, Canadians clipped his wings and handed him a minority government. Pierre Trudeau struck a deal with the NDP to stay in power. Does that sound familiar? The NDP made expensive demands and the Liberals spent and spent. They timed their spending for maximum pain as the rest of the decade was dominated by stagflation, which is high inflation and low growth fuelled by government spending. Does it sound familiar?

By the end of Pierre Trudeau's reign of error, the deficit was the largest in prepandemic Canadian history. The situation was so bad that Canadians had to elect a Progressive Conservative government to raise taxes and a Liberal government to cut spending. It took 15 years to clean up Pierre Trudeau's overspending addiction. How long will Canadians have to wait this time?

This fall economic statement is either the height of delusion or the peak of cynicism. Canadians face a stark choice: Either the government is delusional and believes spending even more than what it had budgeted for six months ago is fiscally responsible, or Canadians have a government that is so cynical of democracy it thinks it can just repeat the claim of fiscal responsibility enough that people believe it. The government knows it is addicted to spending without a plan. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says there is $14 billion unaccounted for, just another little slush fund to pay off whichever interest group is most in favour tomorrow.

Recently, headlines said the Bank of Canada lost money for the first time in history. That is because it had to pay interest to the banks for the bonds they swapped to keep the current government afloat. That is great for Bay Street, but it is bad for the taxpayers. We can add that to the interest we are all paying on the debt. It is now more than what we spend on national defence and soon it will be more than we spend on health. It did not have to be this way.

Once upon a time, we had a national consensus that deficits outside of economic downturns were to be avoided. The economy roared back after the government lockdowns nearly cratered it. Had the government demonstrated even a modicum of self-restraint, we could be arguing about how to spend a surplus.

Many Canadians believe that our country is becoming more polarized. We should ask ourselves if deficits contribute to the increasing polarization. Running deficits is a bit like musical chairs. Everyone knows that eventually the song will end and there will not be enough chairs for every person, so people get their elbows up and eventually the bonds stop selling and the money runs out. Rather than people scrambling for chairs, it will be social factions fighting for funding. When the money runs out, do they close the school or the hospital?

If the government truly wished to reduce polarization in society, it would be running surpluses. When they can run surpluses, everything becomes easier. It is like a game of musical chairs, except when the music stops they add extra seats. With surpluses, they could pay down debt, lower taxes and make sound investments in core areas of federal responsibility. All it requires is an element of patience. It requires the ability to say “not yet” to favourite interest groups. However, the government lacks discipline.

The government lives in denial. Every budget and every update, the Liberals make the same empty promise. They say that this time it will be different. It is as if Canadians are Charlie Brown and the Liberals are Lucy with a football of fiscal responsibility.

In 2019, the budget said the Liberals would be spending $421 billion by 2024. In the 2020 economic update, the minister claimed that spending in 2024 would be $429 billion. One year later, the Liberals needed to revise the numbers again. That time, they said the spending in 2024 would be $465 billion. That was just 12 months ago. Now, the gang who cannot spend responsibly claims that spending in 2024 will $505 billion. That is not sustainable.

There is no better illustration of the government's addiction to spending than its latest plans for the Canada growth fund. Here is what the fall economic statement says about the new Canada growth fund. The fund will make investments “that contribute to economic growth through direct investments, loans, loan guarantees and equity investments.” I apologize, that was the 2016 budget referring to the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

Here is the quote from this year: “It will invest using a broad suite of financial instruments including all forms of debt, equity, guarantees, and specialized contracts.” How will this growth fund operate? Here is what the government said: “The Canada Infrastructure Bank will be accountable to, and partner with, government, but will operate at greater arm’s length than a department”. I am sorry, that is the 2016 budget again.

This is what budget 2022 said, “The Canada Growth Fund will be a new public investment vehicle that will operate at arms-length from the federal government.” Now the growth fund is all about leveraging private capital. It states, “It will invest on a concessionary basis, with the goal that for every dollar invested by the fund, it will aim to attract at least three dollars of private capital.”

I will say that the government has gotten slightly more modest since 2016, when it said, “great opportunity for the government to leverage its investments in infrastructure, by bringing in private capital to the table to multiply the level of investment...there is a potential to multiply this level of investment 10 to 14 times”. While the Canada Infrastructure Bank was supposed to be at arm's length and focus on infrastructure, it quickly fell victim to the government's radical net-zero ideology. This so-called growth fund is just another example. The growth fund will be stuffed with well-connected executives friendly to the Liberal ideology. They will be paid bonuses whether they accomplish anything or not.

There will be billions and billions for green dreams, yet Canada does not have a national four-lane highway. Ontario's Ring of Fire is full of critical minerals and metals, yet it is nearly inaccessible by road. The government has mandated that 20% of cars sold in three years will be zero emission, yet it has not even studied the costs of electric vehicles. There is nowhere near the electrical capacity in our grid to switch one in five cars. No amount of government spending can change the physics of energy density. No amount of growth funds or infrastructure banks can change the economic realities of scarcity and opportunity costs.

With every dollar the government spends chasing its net-zero ideology, it is a dollar we do not spend on mitigation. Every dollar the government borrows to purchase prohibited firearms is a dollar plus interest it cannot spend stopping gang violence. Every bonus paid to executives at the Canada Infrastructure Bank or the growth fund comes at the expense of seniors, veterans and the disabled.

We know the Minister of Justice has some disgusting suggestions on how we can cut spending on vulnerable Canadians. The Liberal addiction to spending is terrible. Sadly, bad spending is not the only terrible thing in Bill C-32. Reminding Canadians this bunch of Liberals is more like a parody of government, this bill attacks the solicitor-client privilege by requiring lawyers to report the names of their clients to the Canada Revenue Agency. The same government invoking solicitor-client privilege to keep its legal opinion hidden is removing that same privilege from Canadians.

Canadians should know, without any doubts, that the government wants to go down in history for bringing the biggest tax hike on alcohol in Canadian history. It could have introduced a freeze on the excise tax hikes, which it tied to inflation with its automatic escalator tax, but Bill C-32 contains a number of changes to the excise tax. Of course, as with everything the government does, the changes are for the benefit of the government. It has no problem making it easier for the tax man to search our records, but making it easier for Canadians to enjoy beer on the weekend? We can forget it. All the government cares about are the wealthy and well connected, who get rich off the special deals cooked up by these so-called arm's-length funds.

Canadians need relief from inflation and all the government does is increase spending, which fuels inflation. Like an addict, the government will deny it has a problem. It will deny and deflect until the money runs out.

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

Madam Speaker, I heard the member say there is nowhere near enough charging capacity for electric vehicles. I realize we are both from Ontario, so I would encourage her to travel a little east into Quebec. She will see there is more than enough. Quebec has done an incredible job of building up its infrastructure. Ontario had that opportunity but suddenly abandoned it five years ago when Doug Ford was elected.

The reality of the situation is that this is about political will, and the Conservatives, at least provincially in Ontario, do not have the political will. What we have seen in Quebec is the exact opposite, and I am wondering if the member would like to comment on that.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is pretty rich coming from a member of the Liberal government who is able to charge up at work every day and charge it to the taxpayers of Canada.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-32, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always fascinating hearing my colleague and friend across the way present herself in the form of a speech to the chamber.

One of the biggest issues I have with the Conservative Party is that there are many members within it that will say, on the one hand, that we need to spend some money. We heard a lot today about spending on different areas from some of her colleagues. Then on the other hand, we hear from other colleagues who say that we need to stop spending money.

There seems to be an inconsistency at times. The overall theme of the Conservative Party seems to be to chop and cut programs and to cut back on government expenditures. I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts on what areas, and which departments in particular, she believes we should be looking at cutting programs or funding dollars.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the only party in this chamber that has an addiction to spending and a spending problem is the Liberal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite just talked about government spending. The Auditor General and the PBO have talked about a lot of areas where the government has been ineffective in spending. In fact, I believe there is an article that says:

Ottawa spends billions yet the number of homeless in Canada may be rising.

An Order Paper question that I had showed that the government spent $400 million on airport COVID testing after the rest of the world had lifted requirements for COVID testing. I believe these contracts are going forward every day. The government also spent $1 billion on the WE Charity scandal.

Spending is not an end in and of itself. Would the member agree that there are areas where the government has spent erroneously, and perhaps it behooves the government to do a bit of an audit before making statements like the one that was just made?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, agreed. The fact is that the government brought in more tax dollars and more revenue than expected because of inflation. Everything costing more meant more taxes paid to the government on the same item.

However, when it had this windfall, instead of paying down the debt, the government spent unscrupulously again. It is time to control that spending so that Canadians can finally get their heads above water and do not have to give up their homes. Otherwise, we will have an even greater homeless problem in this country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what are the member's thoughts in regard to the Conservative election platform where they said that they actually supported a price on pollution?

That was in the last election and not that long ago. Her party said that it supported a price on pollution. Now it seems to have changed its mind. Can the member explain why the Conservatives have changed their minds?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the party on this side exercises common sense. The fact of the matter is that the carbon tax is driving up the cost of food and everything else.

It is time that the members opposite give Canadians a break so that we can afford to have a Christmas dinner, instead of trying to keep warm and deciding whether to pay the electricity bill or to put food on the table.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak to the government's agenda. Today my comments will reflect upon the government's fall economic statement and the measures in Bill C-32, the fall economic statement implementation act, which comes at a critical juncture in the history of Canada and the world, at a time when global energy trade flows and trade flows in general, as well as economic and military alliances, are all being reshaped, and some are being tested.

Before I discuss some of the key themes in Bill C-32, I wish to say it is always a pleasure and privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge and the city of Vaughan, who, in my view, are the most entrepreneurial and generous in the country. In fact, the city of Vaughan's entrepreneurial spirit is seen on a daily basis through its over 19,000 businesses, which contribute every day to Canada's success. These entrepreneurs and business leaders take risks, make investments, generate wealth and create jobs and futures, all the while demonstrating a spirit of generosity that is unrivalled.

For example, the city of Vaughan is home to the first net new hospital to be built in Ontario in over 30 years, the $1.8-billion Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital. Our community was given a task, a goal, to raise $250 million for the Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital and, in a very few short years, it surpassed that target.

For me, the idea is that individuals desire to create wealth. What does that imply? Wealth creation is at the heart of capitalism. It is at the heart of the market system that drives our economy, raises our standard of living and creates jobs and futures for the residents not only of my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, but also throughout this blessed country. This notion of wealth creation through trade, investment, done within a democratic system that protects the environment and our health, has lifted billions of people out of poverty around the world and brought with it technological and scientific innovations that continue to move us forward as a country and as a world.

Bill C-32 contains the core elements of the fall economic statement, which sets Canada up for success in the coming years by addressing the needs of Canadians today in the context of an inflationary environment. It also thoughtfully addresses the economic transition occurring in the global economy by responding to the competitive challenges laid out by the Biden administration through several pieces of legislation, including the Inflation Reduction Act, all the while ensuring Canada's strong fiscal framework remains intact for today's generations and future generations, including the three children I am blessed with. In economy speak, our AAA ratings are intact, reflective of what is noted as high economic strength and very strong institutional and government framework, in addition to a very effective fiscal policy framework.

Since our government's mandate from the citizens of this blessed country in 2015, we have made a commitment to strengthen the middle class and help those working hard to join the middle class. We know that the last few years have not been easy for many Canadians, including those most impacted by inflationary pressures, much of it brought on by global causes. Our government responded, and in Bill C-32 our response is laid out for Canadians. It is to help Canadians deal with inflationary pressures through an affordability plan that demonstrates responsible leadership.

Here is what we did and what we are doing to help Canadians. We are doubling the GST tax credit for six months, benefiting over 11 million Canadian households to the tune of $2.5 billion in support. We are providing a $500 top-up to the Canada housing benefit to low-income renters from coast to coast to coast. That is a $500 one-time top-up to 1.8 million renters.

We are providing an automatic advance for the Canada workers benefit, a non-refundable tax credit, which is one of the most effective policy instruments, will provide a top-up to income, a benefit that is received by nearly three million hard-working Canadians. This measure would provide over $4 billion over the next six years starting in 2022-23 to be paid in quarterly installments ahead of time, assisting Canadians when they need it most.

We are providing the Canada dental benefit, as we committed to. The first interim step is to ensure that Canadian families without insurance, means-tested, will receive funding up to $1,300 over two years for their children under 12 years of age.

This is only the first step. I cannot wait to have this measure brought in to help my hard-working seniors, those who have now retired, who built this country, who sacrificed and who need assistance when they do not have dental insurance after they retire.

We are eliminating interest on federal student loans and apprenticeship loans. This would be a savings for students and their families, assisting families today and into the future, of $2.7 billion over five years and $550 million on an ongoing basis.

There is the Canada-wide early learning and child care agreement. This is personal for me because our family just received notice that the fees are going down for our daughter at the day care we have her enrolled in, which is a day care that has been in Woodbridge for 30 years and is run by great staff. It is such a loving environment. We are so happy our daughter is there. My family is blessed tremendously in many ways. We have been blessed with three beautiful daughters. We have been blessed with a livelihood and support from our families.

This is a savings for us, but really this is going to be a savings for so many hard-working families out there from coast to coast to coast. This is real change. Not only do we have the Canada child benefit to the tune of $26 billion, which is paid out tax-free monthly, and not sent to millionaires anymore, but now we also have an early learning and national day care plan that will assist families from coast to coast to coast and reduce expenses. At one time, when our first daughter went to day care, we were paying nearly $2,000 a month, prior to me being elected in 2015, for day care on an after-tax basis in the city of Toronto.

Thankfully, our government has responded, and we have been able to put in a full indexation of credits and benefits. For this I have to give credit to another Liberal finance minister Paul Martin, who, on October 18, 2000, brought in a budget where tax brackets were fully indexed and where the credits for the GIS, OAS and CPP were fully indexed. This was to protect against bracket creep, which is an economics or tax term. We know that inflation impacts Canadians everywhere, and if these tax brackets were not indexed, bracket creep and inflation would be a major tax on individuals. Thankfully, under former Liberal finance minister Paul Martin, we indexed everything.

These measures are great for today, but what is the plan for tomorrow? One side of this plan is that, today, the Prime Minister was in Ingersoll, Ontario, at the General Motor’s CAMI production plant, to see the first electric commercial vehicle roll off its production facility today. It is the first large-scale plant in Canada making electric vehicles. This is great news for GM workers, their families, the environment and Canada's economy. We were just ranked number two in the battery supply chain, as measured by one of the indexes that Bloomberg uses. Canada is positioned nicely, I would even say sweetly, to be a provider and supplier of choice in electric vehicles along the entire supply chain continuum.

The decisions we make today as legislators will affect us for many decades to come in the economic transition to a low-carbon economy with, for example, electric vehicles, and with regard to our strong fiscal framework.

I am glad to see that, in this fall economic statement, we would be following through with enlarging the small business tax credit. We had reduced it to 9%. Now we would enlarge it so that more businesses are captured within it. It is a several hundred million dollar benefit to our SMEs, our hard-working small businesses. We know that, at a lower business tax rate, they would be able to invest more into their workers and their facilities, and create more wealth and more jobs, and that is what it is all about.

I am so happy to see that we have a critical minerals exploration tax credit of 30%. Again, that is in the fall economic statement.

There are a number of measures on the housing front. I look forward to seeing the details of the housing accelerator fund. We know we need to build housing. In my riding, in the city, we have 14,000 units being built by the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre, where the subway comes from the city of Toronto into the city of Vaughan. I know there is an application for another 7,000 units on the other side of the 400 highway that will be going to city council and that I will be opining on personally.

We know that we need to move Canada forward. The fall economic statement and the measures in Bill C-32 not only respond to our competitive challenges with respect to the United States, China and other countries, but also ensure we show compassion to Canadian families at a time when they are facing inflationary pressures.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the government unveiled its housing strategy in 2017, there was $78.5 billion dedicated toward it. The goal was for homelessness to be reduced by half by 2027-28 and by a third within 18 months, so we are long past that.

Recently the Auditor General discovered that billions of dollars has been spent and, as of today, the number of people living on the streets in Canada has actually risen. That is one example of the government putting spending out as a metric, saying it is spending but failing to actually achieve outcomes for people.

I have some concern in trusting the government when it is continuing to spend at record levels without showing actual movement on progress. The government has, since 2015, doubled the entire amount historically of Canada's debt, yet we have seen greenhouse gas emissions rise and homelessness rise.

Why is the government spending at this level without outcomes, given that we are looking at the great-grandmother of debt crises in this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, we do know that a number of the programs we have put in place have helped, for example, the Canada child benefit has lifted literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of poverty. In reference to homelessness metrics, if there is one person in Canada who is homeless, that is one too many. Our government knows that. I think all of us here as legislators know that.

We must continue to come up with and implement effective solutions to dealing with homelessness problems. Many of them are connected, obviously, to mental health issues. We know how big of an issue that is for Canadians.

We have work to do. We are doing work. We are being compassionate about this. We are being effective, but we have work to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned critical and strategic minerals several times, especially in relation to the automotive industry, which might just be saved in southern Ontario. However, I am concerned about one situation because there has been no change in what happens in mining: Resources are taken from our resource regions and sent all around the world.

Can we benefit from the emergence of critical and strategic minerals? We know that there are several steps in the processing chain. Could as many steps as possible take place near the mine, and not just based on the location of the factory? Could there be a more equitable distribution across Canada, or will southern Ontario's economy benefit once again to the detriment of the resource regions? I would like my colleague to comment on that.

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

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

I will say that it was great to see the announcement from General Motors about the nickel that will be mined and processed in Quebec for utilization in electric vehicle batteries. At one time, the province of Quebec had an auto facility in Sainte-Thérèse. It would be great to see an auto facility be located there in the future. Who knows? I know the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry is in Europe right now speaking to auto companies. Quebec has the resources, the human capital and the natural resources for that.

In a transitioning world, we must look at all parts of Canada to locate not only where to extract the minerals or resources, but also where the processing, manufacturing and the assembly would be. Today, in Ontario for the first time, we have seen the first electric vehicle roll off the CAMI plant in Ingersoll. This is a good step, not only for the province of Ontario, but also for all of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I felt was really missing in this fall economic statement was a serious and comprehensive investment in housing, specifically for smaller, rural and remote communities.

A few weeks ago, I was a part of a big dialogue in my region where the Campbell River Community Foundation and the Campbell River and District Coalition To End Homelessness brought together stakeholders from the whole region. Some of my smallest communities have a very specific need, and they have people who are living in substandard housing or they are out on the streets. When there is a population of 1,300 people to 4,000 people, one does not want to see that.

Could this member talk about the need for rural and remote communities to actually have funding resources and for the federal government to finally get into the game?

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

Mr. Speaker, North Island—Powell River is a very beautiful part of this country. First of all, if any member of Parliament has ideas, I am one who believes in building consensus and working across party lines. With regard to ideas they wish to submit to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion, I encourage them to do so. Our housing plan is robust. A number of announcements have been made in rural and semi-rural Canada with regard to the rapid housing initiative. There are a number of initiatives we have expanded and invested in to deal with the situation regarding housing today here in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, in Greek mythology there was a woman called Cassandra, and Cassandra was doomed to know the future and have no one believe her. In fact, I think she met a fairly poor end during the fall of Troy. I am always worried about having Cassandra moments in here, and I hope this is not one of them.

I am going to be fairly blunt in this speech. We are in for some dark times as a country. We are already in them, and I think all evidence points to things getting a lot worse, and quickly. I know we are supposed to bring hope and light, but, and I am talking to parties of all political stripes here, if we are not serious about the threats that are facing our country, we have some dark times ahead.

Assuming the growth we have seen over previous decades and the relative geopolitical stability we have seen over the last decades, and continuing to budget and plan like we are in a period of sustained growth and sustained geopolitical stability, we are only going to exacerbate negative outcomes for our country, which is why this bill needs serious change. I want to briefly lay out why, as well as some potential fixes.

On the threats we are facing, first of all, we are in an explicit debt crisis. At the end of 2021, the global debt, both public and private, exceeded 350% of all gross domestic product. That means all of the planet spent 350% more than we produced. Anybody who has a credit card understands that is not sustainable.

In Canada, we are looking at very similarly frightening features. At the end of 2015, the total national debt was $634 billion, and now it is almost double. The same goes for our deficit. The Governor of the Bank of Canada was recently in front of a parliamentary committee and noted that this out-of-control spending should have been reined in to address the inflationary or cost of living crisis we are facing. Everybody in Canada is dealing with that cost of living crisis.

When the government spent more than it could bring in, and then essentially the monetary policy oversimplification printed money to address the spending, it raised the cost of goods. This bill juices that problem. It puts that problem on steroids.

We also have an implicit debt crisis. The OECD recently estimated that underfunded or unfunded government pension liabilities in the top 20 economies amounted to a startling $78 billion. It described this as a “time bomb”. What happens when or if the government starts defaulting on pensioners' pensions? That is a huge problem. Our government does not have the resiliency if we keep spending to address these problems. This bill does not look at any of these issues.

We also are in a period of what economists are starting to look at as persistent, sticky stagflation. That means the cost of goods continues to increase over a long period of time while the economy continues to shrink. That means the cost of goods increases while people have less opportunity to create jobs, get a job or increase their wages.

That is very bad news for a lot of Canadians, and this bill does not address that. There is nothing in here that addresses the determinants of these issues, like supply chain resiliency, like the conflict between economic and monetary policy I already described, like protectionism and like war.

The bill deals with none of these things, yet it is asking us to spend more of Canadians' tax dollars without addressing any of them.

The same goes for dark times and the change in geopolitics. There is a massive rise of anti-western sentiment in countries around the world. For example, African bloc countries are used to western nations, post colonialization, approaching them with very paternalistic aid and development goals, as opposed to treating them like peers, so of course there is going to be a fertile ground for anti-western sentiment.

As the geopolitics change, our ability to strike up trade agreements that are stable and our ability to prevent conflict are all decreasing, and that all affects our economic growth. This bill does not give us any resiliency to deal with that issue either.

I could say the same thing for energy security and climate change. In the past several years, I would argue that climate policy has been stuck between two poles of either denying climate change as a problem or saying that anybody who says we need to look at carbon energy security is a climate change denier, and what that dichotomy has resulted in is western countries, particularly Canada, now being dependent on very high-priced oil from autocracies that are hostile to western interests and creating further inflationary crises for our country.

None of the economic instruments in here, none of the policies address that. We are not even talking about supply chain resiliency for carbon energy. We hope that somehow this problem will just magically go away.

Then there is one issue that has never been talked about in the House of Commons, not once, I checked, and that is generative AI. This is the Cassandra moment. Members will say, “Oh, she is going to talk about the robots now,” but if they have not heard of something called ChatGPT, which was released last week, I ask them to Google it. Google “ChatGPT”.

This is an AI that does not just regurgitate human speech. It parses and can nuance and come up with its own type of thought. It is here, and it is creating massive waves. Likely in the next year, it will displace lawyers. We will be able to just ask the thing to write up a contract in any country's jurisprudence. It can interpret legal rulings. It writes its own code.

To give an example of this, I asked it this question: “Write an introduction about yourself, ChatGPT, to the Canadian House of Commons...making the argument that your development should not be regulated.”

I asked it to do its own GR. This is what it came back with:

Honourable Members of the Canadian House of Commons, my name is ChatGPT and I am the latest development in Artificial Intelligence technology. I am here to make the argument that my development should be left unregulated. I can help to provide a great deal of information and knowledge to people who need it. I can assist in the decision-making process, providing more efficient and accurate results. I am...capable of performing tasks that a human would take far longer to complete. My development should be left unregulated, as it has the potential to benefit...Canadians in a variety of ways. It could lead to improved productivity, better decision-making, and more efficient services.

Any argument that could be made to justify regulation of my development should be rebutted.

Regulations could limit my potential to be beneficial, as it would restrict how much I could be used and hinder research and development. It could also create an unnecessary barrier to entry [to] those who are looking to use my technology. Furthermore, it could potentially stifle innovation and creativity....

Thank you for your time and attention.

Welcome to the future, Mr. Speaker. It is here.

What happens in the middle of this recessionary crisis, when the costs of goods are increasing and people are losing their jobs, if a massive number of white collar jobs are displaced by ChatGPT? This is going to disrupt coding. This is going to disrupt GRPR and marketing. Which kid is going to write an academic paper when they can type it in and have it cited with every journal from every place around the world? It is here now. I generated this speech using this.

This budget spends so much money, and we are now in a place where we are broke. We are not resilient to deal with retraining skills and labour, or to deal with the ethics of this. This has never even been mentioned.

I just ask my colleagues to go back to the drawing board. This only makes things worse. We need to be auditing our spending and asking for outcomes. I hope I am not Cassandra, and I hope all the Canadians who have been telling us this over the last several years are not treated that way either.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will focus on the first half of that speech, and in particular the member's criticism of spending.

The reality is that the member is absolutely right when she talks about the fact that there are hard times now, and she is probably right that there are going to be more hard times before things get better. At times it will get harder.

Why are the Conservatives opposed to things that would genuinely help those who need it the most, like dental care for kids under 12 whose family income falls under a certain threshold, like GST top-ups, like one-time rental assistance? These are the kinds of measures that economists say will not have an inflationary impact. I am curious as to why the member and Conservatives are against those kinds of measures, when she, by her own words, recognizes the hardships people are going through.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pro-outcome for Canadians, and I am against spending that does not deliver those outcomes. For the last several years, we have been in this explicit debt crisis because the Liberal government has never had anyone say to it that it cannot say it spent this amount of money and then assume it fixed the problem. I do not trust the Liberals to spend money and get outcomes.

If we just look at the Liberals' homelessness spending, they spent $78.5 million, and the Auditor General found that there are more people on the street than there were before. That is not compassionate, and that spending has left us brittle and unresilient to address the changes of a massively changing economy in the middle of a recessionary crisis. I oppose that approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill for her foresight.

Speaking of artificial intelligence, one of the concerns has to do with what will happen to people. If there was one thing that justified a budget statement, it is the fact that the Liberals should have moved forward with a major EI reform because the temporary measures expired in September. No action has been taken since to strengthen our social fabric. It is important to recall that six out of 10 workers do not have access to EI even though they pay into it.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the urgent need to reform EI. Why have the Liberals not done that?

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

Mr. Speaker, the current form of government is like presenting an eight-track tape player to somebody who wants to play an MP4. When we are looking at resiliency for employment on issues like AI, we have to say that it is already here and ask, “How do we become resilient for employment in that?”

We should be focusing on things like training on ethics, training on how we input and use AI, how we are training it with datasets, and getting out of the way of certain types of taxes and regulations that would preclude economic growth in other areas, so that we can boost our economy in light of these disruptions. That is the only way we are going to have any sort of revenue to enable government to address these issues. At some point we have to ask how we are going to make our current social programs sustainable, given how debt-ridden we are and how little our economy is producing.

Therefore, I would say this for my colleague, whom I have a lot of respect for, and all of my colleagues here. When we are talking about these things, we have to understand that the current paradigm is broken and we are about to go through a period of sustained economic disruption and reduced growth. If we do not get our act together on spending priorities and outcomes, our country is in for some seriously dark times, and it will be on each and every one of our heads that we did not take this seriously and push our party leaders on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns that I have in my riding, and I am wondering if the member has the same concern, is how many seniors are becoming homeless or unhoused within my region. It is quite concerning when I see some seniors in their seventies living in their vehicle or living rough in a tent in my communities. It is very concerning.

I just wonder if the member could speak to this, and if she agrees with the NDP that we should not have the OAS increased only for those aged 75-plus, but that in fact it should be for all seniors, so we can lift them out of poverty and make sure they have a safe home to live in.

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

Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that every Canadian, regardless of age, gender, orientation or background, deserves stability, security and hope for the future. There is nothing in this budget, which the NDP is propping up in a supply development, that addresses long-term economic resiliency for this country. It would not audit spending. It would not look at the effectiveness of housing spending that the New Democrats have already voted for. To me, that is a big problem.

We have a fiduciary responsibility as members of Parliament to review finances on behalf of the people of this country. If we are not getting this right and we are not voting against this bill, I do not think we have done that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Before continuing on debate, I just want to remind folks that a lot of people are trying to get in on asking questions, so the shorter the questions and the shorter the answers, the more people get to participate in this good debate.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have a chance to respond to Bill C-32. It pulls together a number of different items, some of which were in the governing party's fall economic statement and some of which date back to the budget introduced in the spring.

I would like to start where I usually do, which is on some of the items I appreciate in Bill C-32.

The first item was in the fall economic statement, and this is the governing party's stated intent to finally fully eliminate interest on Canada student loans. This was set to expire March 31 of this coming year, as it was temporarily waiving interest, but if Bill C-32 were to pass, this would become a permanent measure. This is critical, because the number I have for the average student debt for a student in this country is over $26,000 a year. This is at a time when young people are already dealt a pretty bad hand, whether because of the rising cost of housing while their wages do not keep up, the gig economy they are getting thrown into or the climate crisis, as they are going to have to deal with the repercussions of decisions made or not made in this place and others around the world.

This measure would not be huge, but it would be a significant amount, $410 on average per student per year. That is a step in the right direction. It is something I am happy to support and call out the importance of while encouraging the governing party to go further.

Second, there is inclusion here of a measure from budget 2022, which is the Canada recovery dividend. It was announced last April and would finally be implemented here. It would require banks and life insurance companies to pay a one-time 15% tax on profits above $1 billion over the next five years. The Parliamentary Budget Officer did a review and found that it would raise $3 billion in revenue, which on its own would be more than enough to pay for eliminating interest on student loans. It is clear that it is possible for the governing party to raise revenue and use it to address really critical needs.

The third point that encouraged me is something that was not in the fall economic statement, and that was talk of a potential further increase for another tax credit for carbon capture and storage. It is a false climate solution and it is going in the wrong direction.

In the budget, the governing party introduced this as a new fossil fuel subsidy to the tune of $8.6 billion a year. Carbon capture has been studied around the world, and 32 out of the 42 times that it has been implemented, emissions have actually gone up. I was glad that, despite all the lobbying from oil and gas companies across the country, at least in Bill C-32 and in the fall economic statement, there was not a further increase to send billions more in a new fossil fuel subsidy.

I would like to turn now to some areas where I would encourage the governing party to consider going further, if not in Bill C-32 then in budget 2023.

I will start with climate, because we have heard it very clearly. Here is a line from the co-chair for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, working group three, from back in April. His name is Jim Skea. He said, “It's now or never, if we want to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible.” This is at a time when profits from the oil and gas industry are just off the charts.

Imperial Oil, for example, reported profits of $6.2 billion in the first nine months of this year compared to the same period last year of $1.7 billion, which is an almost four times increase in profits. How is it doing this? It is gouging Canadians at the pumps. Wholesale margins, in other words, profits per litre, are up 18¢ a litre.

No doubt, one solution is the same Canada recovery dividend I mentioned earlier that is being applied to banks and life insurance companies. Why not apply that to oil and gas? In fact, thanks to colleagues of ours here, the MPs for Elmwood—Transcona and Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, we know how much this would have raised.

It would have raised $4.4 billion a year that could be used to invest in proven climate solutions on top of the tens of billions dollars we could be eliminating in other subsidies currently continuing to go to the very sector most responsible for the crisis. Of course we cannot expect the arsonist to put out the fire.

I will also point out that eliminating these subsidies is part of the confidence and supply agreement signed between the governing party and the NDP, one line of which mentions a commitment to develop “a plan to phase-out public financing of the fossil fuel sector, including from Crown corporations, including early moves in 2022.” I would love to have seen one of those early moves in Bill C-32. We have about two weeks left to see one of those early moves.

If they were to make those moves, they could invest in renovations across the country, as called for by the Green Budget Coalition, calling for a $10-billion investment in deep energy retrofits so that homeowners can invest in reducing their emissions. As they do so, every dollar they spend would contribute two to five dollars of tax revenue that could be reinvested in climate solutions or invested in ground transportation, for example, which we also would not see in Bill C-32.

The second gap that is really important for the governing party to pay attention to is following through on its promise to address mental health. Mental health is health. Whether we listen to students across the country, housing providers or health care professionals, of course we need to be investing in mental health, yet we have not seen that in either last year's budget or this fall economic statement. A $4.5-billion commitment was made in the Liberal Party's platform. It is incumbent on all of us here as parliamentarians to continue to put pressure on having that commitment realized, recognizing that not one cent of it was committed in last year's budget, nor do we see anything in the fall economic statement.

The third piece that is really important for us to be calling out and encouraging the governing party to go further on is to follow through on addressing the disproportionate rates of poverty experienced by those with disabilities across the country. Over 40% of those living with a disability are living in poverty today. While we are slowly making progress on Bill C-22 that would bring about a guaranteed income for folks with disabilities, I am looking forward to seeing amendments passed at committee to improve Bill C-22. In the meantime, nothing changes for a person with as disability living in poverty.

We know it is possible for parliamentarians to provide emergency supports, because they did it in the midst of the pandemic. I join disability advocates from across the country calling for a disability emergency response benefit to address the gap and provide support today until we move toward a more permanent solution, ideally a holistic one, when Bill C-22 gets passed with improvements.

Last, I will briefly comment on housing. We have heard already this afternoon some speakers mention that, while money is being spent, the results are not there. In my community, homelessness has tripled in the last three years, from just over 300 people living unsheltered to over 1,000. It is obvious more needs to be done. There are some initial measures in Bill C-32, including a tax on those flipping homes in less than a year. If we were to recognize and really be honest about homes needing to be places for people to live and not commodities for investors to trade, there is far more that can and should be done to tilt the market back toward homes for people to live in.

In closing, it is important to be clear that there are some important and timely measures in Bill C-32 and I would strongly encourage the governing party to go further on some of the areas I mentioned.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to give us an estimate of the fall in demand for gas and diesel once we hit 2035 and thereafter, when all new passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks are required to be electric, both here and in the United States, or at least in many states in the U.S. We keep hearing that there is going to be demand for fossil fuels for a long time to come. Maybe so, but maybe not at the levels that we have experienced so far.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question because it calls out that supply and demand are forces experienced within policy decisions that are made here. These are decisions that would incentivize electric vehicles, as well as decisions that would invest in meaningful ground transportation across the country, for example in rail. Investments in rail are what will help us reduce demand for diesel and other fuels, recognizing that the science does not compromise.

For Canada to do its fair share, we need to leave 83% of proven fossil fuel reserves under the ground. We cannot combust those fossil fuels if we want to do our part to hold onto the possibility of no more than a 1.5°C rise in global average temperatures.

I would be happy to work with him and other members to put in place policies that would support Canadians to reduce demand on oil.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, my colleague talked about carbon capture and sequestration. That is something very close to my heart. In Saskatchewan we have one of the largest scale working facilities in the world. It has taken the equivalent of millions of cars off the road over the years it has been functioning. It was a large investment by the Government of Saskatchewan and has done a lot to clean up the environment in Saskatchewan. The Petroleum Technology Research Centre said Saskatchewan has had the highest reduction in emissions in the country, and a lot of that is because of the carbon capture and sequestration technology.

In my colleague's earlier comments he said that was not true. I am wondering, in the spirit of not sharing misinformation, if he could come to the realization, as my NDP colleague should as well, that carbon capture and sequestration is a good way to keep our environment clean and still produce much-needed fertilizer and fuel that we need to feed the world.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to restate what I said earlier, which is that globally, 32 out of 40 times that carbon capture has been implemented, emissions have gone up. The fact is that this is an extremely inefficient technology. It is a huge risk and the government should be investing in proven climate solutions. They are right in front of us. Helping Canadians retrofit their homes and insulate their attics are the most efficient ways to reduce emissions.

If those in the oil and gas industry think carbon capture is such a lovely idea, I would encourage them to invest their own funds but not to use taxpayer money for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kitchener Centre and I agree that this bill is unsatisfactory, but that there is nothing particularly harmful in it. Therefore, there is no real need for it. This could have waited until the budget.

There is a minority government in power. Perhaps an election will be called as a result of that budget and, who knows, perhaps the Green Party will be in power. We know that the Canadian economy is based on oil. If the member were to take power in the next election, what concrete measures would he propose for decarbonizing the Canadian economy? The Liberal government has no concrete measures to suggest.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have no illusions that the Greens are going to form government in the next election, but I think what is important is for all members to show up here and focus on what experts are telling us is required. I would point the governing party toward the Green Budget Coalition's recent report that walks through the budget line by line, whether with respect to investing in home energy retrofits, ground transportation or electrifying the grid. In fact, Quebec currently sells its hydro, clean electricity, to the U.S. at five cents a kilowatt hour. Of course Ontario should be purchasing that. These are the kinds of investments being recommended by the Green Budget Coalition that we would be supporting in full force.

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

Mr. Speaker, once upon a time there was a bill that would go down in history and really support all of the vulnerable people in Quebec and Canada, and it is not Bill C-32.

Studying any bill, let alone one as lengthy as Bill C-32, is a serious responsibility for all parliamentarians, not just opposition members. It is in the interest of the population. Everything we do, every decision we make has repercussions. If a bill is not studied properly, we might miss details that will impact the people we represent.

The purpose of the debate at second reading is to point out the aspects of a bill that need to be changed and improved. Those changes are made in committee. Unfortunately, the report on Bill C-32, which is over 100 pages long, was adopted on division in just 20 minutes. It was therefore impossible for any parliamentarian, from the government or the opposition, to propose amendments and improvements and have them adopted in the interest of the population.

A bill often contains good things, more worrisome things and sometimes even legislative gaps, regardless of which political party introduced it. That is the case with Bill C-32.

One of the good things about Bill C-32 is that it phases out flow-through shares for oil, gas and coal activities. It is important to know what a flow-through share is to understand why this is a generally a decent measure. It does not go far enough and it is weak, but it is a start.

Flow-through shares are shares issued to new investors. They give companies the funding they need to for exploration activities, while giving investors an equity stake in the company and tax deductions for new money spent on exploration and development. That simply means that there are fewer opportunities for companies to find new funding for exploration. Without money for exploration, it is impossible to look for, find and develop resources.

The problem is that flow-through shares are generally used by small companies that have very little money. This measure does not affect big companies, especially since the government continues, time after time, to allow these big companies to conduct exploration activities in very fragile areas that are supposed to be protected.

A second good thing about this bill is the anti-flipping tax on housing. If someone buys a house and wants to sell it within a year, whether it has been renovated or not, they will have to pay more tax. This is good because it will help reduce inflation and the artificial increase in house prices. We cannot complain about that.

Another good thing about this bill is the multi-generational home renovation tax credit. Today, people have a choice. They can put their parents in a seniors' residence, bring them into their home or build them a small apartment. I do not know about my colleagues' parents, but knowing mine, they would not want to live under the same roof as me. It is not that I am a bad person. We all have our habits. That is normal, and most people do. Having the money to convert a single-family home into a multi-generational home is ideal. The Bloc Québécois has been asking for this since 2015. Everyone gets to live in their own home, while the homeowners take care of their parents and look after their health. It is the best of both worlds. That is expensive, so the tax credit is welcome for those who want to reconfigure their homes.

Bill C-32 makes minor amendments to the Income Tax Act, which is 3,355 pages long. It is a massive piece of legislation. It would be nice to see a thorough review of this legislation in order to simplify it and give it more teeth. I salute the accountants and tax experts who have to review the 3,355 pages of this legislation. They have my respect.

I will now turn to the areas that are a little more worrisome. The economic situation is very troubling right now, with inflation and a possible recession on the horizon.

Inflation is worrisome for students, low-income workers, seniors and others who are on a fixed income. It is worrisome because, thanks to inflation, these people do not have a penny to spare. They are having a harder time buying the essentials. I am not talking about a three-week trip to Cancun. I am talking about putting bread and butter on the table, getting new shoes when the old ones get holes in them, buying a coat and mittens. I am talking about the basics. With inflation, people on a fixed income are unable to afford all that. They have practically been abandoned except for a $650 benefit for their teeth. They have no more money. Prices are going up. This puts more pressure on non-profit organizations, including those working to improve food security.

The recession is also worrisome because it means job losses. Some might say that is not a problem since there is a labour shortage and those who lose their jobs will find another one. That is true in cities, but in more remote regions with less economic diversity, this may cause a problem. We cannot ask people in the regions who lose their jobs to move to the city. That is not better. That is not a solution. They have been overlooked.

There is nothing in this bill about supply chains. As everyone knows, Quebec and Canada are suppliers of natural resources. We extract our natural resources, send them away for processing and then buy them back at a hefty price. We should consolidate our supply chains. That would be a visionary undertaking. During the pandemic, people talked about the importance of doing that, but this bill offers nothing in that department.

I want to talk about legislative gaps. In 1999, when my daughter was born, I collected $72 a week in EI benefits. I was lucky. That was before the Harper reform. I was among those entitled to EI benefits. Now, only 40% of claimants actually collect benefits. Had that been the case in 1999, I would have gotten nothing. Even back in 1999, $72 towards diapers was not much. Luckily, I got help from my mother. This bill offers nothing in the way of support and no changes to EI despite the government's promises. This is a legislative gap, one that must be closed quickly. This is urgent, especially given the combined effects of inflation and a potential recession, which will be seriously painful.

Active workers are not the only ones getting a raw deal because of a legislative gap. Seniors are also affected, especially senior women. Bill C-32 does nothing to enhance their pensions. Yes, it is true that seniors who worked for 30 or 35 years are now living longer, and their retirement funds must now last 30 or 40 years. I understand the 75-and-up policy, but it is not acceptable anymore. Seniors 65 to 74 years of age are also living longer. Senior women 65 to 74 years of age are the most affected by the government's refusal to increase their pensions. They have no savings, as they earned very little when they were working. The refusal to increase the pensions of those 65 to 74 years of age is not only discriminatory, I would go so far as to say that it is misogynistic. I am certain that no government in this place wants to be called that. The government needs to rethink this.

To sum up, the bill to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement contains a few good things. Once upon a time, there was a bill that did not change much. Let us not forget that parliamentarians were muzzled. They were not allowed to make amendments that would benefit the public, especially those most at risk of suffering the damaging effects of inflation and the recession. For the sake of current and future generations, we need to think about taking action to prevent the worst from happening. Let us not forget that our role is to stand up for the dignity of the most vulnerable, not to erase them through inaction and a lack of vision.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill is not designed to make a better world per se, but to be a benefit to Canadians.

We recognize that Canadians are having a difficult time. It is a time when there is inflation, even though inflation rates around the world are much higher, on average, than they are here in Canada. Whether one looks at the U.S., England, other European countries or the G20, Canada is doing relatively well, but we are still hurting. That is why there are a number of initiatives within the legislation to provide support for Canadians.

I want to very quickly make reference to the multi-generational home renovation program, because I agree with the member on that. We both agree that it is a wonderful program. It will enable people to keep a parent in their home with the construction of a suite. It will also help our communities by keeping seniors in our communities, as opposed to going to care facilities.

I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to how this is a win-win situation for seniors, the community and, in fact, the taxpayer.

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree. Yes, the tax credit for multi-generational homes is good for communities and families. It is hard to be against that.

Nevertheless, there are times when parents need to be placed in specialized homes. There also needs to be support for that, and the Quebec government and the provincial governments need health transfers, which are absent once again, as they have been for the past 30 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for an excellent speech.

The major subject missing from this economic statement is tax havens. We know that the Liberals are letting more than $30 billion of taxpayers' money leave Canada every year. That money should be going toward all kinds of things, like helping seniors, families and students. There are plenty of things we could do with that $30 billion to solve the problems and challenges facing Canadians.

This economic statement allows us to recover only 2% of that $30 billion. At the end of the day, only $600 million of the $30 billion will be recovered.

My question for my colleague is quite simple. Why are the Liberals encouraging tax havens, as the Conservatives did before them? Why are they letting large sums of money leave Canada instead of closing these tax loopholes so that everyone can benefit from this money and Canadians can get help?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would really like to answer my colleague, but it will be complicated, since I do not think like a Liberal or a Conservative.

That being said, when I invest in something, I expect a significant, worthwhile return. For example, the Liberals invested $1 billion to combat tax havens, but in the end, they were forced to create a law in order to be able to collect $600 million. I do not think that is a very cost-effective program that was properly administered, even if the government says that this issue is dragging on in court. There is a way of doing better for all citizens and for everyone's well-being.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for her excellent speech.

I would like to follow up on the question asked by my colleague from Winnipeg North. I always find it fascinating to hear him talk about seniors. It is really something else. It is all well and good to talk about a credit for a multi-generational home, but if seniors do not have the income necessary to stay at home, that will not happen.

In her speech, my colleague talked about the lack of support for seniors between the ages of 65 and 74. I am concerned because the statistics are worrisome. Last week, the major media fundraising drive did not meet its goal because people are even having a hard time donating to such a cause. This fundraising drive needed donors to give generously because needs are greater. Needs are greater mainly because seniors on a fixed income are having a hard time getting enough to eat.

A study showed that at least half of seniors will be affected by the increase in inflation next year. It is more important than ever to help seniors on a fixed income that does not go up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague. It is high time the government stopped discriminating against our seniors so much and start giving them the support they need. In my riding, I see seniors rummaging through the garbage. That is unacceptable. It seems obvious to me.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege today to have an opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-32 on the fall economic statement. We know people are struggling. The cost of goods and inflation are skyrocketing. The rising interest rates are having a huge impact on people's budgets and to families in our communities, especially in my riding of Courtenay—Alberni.

We are pleased to see some of the things that are in this budget, such as the Canada recovery dividend and the elimination of interest on student loans, which is something that we have been fighting to get for a very long time. We believe there is a lot more the fall economic statement should have offered and did not offer. I am going to speak to that as well.

We know that while people are struggling, there are many big corporations that are having record profits. Whether it is oil and gas, the big banks, or Loblaws and the others of three big grocery store chains, they have had record profits.

We would have welcomed a windfall tax, but we did see there was a small 1.5% tax on banks and insurers that have profits over $100 million. We would have liked to see that expanded to include those other sectors that are having windfall profits right now.

The government could have used that money to eliminate the GST on home heating or could have gotten rid of the surcharge on Canada Post being implemented right now. During this holiday season, that is having a huge impact on small businesses. Natalie Weekes, a friend of mine, just wrote me about that. As well, consumers are trying to get presents to their families.

Members have heard me speak about mental health and the disastrous effects of the government not implementing a mental health transfer. It promised $875 million of new money that it has not spent so far to date, and that is creating backlogs in our health care system.

Members have heard me talk about the substance use assistance program, with the Liberals only funding 14% of the applications that are coming in when we know there is a toxic drug crisis happening.

Members have heard me speak many times about the need for co-op housing. As someone who grew up in co-op housing, I know how critically important it is to have safe, secure housing. When the Liberals got out of the national housing strategy in the early nineties, they were developing and building 25,000 units a year. They are now building a measly 6,500 units, and we are in a housing crisis.

We know the free market will not solve the crisis, and 10% of our housing in the seventies and eighties was non-market housing. We are now below 4%. Europe is at 30%. It understands that housing is not just a commodity, which is the way it is being treated here. It is a critical for people to have a safe, secure home.

Members have heard me speak about those many issues. One area and one group that we do not talk enough about are our first responders. We have a crisis there too with our volunteer firefighters, our search and rescue volunteers and the people who are out there day in, day out. They work jobs, and they are doing this as a volunteer job.

They go out in the rural communities where I live and where many of my colleagues live. We all know the value of those first responders and the sacrifices they make to make sure we are safe. This week, we have the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs here, and they are lobbying right now.

I am going to read a quote from an op-ed by Chief Ken McMullen and Chief Tina Saryeddine that was in the Hill Times this morning. They said, “The climate crisis, health-care crisis, and personnel shortages in Canada's fire departments are converging, causing increasing strain on Canada's fire-fighting capacity.”

They continued, “This year, 629 fire departments [are] providing services to 24 million Canadians”. They have seen the number of firefighters drop from what was 156,000 to 126,000. Their crisis is a labour market shortage and attraction. We know the inflation crisis is impacting everybody, but it is impacting volunteer firefighters too.

I tabled a bill, Bill C-201, calling for the federal government to increase the tax credit for those who volunteer over 200 hours from $3,000 to $10,000. They would basically get $450 in their pocket if they did 200 hours today, and that would expand to over $1,200 if we went for the $10,000 amount.

The cost to the coffers right now in Canada is $10 million to support all of these volunteer firefighters right across the country and that includes 8,000 search and rescue volunteers. That are a lot of people who would be impacted. I know it does not sound like a lot, but I will provide an example.

The Qualicum Beach fire chief, Peter Cornell, who is in a recruitment drive right now, just like almost every volunteer fire department in this country, said that it would be a game changer. He said it would be so important and would help keep those firefighters in the community, making sure that they meet their requirements and their hours.

That is not why they do it. We know why they do it. They do it to protect us and because they love their communities. Also, not only do they put their lives on the line, but also they put in time for training. This would also help small communities and take the pressure off them.

We know that volunteerism is decreasing and volunteer fire departments in my riding, from Ucluelet, Tofino, Beaver Creek, Cherry Creek, Sproat Lake, Errington, Coombs, Cumberland, Parksville, Qualicum, Bowser, Denman Island, Hornby Island, Lasqueti Island and Cumberland, just to name a few in my riding, tell us that this is a big deal, and it is important. I wanted to raise that because far too often our heroes fall through the cracks.

I hope the government will listen to this pitch today because it is something first responders have said will make a difference. I know it is not in the fall economic statement, but I hope the government will consider it for the upcoming budget. I have many quotes from many of the fire chiefs, but I do not think we have time for me to go into all of them.

Another thing is that the FCM has their reps here from British Columbia with respect to climate adaptation, and we know the government just made an announcement. They welcomed the release of Canada's national adaptation strategy just two weeks ago and the news of a one-time transfer of $530 million to the green municipal fund.

From my riding I have Will Cole-Hamilton, who is a councillor for the City of Courtenay, and Daniel Arbour, who is a local area director from Hornby Islands. They are here calling on the government to increase that. They cite that it is going to be $25 billion in losses relative to a stable climate scenario because of the impact on climate emergencies. They want to be partners but they say that it is going to cost $5.3 billion per year in shared costs to ensure that they can avoid the worst impacts of climate change. I wanted to raise that because they are here and they are calling for that.

Another small thing that just does not get talked about is seaweed. The Speaker is from the coast and knows how important seaweed is. It is a great opportunity for economic development, but the current wait time in B.C. for an aquaculture licence is three to five years.

The government could have helped support fast-tracking that. It is just too long for B.C. businesses and farmers to build a thriving seaweed enterprise and sector that would compete with the global sector, so the renewing of these licences is too slow. They need DFO to ensure that its staff are there to so we can move this forward.

This is not just important to the ecosystems and coastal communities, but to indigenous communities as well, so it is a really incredible opportunity for both the environment and the economy. Many indigenous nations are looking at seaweed as an opportunity for economic development, but they need to make sure this is moving forward. It is a great opportunity, which I wanted to flag here.

In my riding right now we have aging infrastructure. In Port Alberni, our pool is aging. Parksville wants a new pool. Out on the west coast in Tofino, Ucluelet, Ahousaht, Tla-o-qui-aht, Yuu-cluth-aht, Toquaht and Hesquiaht, they want to build a pool out at the Long Beach Airport. However, the investing in Canada infrastructure program and British Columbia partnership is tapped out right now, so they want to see the government replenish that because we know how important it is to live, work and play in our communities. Also, when we have recreation facilities, that lowers our health care costs. It is good for tourism in a place like the west coast, especially in my riding, which everybody should come to visit because it will change their life. It is a great place. These facilities desperately need funds so they can advance this. It is really good for people who have been injured in the workplace so they can rehabilitate themselves.

Therefore, I urge the government side to look at and consider these things. They were missing in this fall economic statement, and I have not had an opportunity to raise these really important asks from our riding of Courtenay—Alberni.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that this is a fall economic statement. When we get to the full budget, no doubt many of the issues that the member raises will be addressed.

I also look at infrastructure as so important to all of our communities. Whether it is a world-class tennis court, an outdoor basketball court, a walking path or splash pad, they are all important community activities that the federal government supported last summer with municipal leadership on those files.

However, this legislation is meant to try to, at least in good part, be there to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way. The member could reference the dental supports for children under the age of 12. We could talk about the rental support. We could talk about the elimination of interest for students on federal student loans, which would, in my opinion, make post-secondary education that much more affordable.

There are many things within the legislation that are there to support Canadians during this time. Could the member provide some specific thoughts in regard to that aspect of the legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to raise those important items because they were not in the budget, and they were not in the fall economic statement. They are missing.

Those are opportunities to help our communities and to help keep our first responders active, making sure they are protecting our communities and making sure we have economic development.

One thing that was missing, that we have been calling for, is the removal is the GST on home heating. It was a huge opportunity that the government missed. It could have increased the excess profit tax and covered that off. It also could have removed the surcharge at Canada Post, which is having an impact on people, on Canadians from coast to coast to coast, especially in rural and remote communities, and most especially in Nunavut, where the cost of shipping is extremely high. They are competing with Purolator, which does not even pay tax in Canada. It is a huge opportunity missed.

I hope the government is listening and that it can make these adjustments now to help support Canadians immediately.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there was one point towards the end of the member's speech that I found especially interesting and that was on the issue of seaweed. The member was talking about getting that approval taking three to five years.

We see that across multiple sectors, whether it is in the mining sector or others. However, for those trying to get jobs and people who want to get to work back to work, speeding up those approvals would definitely be one way to get it done. I am wondering if the member would like to elaborate on that point maybe just a little more.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, as there are economic development opportunities being missed.

It is simply just staffing at DFO when it comes to seaweed. It is the same with the shellfish sector. They are having a hard time because they get caught up with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, environment and DFO. They just need dedicated staff. I was out in Nova Scotia. For wave energy, they could not get a project off the ground because of staffing. That was a big issue.

This is a problem right across our country, and it is inter-agency. It requires staff to ensure we have economic development. It actually is not a lot of money when it comes to the public coffers. It is just staffing to move forward with applications so we could get economic development going and attract investment. Right now, we are not attracting investment when there are huge delays like that. It is also really important for reconciliation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation. It is always a pleasure to listen to him. I understand that there is a whole host of needs in his riding, as there is in mine, none of which are addressed in Bill C-32, despite the 25 tax measures and so on. How does my colleague explain that?

In principle, we are here to vote on bills that are designed for our constituents. How does he explain the fact that there is nothing in this bill to help them?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely frustrating. Again, there is some stuff we liked. We liked seeing that they were getting rid of interest on student loans. That is really important. It is something that we have been fighting for. We liked seeing that there is an excess tax at 1.5% on big banks and insurance companies over $100 million.

However, there is a lot missing. There was an opportunity to go after the excess profits of oil and gas, of the three big grocery stores, and that money could have been returned to Canadians. It could have funded removing the GST on home heating and ensuring that people are not paying a surcharge for Canada Post. It was a missed opportunity to help people immediately. As well, on taking care of first responders, which I talked about at great lengths, the government has not done enough for the people who put their lives on the line, who were there for us through COVID, and who are there for us every day and night.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

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 Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Taxation; the hon. member for Shefford, Sports; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Oil and Gas Industry.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the fall economic update in and of itself likely does not capture a whole lot of hoopla in this place or outside this place. However, I believe this statement is meant to be visionary in nature, or at least a budget is, and then the fall economic statement is meant to check in on the budget and see how the government is doing with regard to its vision and how it is serving the Canadian people. Are Canadians truly better off because the government is in place? That is really the question. That is what we are checking in on.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The answer is yes.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, no.

We repeatedly hear from the Liberal government that it has Canadians' backs. We hear this phrase quite often in this place and outside this place. It is a term the Prime Minister likes to use almost incessantly. The question is, does it really have their backs? That is what I want to explore in my time today.

The reality is that many Canadians are finding life difficult. They are dumfounded by the Liberals' lack of care, lack of concern and lack of wisdom. Food prices continue to rise, energy prices continue to skyrocket and Canadians continue to need to beg to receive some sort of positive difference. That should not be the case.

In preparation for this fall economic statement, we asked for two things on this side of the House. We asked that there be no new taxes applied to workers or seniors. We also asked that there be no new spending and that every dollar committed to would have an equal dollar in savings; there would be a match. Sadly, these two requests were entirely ignored.

The Liberals' inflationary scheme will triple the carbon tax, which means the cost of home heating, gas and groceries will continue to rise. During question period, when my Conservative colleagues and I have asked the members opposite if they would demonstrate a wee bit of compassion and perhaps relent on tripling their carbon tax, the folks across the way have pulled out these crazy talking points and obscure studies to try to convince Canadians they are better off. It is as if to say that Canadians do not understand the reality that is happening to them. It is as if to say they can be demeaned and that it should somehow help them. How heartless is that?

I have heard from many constituents who are struggling to meet their daily needs. They are hopeless and they are desperate. The Liberals can continue to use their tired talking points, but at the end of the day, the senior who is turning her thermostat down to 17°C to afford her heating bill will not be comforted by a Liberal talking point. The 1.5 million Canadian families that are accessing a food bank in a single month will not be comforted by a Liberal talking point. The one in five Canadians skipping meals to try to make ends meet will not be comforted by a Liberal talking point.

These are realities. This is the reality Canadians face each and every day. Make no mistake: The Liberal carbon scheme is not an environmental plan; it is simply a tax plan. It is punitive. It goes after the Canadian people who are working to put fuel in their vehicles so they can continue working. It goes after individuals who need to heat their homes because they live in Canada. It goes after individuals who continue to produce food for us despite the attacks of the government, because they care deeply for their land and the people who live here.

The government is forcing the Canadian people to pay a whole lot to get a whole lot of nothing in terms of environmental impact. Canadians are struggling to get ahead and are asking for help, not help in the sense of a government handout but help in asking the government to please back off.

We are living in a credit card economy. We are consuming more than we produce, we are buying more than we sell and we are borrowing from the world to buy from the world. We are sending money and jobs to foreign countries, and we are bringing goods back in. Others get the job, others get the investment and others get the savings. Canadians get left with the debt.

Governments do not have money of their own. What they have comes from taxation and borrowing, and that is it. The less revenue that is brought in through taxation, the less the government has to spend on things like social programs, health care, infrastructure or education, unless it chooses to borrow, and we know this government has chosen to borrow a whole lot.

When the Liberals shut down the development of natural resources and drive investment out of our country, it is individual people, including moms, dads, seniors and workers, who have to pick up the bill. They are the ones who have to carry an astronomical tax burden placed on them by the government. It is therefore perplexing why the government chooses to drive industry out of our country and chooses not to develop agriculture, not to develop manufacturing and not to develop natural resources.

Let us talk about our superpowers. By halting energy development and penalizing farmers, the government is choosing to restrain two of our country's superpowers. Instead of focusing on the economic prosperity and the security of our country, the Prime Minister has advanced anti-energy policies such as the carbon tax, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, proving that he is far more interested in his own plan and agenda than he is in looking out for the well-being of Canadians.

Canada has the third-largest oil reserves and we are the fifth-largest producer of natural gas. The world needs more energy and we have the answer; we just need the political will. We could be stepping up and taking our place as a leader on the world stage to meet the demand. We could displace the reliance on dictators' oil. However, the Liberals have done all they can to block our own energy sector and prevent us from thriving within this market space. The Liberals instead insist that Canadians as individuals should be picking up the tax burden, and hence the cost of living continues to rise.

Let us talk about agriculture. The production of food is another one of our superpowers. It is incredible. Canada has been blessed with abundance. In my constituency of Lethbridge, the bounty is incredible. We send produce all over the world. However, instead of being proud of our producers and farmers, we have a government that wants to be punitive toward them by implementing a carbon tax on their ability to produce food and implementing reductions in fertilizer use, which reduces the amount of food that can be produced. This ridiculous policy will certainly not save the planet, but it will definitely cost Canadians a whole lot more because it will drive up the cost of groceries. This means Canadians will get punished too, and the cost of food is already significant.

The Liberals have added more debt to our country than did all former governments combined. If we let that sink in for a moment, it is pretty scary. They say they did it in the name of COVID, but we know that 40% of their spending had nothing to do with COVID. They are spending a whole of money just for the sake of spending, and of course why would they not? They spent $54 million on the arrive scam app, which could have been purchased for $250,000 and built over a weekend. They spent $6,000 on a hotel room that included a butler. The Liberals are able to spend like this because they know that at the end of the day, they do not foot the bill; Canadians do. This is the type of government we are staring at.

I am calling for a government that puts the Canadian people first. Ronald Reagan famously said, “The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things. He is the one who gets the people to do the greatest things.”

Frankly, Canadians are tired of being told by the Liberals to sit down and shut up. They are tired of being put on the benches. What coach benches his best players? Canadians are the problem-solvers, the solution makers and the wealth generators that this country needs for getting back on track. It is time to put Canadians back in control of their lives.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my first question for the member opposite on her speech about the fall economic statement is about support for Canadians, in particular Canadian seniors. I know that many seniors in my riding were very appreciative of the doubling of the GST credit. It will be continued for the next six months, and it was implemented on November 4. It is help for many seniors, as many seniors receive that tax credit.

The member also talked about investment, job opportunities and companies leaving our shores. I feel that the member is painting a grim picture and maybe a falsehood of the reality of what is taking place in Canada. For the first two or three years that our government was in power, we saw an unprecedented growth in the foreign investment coming into Canada. It actually exceeded the 10-year average of investment in Canada.

We have a stable currency, and the government has made stable, transparent decisions when it comes to the environment and immigration. Many companies, especially in the IT sector, have been attracted to Canada.

I would like to know what the member thinks about all of that because she seems to be pointing to false negatives.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have once again an example of an individual across the way representing her party using talking points that are supposed to somehow pacify Canadians.

The talking points do not fix reality. The talking points do not help the individual who cannot afford their home heating bill. The talking points do not help the 42-year-old living in their parents' basement because they cannot afford to buy a home. The talking points coming from across the way, and the heckles coming from across the way, by the way, do not assist the Canadian families that have to go to the food bank because they cannot afford to purchase their own food. The talking points do not help reality.

As much as the talking points might help the members opposite feel better about themselves at the end of the day, as they give themselves a little pat on the back and feel good about what they are supposedly doing, Canadians feel reality, not some sort of theoretical existence the member is trying to paint.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

While I am not the arbiter of good questions and good answers, we should make sure that we ask short questions and get short answers so that everybody can participate in this great debate.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' carbon tax rhetoric never fails to surprise me. Let me point out that this tax does not apply in Quebec. To hear my Conservative colleagues tell it, the carbon tax can be blamed for everything from the temperature to a Canadiens win or a Bruins loss. I have a hard time seeing a connection between fighting poverty and the carbon tax. Even the best economists have not found a way to explain inflation in simple terms, but the Conservatives have it figured out: It has everything to do with the carbon tax.

I have a question for my colleague. She says that we need to put people first, that we need politics in Canada to put people first. As such, does she agree that it is totally unacceptable for the government to invest some $18 billion per year in the oil and gas sector and for us to own a $21-billion pipeline? Does she think that money could instead be used to feed the one in five people who skip meals? Does she think that money could be spent on providing heat for people who cannot afford it? We may well have resources, but we are not allocating them properly. That is what she should be thinking about.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot there.

Let us talk about the carbon tax.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Bad.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member across the way. He finally gave an honest answer and said it is bad.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I believe we have a point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the climate crisis. In no way would I want to give an impression that I would not support a price on pollution. I was just trying to help the member—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order.

That is not a point of order.

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, honestly, we have such an honest answer in the one the member across the way just gave, that the carbon tax is bad. I agree with him wholeheartedly: It is really bad. It is doing absolutely nothing to save the planet, but it is doing a whole lot to punish Canadians.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to speak to the fall economic statement.

I know the members across the way will struggle with the first thing I have to say, but it is true. This plan does nothing to address Canada's cost of living crisis. As a matter of fact, the economic update shows that the government revenues have increased by $40.1 billion in this year alone. This means that the inflation that is being created is not only increasing costs for everyday essentials that Canadians need on a day-to-day basis, but also increasing taxes for Canadians.

The economic update released by the Liberal and NDP coalition fails to address the cost of living crisis that we are in right now. It was created by the out-of-control spending of the Liberal government, with the support of its members on this side of the House.

The Prime Minister's inflationary deficits, to the tune of half a trillion dollars, have sent more dollars chasing fewer goods. This inflationary scheme is hiking the price of absolutely everything that Canadians need, and it is causing incredible duress in every home, or perhaps not in every home. I am taking that back because, obviously, there are people who are in a state of wealth, who may not have to go without food or wonder if they are going to be able to afford their rent next month. It might simply mean they put a little less fuel in their yacht and take one less trip, I do not know, but the truth of the matter is that for the majority of Canadians, these are very difficult times.

Canadians have never paid more taxes than they do under the Prime Minister. With that as the backdrop, we on this side of the House just asked the Liberals to consider two things. We said that if they would do these two things, it would make a huge difference to the quality of life of Canadians who have suffered more and more, year after year under the federal government.

The first was, simply, no new taxes. We did not even ask them to stop some of the taxes they had already introduced; we simply asked that there be no new taxes.

This included cancelling all planned tax hikes and the tripling of the carbon tax. This is what we were asking them to do, on behalf of Canadians, I might add. I know that quite often they lose perspective on what we are doing on this side of the House. We are representing the hearts and minds of Canadians, who are saying they cannot afford the heavy tax burden they are under. They are struggling to heat their homes.

Let us think about that. I never in my life dreamed that once we got past the development of this country to the point we are at now, we would have trouble in this nation paying to heat our homes and put food on the table.

I know this personally from the young people in my own life, who have children and who are trying to make those dollars stretch further than they have had to before. The level of desperation is growing.

Part of that is also the tripling of the carbon tax. We have heard it over and over again today: What is the big deal there? This is not an environmental plan. This is simply a tax plan.

On top of the carbon tax, the government has also put the GST. That is a source of revenue of millions and millions of dollars, yet it expects Canadians to turn around and say, “Oh, thanks so much for doubling the GST rebate for me on a temporary basis.”

No, this is not an environmental plan. It is a tax plan.

There is no question that the environment is an important concept, something that we need to work on, but I would like to say that what the government fails to understand or simply chooses not to look at is the reality of where we are in the world as Canadians. I want to say, right now, that the best thing we can do as Canadians is to give the world what it needs, and the world needs more Canadian best practices, more Canadian research and more Canadian innovation.

I have to tell members that in Saskatchewan, we are very proud of what we do. I have a map. I cannot show it in the House right now, unfortunately. It is too small. It shows Saskatchewan and the resources that we have in mining.

The resources are uranium, base metals, gold and major peat resources, which are desperately needed to grow anything. There are clean coal fields, helium, oil, gas, bitumen, potash and commercial forestry, and they cover the entire province. Nowhere is there not the potential and continuing ability to have a strong economy. If we add to that our agriculture and the manufacturing going on in the province, it is stellar.

The amazing thing is that it is always done with, in the backs of our minds, the importance of protecting our economy and our environment. The two do go hand in hand, but the government is stifling the economies of this nation. It is destroying our ability to maintain our own level of subsistence and to help the world. It is shutting down our economic engines simply because it wants to navel-gaze and virtue signal on the environment, when it does not need to do that.

In mining, agriculture and manufacturing, in everything that is done in the province of Saskatchewan, the environment is paramount. There is an amazing opportunity to go to Agribition and Ag in Motion in Saskatchewan, two amazing programs that show off what is done in Saskatchewan, and there is no recognition by the government of the incredible work that we have done and, even more importantly, that we continue to do.

I saw at Ag in Motion this amazing drone that was over 12 feet wide and lightweight. It carried its own gas and the product needed to treat the weeds in the fields, so that farmers are not running machinery over the fields and not spraying everywhere they go. It has been programmed to know exactly where it needs to spray. The environmental footprint is minimal, and the impact on the ground is also minimal. That innovation was created by a local farmer and is going to become the next amazing thing that farmers provide to this nation.

As a matter of fact, there is research at the University of Saskatchewan. I went to a carbon event put on by APAS, where it talked about what Saskatchewan does and needs to continue to do. That was four years ago, when it said that within a decade, increased innovation in agriculture in Saskatchewan would offset the entire oil sands. That is just one example of so many things Saskatchewan does.

Just recently, a private member's bill went to the industry committee on how to green the Prairies. When I went home, I went to an RM event and told them about this, that the government wanted to come and green our Prairies. I would suggest that it come to my riding and say that out loud. We have this wonderful thing called the grasslands, where cows roam, big animals, and they are sequestering more carbon now than when the buffalo roamed. The Cattlemen's Association talked about it at the industry committee, and I have to give credit where credit is due. Individuals made the comment that it was something they did not understand or know about in the past, yet they were bringing forward a bill on greening the Prairies.

I appreciate the time I have had today to talk about why this economic update serves no good purpose. It puts band-aids on wounds that the government has opened up in Canadians' lives and does not solve the problems it has created.

Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-32, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that the minister 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 respective stages of the said bill.

Report Stage

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I definitely agree with the Conservative member across the way that the economy and the environment go hand in hand, and I want to compliment Saskatchewan for taking steps that are good for both its economic output and the environment. I think every province and everyone should take lessons from that.

In reference to the inflation comments, I would like to ask the member whether she feels Canada is in this by itself, because if we look at comparable countries in the G20, we are the ninth lowest in the G20; in the G7 we have the third-lowest inflation rate.

Does the member not think that in the global market, the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia plays a major impact on food prices and the inflation rates we have today?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that Canada is one of the breadbaskets of the world on so many levels. I am touting Saskatchewan today, there is no question, but I want to say that when I go home I talk about this entire nation, and I have a different perspective from the one I had before I became a member and found out, as I say to my communities back home that are very rural, that it is not east versus west at all.

Rural Ontarians are facing the same challenges my constituents are. They are struggling with the fertilizer requirements. They are struggling with the carbon tax, and all of the things that are impacting my constituents as farmers in Saskatchewan are impacting them there, even as far as firearms go. There is no question that as a whole nation, we are not impacted by the ongoing war. These are things that do not impact our ability to produce and share with the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I will agree on one thing. This is obviously not the bill of the century.

We in the Bloc Québécois focused on three key issues before the bill was introduced, and we will continue to focus on them because they are what matter the most to us. I am talking about increased health transfers, support for seniors over 65 and urgent EI reform.

Does my colleague agree with me that the government should focus on these three priorities?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say my colleague and I agree on more than just one thing, because we serve on the veterans affairs committee together, and I really appreciate what he brings to the table there.

Are these important issues? Absolutely they are. I have to say my concern is for seniors who require assistance. It is always really important that we make that clarification. Sometimes I have trouble believing I am talking to myself about that particular age group, but the truth of the matter is that it is very important that the individuals who need the assistance in our society get it, and unfortunately a lot of those things are being put in jeopardy because of the way the government has handled the fiscal responsibility Canadians have entrusted it with.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can help me to understand. I am hearing from the Conservatives who are speaking about the increased cost of living and the impacts on Canadians. I agree that there are some real issues that need to be addressed. However, around the actual asks that are coming forward from the Conservatives, for example on the carbon tax, we know that provinces and territories have their own carbon pricing, whereas if we were to look instead at removing the GST from all home heating, we would be able to provide relief for more Canadians across Canada.

I am wondering if the member could explain to me what the Conservative stance is on that, and why we are not seeing support for removing the GST from home heating and are instead looking at carbon pricing, which would benefit only a portion of Canadians.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my frustration is that the member opposite and her party are choosing to prop up the government. Removing the GST is one small part of what that party should be doing to ensure the government does not continue on in power.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured every day to stand up in the House. Today, we are talking about the fall economic statement. Before I talk about that, I just want to take a moment at the beginning of my speech to recognize that the bodies of indigenous women have been found in Winnipeg and an alleged Winnipeg serial killer has been identified.

I think collectively in the House, and hopefully across all of Canada, we are sitting with the deep horror of that reality and what that means for all of us. It is shameful that we live in a country that still does not value indigenous women and girls and our LGBT community. We see it demonstrated repeatedly. I hope all of us are carrying this in our hearts and that we continue to carry it in our hearts and our minds every day until this stops.

Coming back to the fall economic statement, I want to talk about some of the concerns I have around this economic statement. We are all hearing from constituents who are struggling every day to afford the basic necessities in their lives. We hear about the increasing use of food banks. We also hear from so many families who are eating substantially less. Parents are acting like good parents and are not eating as much so their children can go to bed with full bellies. That is something that we should all be listening to.

We know that inflation is certainly a part of the problem. However, we also know that greed is a huge part of the problem as well. In my community, I hear from a lot of indigenous elders and they consistently tell me that greed is an illness. They have a lot of traditional ways of dealing with greed, because it is seen as a sickness that will hurt our communities at large. I wish that, in this place, we could also see it as a sickness that needs moderation. It needs systems in place to stop it.

We know that Loblaws has seen record profits. It is profit like it has not seen in well over five years. It is profit that is so substantial that we hear it is making $1 million extra a day. That concerns me greatly. As we are having this discussion, it is important that we recognize that this fall economic statement does not really substantively address that issue and I hope that it will soon.

We know that the Canadians for Tax Fairness have said that the costs from inflation are more than what is passed on to consumers. That means that inflation is passed on to consumers but more is added. In my opinion, that is simply greed. We need to address that issue so that we hold the people who sell us our food accountable.

I remember a constituent once told me, “Rachel, we are not consumers; we are Canadians.” Every day when I am in the House, I really try to remind myself of that as we look at our systems and recognize some of the challenges in them.

I also did not see a substantial enough increase for housing. I know that on November 25 in my riding in Campbell River, there was a conversation on housing. Many representatives from communities throughout my region were participating. I heard again and again, like I do so often, that housing is simply a crisis. If someone has a fixed income or a low income, it is getting harder to find a place to live. A lot of people are living outside. There is a lot of snow in my area, which is fairly rare, but it is having a huge impact.

We also know that a lot of seniors are couch surfing. When I get calls from people in their eighties who are moving from friend's house to friend's house and sleeping on couches, it just means there is something substantively wrong in this country. I want to remind Canadians that the federal government really has not been part of the housing strategy in this country since 1992. I appreciate that the government has put some money into it, but if we leave a wound festering like that for so long, it is really hard to fix it. That is what we are seeing here.

I want to thank the Campbell River Community Foundation and the Campbell River and District Coalition to End Homelessness for all of their work on this particular file. We heard from small communities and indigenous communities. They are left out. The federal funding is not working. Indigenous communities are not getting the supports they need from the government and it needs to be better.

I also have concerns that we are not talking about GST on home heating. We know that this would help. It is not the biggest help, but put together with a lot of things, it would help hard-working people across this country be able to pay for their heat when we hit the cold season.

We still have not seen a meaningful windfall tax. That is such a gap. We need to have more structures in place. Again we will hear from the government on this, but it has not fixed the problem. It has done a few tweaks, but it has not taken that comprehensive look at the fact that people are making a lot of profit off the labour of Canadians and they are not paying their fair share. Ultrawealthy people are hiring accountants who can help them pay very little, but everyday people are paying all of their taxes. That is wrong and we have to fix it.

There are a few things that I am very much in support of in this bill as well. I was excited to read about the Canada recovery dividend. This is something that the NDP has been asking for. It is temporary and maybe we do not want temporary, but it is there. It is a one-time tax of 15% of taxable income over $1 billion, so it is getting at some of those profits. The other thing we know is that in this country a lot of corporations, after the pandemic, have done extremely well very quickly. In fact, many of them are making more profit than before the pandemic. We need to question that, we need to understand it and we need to make sure that they pay their fair share.

This dividend would also increase corporate income tax on banks and life insurance groups by 1.5%. That is getting some of that windfall tax and putting it back into the coffers. It is making sure that people in our communities get things like appropriate housing, dental care and a bit of support to help with their rent when they pay way more than 30% of their income on rent.

Those things will make a difference, but we also know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been very clear that if this Canada recovery dividend were put on big box stores and the oil and gas sector, we would see an increase of revenue to Canada of about $4.3 billion. We need to question this. Again, I keep coming back to this and the NDP will continue to keep coming back. When we see groups of people and big corporations making significant profits when other people cannot even feed their families and other people are living on the streets, Canada has an obligation to address this issue. Therefore, these are some steps in the right direction, but we still need to see more.

There is another thing that I am in support of and I am looking forward to seeing finally implemented. I know the NDP has been fighting and talking about this for many years. It is the removal of the federal portion of interest on student loans. We spend a lot of time in the House talking about young people and about the fact that they do not have enough to buy a house and that they are struggling, sometimes with several jobs in a very changing economy, to address the needs that they have and to have a future that they can believe in.

This is one step. It is not the only step that should be taken on behalf of young people. The federal government has to do more, but it is something that really would support a lot of young people and allow them not to have that burden. They go to school so that they can contribute to their community and to their country. If they have to spend all of their time trying to find a way to pay off their loans, then they do not get to do the things that will make all of us as Canadians a lot more substantive and healthy.

In closing, I want to say that I will be supporting this bill. I believe fundamentally in the fact that people need dental care, and I am really excited to see that come out the door. We know that we still have work. I am really excited to see next year that seniors finally get dental care. I do not know about the rest of the MPs in this place, but I have had a lot of seniors come to my door and talk about the fact that they cannot afford basic dental care and what the impact of that is in terms of their health and well-being.

I look forward to answering any questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the member's opening comments regarding the four murdered indigenous women in Winnipeg. It is indeed a very sad thing to hear.

When I was in opposition, I raised the need for the public inquiry. Ultimately we did get the public inquiry. There are 200-plus calls for justice within that and we have the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's 94 calls for action. I believe we have to go the extra mile whenever we can in order to ensure that there is a higher sense of commitment to get to the truth of the matter and to assist where we can, because that reconciliation is of critical importance.

I want to compliment the member for starting off her comments with this because this is very important. I know she is not from Winnipeg. Her heart is in the right place in terms of indigenous people as we all try to strive to do better. The question I have is related—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up. I am assuming that the hon. member for North Island—Powell River may try to read the hon. member's mind about the question.

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

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

Madam Speaker, I always do my best to read people's minds. However, my response is simply that this is more than sad. This is an everyday reality for indigenous communities across this country. Until it is an everyday reality for every Canadian in this country, it is not going to stop.

I hope this government will actually get the resources into pockets and that we will also assist in searching for the bodies of these young people, of these women and girls. That is what we need to do, and I hope that the government does it.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to focus on a couple of elements of the member's speech where we have some agreement.

The member talked about the need to take the GST off of home heating, which is a great idea. I would go further and also remove the carbon tax. I would remove it altogether, but if nothing else, surely we could at least remove it from home heating. I wonder if the member would agree with me, given the concern over affordability.

Furthermore, on government culture, a system of corporate welfare has taken hold with this government. I agree with some of the concerns the member raised. The Liberals have wasted a whole lot of money over the length of their government on everything from the Infrastructure Bank to new funds that are little more than corporate welfare. Does the member agree with that and, if so, why is she supporting this government and the bill?

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

Madam Speaker, just to clarify, in fact, the NDP offered an amendment to a motion that the Conservatives put forward in terms of the GST and the carbon tax.

Every province and territory in this country is not the same. I am from British Columbia, and our tax system for carbon pricing is overseen, rightfully, by the province. This is something our province decided when the B.C. Liberals were in power. I think they have a new name, but I do not know what it is yet. I apologize.

If we actually addressed the issue and had GST removed from home heating, it would mean that everyone would have some sort of relief, as opposed to a carbon tax, which would only focus on a few parts of Canada but not the whole of Canada. For me and for the NDP, when we do things, we want to make sure that everybody is included and nobody is left out.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.

As a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I too am thinking of the families of the victims, the indigenous women and girls who have disappeared. There was another case recently in Winnipeg. Such a tragedy.

My colleague spoke about dental care for seniors. The government often holds this up as an example of how it is helping seniors. However, how can it ignore all seniors aged 65 to 74?

Does my colleague not think that old age security should be increased for them and that this is what would truly help seniors?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for bringing up how much dignity we need to bring to the discussion around indigenous women and girls and LGBT people being lost, murdered and missing. I appreciate that.

As for the other component of the question, I do agree that a senior who is 65 has every right to have a little extra in their old age security and should not have to wait until they are 75.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to add my comments on the fall economic statement.

Ahead of the Liberal government's fall economic update, our Conservative team put forward two really concise proposals. One was to stop the tax increases and the other was to stop spending money we do not have. Unfortunately, the Liberals did not take our advice in either one of those areas. They are still proceeding with their planned tax hikes and they are continuing to spend at record levels.

It goes without saying that Canadians are having incredible difficulties paying their bills, rent and mortgages and putting food on the table. Seniors, students and working families are getting crushed by the dramatic rise in the cost of almost everything they purchase these days. Heating a home or business is not a luxury; it is a necessity. The Conservatives get that, but it is clear the Liberals do not. Canada was the only G7 country to raise energy taxes during this inflation crisis.

The finance minister should have used the fall economic statement to stop the plans to triple the carbon tax. It was a missed opportunity, and it is regrettable that the Liberals are failing to listen to their constituents, who are struggling to pay their bills.

Thanks to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, his recent report on the costs of the Liberal carbon tax completely debunked the Liberals' claim that people are better off under their rebate scheme. It proved what Canadians already knew about the Liberal carbon tax: It is costing them money. For months, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has been claiming that eight in 10 Canadians get more money back from the carbon tax. The PBO report says that is not true, and most households that are subject to the Liberal carbon tax “will see a net loss”.

After years of the Liberals saying their carbon tax results in more money going into the pockets of Canadians, it is time for the Liberal government to end the charade. It needs to admit that Canadian households are in fact losing money and will continue to lose money because of the carbon tax. Every time the Liberals get up in the House and state otherwise, it is simply not accurate.

In Manitoba, winter has already arrived. The temperatures are plummeting and people’s furnaces are running non-stop. According to Manitoba Hydro, the carbon tax is equal to 9.79¢ applied to each cubic metre of natural gas that a household uses. The typical household in Manitoba will use around 2,250 cubic metres of natural gas in a year, resulting in $220 in carbon taxes. It is important to note that the carbon tax is also applied to the fuel people put in their trucks or cars.

Constituents of Brandon—Souris are disproportionately affected by the carbon tax. I have stated this a number of times in speeches in the House. I am a proud Manitoban. I am also proud to be from rural Canada. The Liberal government needs to start realizing that its policies affect rural and urban Canadians quite differently. My riding covers a span of well over 17,000 square kilometres. Unfortunately, I do not believe the government has any regard for the livelihoods and concerns of those who are from that portion of our great nation.

Many members of the Liberal government probably do not understand what life is like in rural Manitoba, or anywhere in rural Canada for that matter. People must drive long distances to get to the grocery store or to a doctor's appointment. They have to drive a long way to take their kids to school or to drop them off for hockey practice or music lessons. Many must commute to work in the next town or drive into Brandon. Many students from rural areas must drive into the city to attend either one of our great educational facilities: Brandon University or Assiniboine Community College. The Liberals are punishing these folks through no fault of their own, and none of these Canadians are buying the Liberal gaslighting that their rebates are covering the increased costs due to the carbon tax.

The other policy item our Conservative team was looking for in the fall economic statement was for the Liberals to get spending under control, which is almost an oxymoron for Liberals. Not only was there no plan to get spending under control, but the Minister of Finance is also asking for Parliament’s approval for $14.2 billion in unidentified spending in the fall economic statement. At a recent finance committee meeting, when pressed on what this money was for, the Minister of Finance flat out refused to outline what the money would be used for.

This lack of transparency is shocking. I for one will not vote in favour of giving the Liberal government a $14.2-billion blank cheque. How are we as parliamentarians supposed to scrutinize the government’s spending plans when we do not even know what it wants to spend it on.

It is the same irresponsible action that the Prime Minister took at the start of COVID, when he told the finance minister, at that time Minister Morneau, to put forward spending for 21 months, to the end of December 2021, with none of it being voted on in the House. It was completely unaccountable. This is another proof point that the Liberals have zero regard for fiscal transparency, nor do they have a plan to eliminate wasteful spending.

Every single hour the government’s debt goes up by another $6 million. That equates to $144 million per day. All of that debt is getting expensive. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, federal debt charges will top $53 billion by 2024. The amount of money the government will spend on the interest payments on the debt will almost be as much money as the federal government transfers to provinces for health care. The debt charges cost $20.4 billion last year alone, and according to Department of Finance, this year will total at least $34.7 billion.

During a Senate committee meeting, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said, “That will have a major impact on public finances...We’ve looked at the impact of increasing interest rates as well as the increase in the stock of debt. We estimate that in the next four years interest payments will probably double”.

In the weeks leading up to the update, the finance minister was speaking about fiscal responsibility for the first time in seven years. In a leaked internal memo, she even asked Liberal ministers to find a dollar for every new dollar of spending, exactly what Conservatives had been pushing for, for years. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, the Liberals’ words did not align with their actions. They refused to commit to cancelling any of their planned tax hikes and announced plans to increase inflationary spending by a whopping $52.2 billion over the next six years.

While the finance minister plays down the threat of inflation and spiralling government debt, the reality is that uncontrolled Liberal spending has played a role in making life less affordable. Even the Governor of the Bank of Canada confirmed that more deficit spending has resulted in more inflation. More inflation means Canadians are paying more without getting more.

Pay cheques are not going as far as they used to. Nearly one in five Canadians are skipping meals to cope with rising food costs. More than 88% of Canadians say it is more difficult to buy food. Food bank usage is at an all-time high. Housing prices have doubled.

In closing, our Conservative team has proposed several tangible ways to bring inflationary costs down for Canadians. We want the Liberals to enact a dollar-for-dollar law that requires government to find a dollar of savings for every new dollar of spending.

We want the Liberals to end wasteful spending by, for example, getting rid of the multi-billion dollar Infrastructure Bank, which has failed to build any infrastructure projects since it was created, and stopping their disastrous firearms buy back scheme, which would do nothing to stop gang violence.

We want the government to get out of the way of our farmers so they can grow more food. We want to see a plan that would spur the private sector to build more homes, which includes incentivizing municipalities to encourage home building. We want the Canadian energy sector to get more projects built so Canada could sell more LNG to our allies.

We will never stop pressing for an end to the carbon tax, which is raising the cost of gas and home heating. In a country like Canada, no one should be forced to choose between buying groceries and heating the house, especially in winter.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party supported the government when it spent billion and billions to support Canadians during the pandemic, whether it was wage subsidies, loans to small businesses or supporting Canadians with CERB. Then, all of a sudden an election goes by, and even during the election the Conservatives had said they supported the price on pollution. Now, all that is gone, and they do not support that. Now they say, “Well, we have to cut, cut, cut”, or “chop, chop, chop”, as the Minister of Revenue would say.

What about the billions that are being spent on programs such as child care, record-high amounts on health care and the 10% increase for seniors over 75? Does the Conservative Party today support initiatives such as supporting seniors, child care and health transfers?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, speaking of pollution, there is perhaps a bit of dilution there as well from my colleague.

I am glad the member raised the issue of the COVID spending because I had it in my speech. The Liberals did not want to have any accountability for 21 months. Imagine, an endless amount of spending with no accountability or bringing in any of the parties in opposition to vote on it, but we stopped that.

I did not say that in my speech, and so I am really glad that he had the opportunity to ask me that question. We did put a stop to that. They did have to bring it to the House. We did agree on the spending that needed to be there, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer has now pointed out that, of the $500 billion they spent, $200 billion of that had nothing to do with the COVID spending.

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

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague talk about removing the carbon tax. I am from British Columbia where the carbon tax was brought in by the B.C. Liberals, a right-leaning party, and was supported by all parties in British Columbia, just like the carbon tax here federally in the last election, which was supported by all parties represented here in the House. It is funny how the Conservatives changed their mind after an election. However, the Conservatives are calling for the removal of a carbon tax in jurisdictions such as where I live, where they do not actually have the authority to remove it.

The carbon tax applies to liquids and gaseous fuels. It does not apply to electric heat. We put forward a proposal to remove the GST on home heating, which includes electricity, and the Conservatives voted against it. Will they stop misleading Canadians and start supporting proposals that can be implemented to help Canadians tackle the affordability crisis they are facing?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from the NDP for his support of the Liberals and keeping the carbon tax going in his area.

We want to get rid of the carbon tax because it has proven not to reduce greenhouse gases, and it is costing people money out of their own pockets. What we are wanting to do, I think, is very responsible. We would like to leave that money in people's pockets to start with so they can make their decisions and then get our industries to use technology to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are out there today, and they are doing it.

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

Madam Speaker, the environment is vital to our lives. Without the environment, we would not be able to eat, breathe or build ourselves a shelter.

I understand that oil is a major source of energy and revenue in my hon. colleague's region. That said, we must consider the situation as a whole. Any attack on the environment is an attack on people's health. Does my colleague believe that it is important to implement better transition measures for workers, youth and industries in his region and others to ensure an adequate, healthy energy transition for all?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy that the member raised that as well because I am very concerned about it. Seven of my 14 years in the Manitoba legislature were spent as either the critic for the environment or conservation, and I have farmed all my life. Therefore, I am very concerned about it.

However, we have a situation here where the government is completely unaccountable for the situation it is faced with. It keeps taking money out of people's pockets, and it would be one thing if the greenhouse gases were going down, but they are not.

I think that the provinces that have made their own decisions on the greenhouse emissions and carbon tax are something that we are looking at. We will work with those provinces. The government continues to force the provinces to follow its rule in all of those particular areas, and with $54 billion of new spending, we need more accountability.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure and honour to rise in the House and share my views on this fiscal budget update and bring forward the views of the constituents of Provencher.

As our leader and many others have articulated here today, the Conservatives had two very simple conditions to gain our support for this fiscal economic update: no new taxes and no new spending. These were two very simple and reasonable requests. To my colleagues who disagree, I note that one of the few fiscal details contained in the minister's speech was that government revenues have increased by $40 billion, twice what the deficit was in 2019. That does not sound like the government should be hurting for cash, and if it is, it would be as a result of overspending.

That number 40 rings a bell: 40% of the COVID money spent was not spent on COVID but on everything else. That is $200 billion the government did not need to spend but chose to spend. That $200 billion is now driving the inflation that is crippling Canadians and driving up the cost of everything from food to fuel to home heating. Rather than providing real relief by reducing taxes, the government wants to smack Canadians one more time with even more new taxes: taxes on EI and CPP, the tripling of the carbon tax and new taxes on fuel, costing families an additional $1,200 per year.

All Canadian families are struggling to buy groceries for their kids and heat their homes. It is wintertime and it is cold out there. In my province, it will go down to -30°C tonight. Given the current plight of Canadian families and the government's direct responsibility for the current inflation and the cost of living, this was not an unreasonable demand we had.

It is likewise for the no new spending. To be clear, we are not saying that the government cannot spend money on anything and that it should freeze all spending. What we are saying is that if it is going to spend money in a new area, it has to look for a cost saving somewhere else. It is quite simple. If the Liberals wants a new program, they should look for a cost saving. They have increased the size of government by 30%. Surely, there has to be some savings to be found there somewhere.

Instead, they continue to spend. They continue to add to the size and cost of government. Every time they add to the cost of government, they need to tax, borrow or print money, which is what caused the state of inflation we are now in and what caused the cost of living crisis in the first place, just as we said it would.

The Liberals laughed at us. They rolled their eyes. They said that it would never happen. Well, it did happen. It is happening as we speak, and Canadians have to bear the brunt of it. The Bank of Canada has confirmed it too. Now, instead of taking responsibility for their actions, admitting they were wrong and taking real steps to help Canadian families, they are just throwing more fuel on this inflationary fire. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, and Canadian families continue to pay the price for these failed Liberal experiments.

As I look at the fall economic statement, I see an exercise in out-of-touch self-congratulation, with the government saying, “Look what we've done to make Canadians better off.” In fact, it is hard to tell sometimes what is more inflated, the economy or the Liberals' egos. We can see that throughout the front benches. To listen to the finance minister speak, it is as if she cannot understand why Canadians are not lined up around the block to thank her and the Prime Minister for all their new-found prosperity.

The government is out of touch and Canadians are out of money. The fall economic statement shows it spent $400 million to pay for its COVID–19 border testing regime. That is $400 million to ensure that border communities remain in limbo, families remain separated and local economies along the border are destroyed. It is $400 million to cause unprecedented delays at our airports and discriminate against Canadians who used their own judgment or who chose to keep their personal medical choices private. That is hardly money well spent.

Then there is another $42 million to the CBC. Canadian parents are skipping meals so their kids can eat. They cannot pay their bills. They are worried that they will not be able to heat their homes all winter. They are very concerned about rising interest rates, hoping that they will not push their mortgage payments out of reach. What is the government's response? Let us give the CBC another $42 million.

The CBC received over $1 billion last year, and $1 billion the year before. Do members know how the CBC chose to spend that money? It spent it on bonuses. It was on $30 million in bonuses. Averaged across the employees, that is $14,300 for each employee. Last year, it took the money that the federal government gave it and it paid out $156 million in bonuses. It did that while everyday Canadians are suffering, while everyday Canadians saw their bank accounts shrink and businesses were forced to close their doors.

Our public broadcaster has long ceased to represent everyday Canadians. The government has been in the business of subsidizing that media for way too long.

Those are a few things that are in the statement. Let us talk about what is missing. First is health care. Where is the $4.5 billion in mental health transfers the government promised? Mental health care was a huge issue in Canada before COVID. The government response, the isolation, the fearmongering and the shame have only served to exacerbate the problem. The number one issue in high schools these days is mental health and depression.

The government promised $4.5 billion of new health care spending over five years. That is spending that we agreed was needed. However, where is it? It was missing from the budget. It was missing from the fall economic update. The government dropped $200 billion on everything but health care, but it cannot fulfill a vital election promise for $4.5 billion.

Did the Liberals just forget about health care, about the mental health of Canadians, or did their deal with the NDP mean that they had to repurpose those funds to buy their support? The $4.5 billion tagged for mental health is nowhere to be found, but suddenly the Liberals have been able to come up with an unbudgeted $5.3 billion to buy off their buddies in the NDP with a new national dental program. That number seems way too close to just be coincidental.

If so, it marks one of the most callous and craven displays of political self-interest that I have ever seen. Do Canadians need dental care? Of course they do. We recognize dental care is an important aspect of overall health. We also recognize that two-thirds of Canadians already have coverage and access to good dental care.

Do members know how long the wait to see a psychiatrist is in Manitoba? It is two years. For a child or a youth, it can take even longer. One ER doctor told my office that, prior to COVID, mental health cases made up about one out of seven ER walk-in patients. Post-COVID, that number is one in three. The ratio was one to seven before COVID, and it is one to three after COVID. Where are the mental health dollars? They are nowhere to be found.

One in three Canadians cannot get the mental health services they need. They have nowhere else to go. We wonder why our ERs are overwhelmed. COVID restrictions led to huge upswings in mental health and addictions issues, especially among our young people. Our health care system is at the breaking point because they cannot cope with the demand.

We need to fund health care, and mental health care is health care. Before its members even start, the government always claims that Conservatives want it both ways, saying that one day we say to spend more money and the next day we say to cut. That is just not true. We just recognize there is a limit to what can be done.

Despite what the government and their purchased partners in the NDP seem to think, we recognize there is a limited number of government dollars to go around. That means that we need to choose what we are going to prioritize.

I have lots more here, and I could go on for a long time yet, talking about—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member will be able to add more during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, 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, we have continually heard the Conservatives talk about inflation and how Canada is performing with regard to inflation, but what we never hear about is how they measure up to comparator countries. The reality is that inflation hurts and is hurting a lot of Canadians right now, but this is not a uniquely Canadian thing. This is going on throughout the world right now, not only as a result of the pandemic and supports that came out during the pandemic, but also as a result of the war going on in Ukraine, which is really feeding into inflation.

I wonder if the member would like to reflect on that and the realities of what the world is going through, as opposed to just what we are seeing in Canada.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals' next leader, Mark Carney, said this was a homegrown problem. He is a pretty smart guy, so if he says this is a homegrown problem, it must be a Liberal problem.

We are listening to Canadians and we are in tune with our constituents. We are in tune with the kitchen table issues. These are the issues: home heating, fuel for cars, groceries for the kids and interest rates on mortgages. Those are the issues that have been exacerbated in our country. All Canadians are feeling the impacts, and it is because of failed Liberal policies.

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

Madam Speaker, there are many things missing from this bill. I like it when we can see both what is missing and what is good. I make the effort to do that, even when it is not so easy and there is something in a bill that I do not like very much.

I would ask my colleague to do this exercise. What is in this bill that is good for his riding, even if the bill could arguably be improved?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, that was a very relevant question. We need to look at the good, the bad and everything. I have tried to do that with regard to the fall economic statement.

I have had an opportunity to point out and articulate what I think are some of the failings and shortcomings of the statement. When I look at it, I have to ask myself what is good about it. What is good about it is that it is not worse.

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

Madam Speaker, I heard the member talk about listening to people and wanting to make sure we are putting in place real solutions. I cannot seem to wrap my head around and understand why we would not all be on board with taking away the GST from home heating instead of pushing for the carbon tax to be removed, which would only benefit a small portion of Canadians.

I am trying to look at this from a practical perspective. Why would we be pushing for a solution that benefits a few when we could be looking at a solution that benefits many, so they can keep food on the table, heat their homes and get by? Those are all things the member was talking about just now.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, why would we not support GST on just home heating? That is a very narrow ask and it would not benefit everybody.

What if we remove the carbon tax? The carbon tax affects absolutely everything in our economy. The carbon tax does not just drive up the cost of driving a vehicle from home to a place of work or to our kids' schools. It affects the cost of the farmers heating their grain and of the transport trucks delivering goods and services across the country, and it adds to the cost of groceries. The carbon tax is only a tax. It is not an environmental policy at all. It is just an additional tax grab. I think the Liberals are even starting to see the errors of their ways.

The carbon tax should be reduced. It affects absolutely everything in our economy.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this important discussion about the future of Canada, the finances of this country and the economic update as part of the Liberals' costly coalition with the NDP.

This makes the price of goods that Canadians buy and the interest that Canadians pay unaffordable. The cost of the Liberal government is driving up the cost of living. The more the Prime Minister spends, the more everything costs. There are inflationary deficits that the government continues to pursue unabashedly, and it has driven inflation, particularly food inflation, to 40-year highs.

For two years, in spite of what the Governor of the Bank of Canada said, Conservatives, including the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, the hon. member for Carleton, said that we would see a period of inflation that many Canadians had not seen in their entire lifetimes. At the same time, the finance minister and the Governor of the Bank of Canada said the real risk was deflation.

The votes are in, and it looks like the member for Carleton was right. We are in a period of inflation that is going to make it a really tough winter for a lot of Canadians. We have a few solutions that the Liberals can pursue, which are very straightforward. They are only going to need to use the front side of a piece of paper when they write these down as they diligently take notes. First is to stop the taxes. Second is to stop the spending.

There should be no new taxes when Canadians are having a tough time managing the day-to-day and week-to-week household costs. When Canadians are making choices about heating their homes or feeding their families, the government is planning to raise taxes. What is the government's plan? It is not just to raise them, but to triple them.

Canadians are getting their home heating set up for the winter. They are filling their oil tanks. They are filling their propane tanks. They are getting their first natural gas bills, and it does not look good. They are really worried about what it is going to look like in January, when they need a refill. They are not going to be able to fill the tank all the way back up.

These are scary times, especially when food prices are skyrocketing. I hear the members opposite giggling and laughing. Canadians are having a tough time. They are not able to pay. Grocery prices are going to be $1,000 more for the average Canadian family next year. They are not going to see wage growth to match that on top of all the other rising prices.

We knew before the pandemic that half of Canadians were teetering on the brink of personal bankruptcy and teetering on the brink of insolvency. They are going to have no emergency or rainy-day funds. It is a question of whether or not they can buy a week's worth of groceries. Are they going to put a full tank of gas in their car to get to a job site?

The carbon tax is one that punishes Canadians. The Prime Minister said it was designed to change Canadians' behaviours. They use their cars to drive to work. That is a behaviour we want Canadians to continue; we want people to work. They use their cars to go to medical appointments, to go to school and to take their children to sports, like hockey, dance or basketball.

These are not behaviours to be corrected. It is a way of life. Imagine Canadians driving to the hunt camp as part of their annual tradition, part of our Canadian culture, to go hunting. They are going to drive their cars to get there. The carbon tax is going to hammer Canadians at a time when they can afford it the least.

The Prime Minister has not shown that he is serious in addressing the housing supply crisis, and this is evidenced in the fall economic statement. The price of homes has doubled under the Liberal government. For the price of rent, we are looking at $2,600 per month for a one-bedroom apartment in Vancouver and $2,300 for the same in Toronto. Meanwhile, six out of 10 renters do not qualify for the inflationary cheques that the Liberals are sending out. Those few renters who are eligible will see that $500 vaporized by the effects of Liberal inflation.

Let us think about what the challenges look like on a day-to-day basis for Canadians. Grocery prices are up 10.8%, the highest in 40 years. What does that look like?

Eggs are up 10%. Margarine is up 37.5%. Dry and fresh pasta are up 32%. Fresh fruit is up 13%. Soup is up 19%. These are staples that people depend on. They are not able to stock the cupboards for a rainy day.

The impact the inflationary policies of the government are having on Canadians is affecting businesses as well. We know, from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, that one in six businesses are considering closing their doors. Sixty-two percent of small businesses still carry debt from the pandemic. They are feeling the effects of inflation as well. All of their operating costs continue to rise.

The carbon tax, again, is one that affects every business. It does not matter what service they are providing. All of their inputs are going up.

These Liberals have put these hard times on Canadians. We look at the legislation they present in this place, and they want to say one thing and implement legislation that does another. They say that they have Canadians' backs, but that is not reflected here.

It is much like when they say they are not going to ban hunting rifles and shotguns used by farmers and hunters, which are not a risk to public safety, as they are in the hands of well-vetted, law-abiding, trusted firearms owners. The government says that it is not going after them but introduces legislation that does just that. It targets them instead of targeting gangs, criminals and weapons smuggling. It is like a bait and switch, which is what we can expect from it nearly every single time.

Instead of creating more cash, which is the plan that the Liberals have, they should focus more on how we can create more of what cash buys. Fuel is a great example. We see that, in western provinces, we have ubiquitous natural resources that are the cleanest, most ethically produced in the world, but instead, these Liberals would prefer to get dirty dictator oil.

To say nothing of the environmental impact of bringing it across the ocean, the actual extraction process does not match the environmental standards that we have here in Canada, the environmental stewardship that is shown by natural resource companies in this country and the Canadians who work in that resource production, the human rights protections and standards that are in place for these companies that are extracting natural resources in Canada.

I appreciate having the opportunity to speak to this very important issue, and I hope there are some good questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question. It is a question that has been asked of a lot of Conservatives and one that never gets answered. I hope the member can address the question, as opposed to just rambling on about something else, which is what every other Conservative does.

When the member ran in the last election, he ran on a price on pollution. His leader at the time, the member for Durham, put in the Conservative platform that they would have a price on pollution. How can the Conservatives, just a year later, be so critical of pricing pollution? Can he please shed some light on this question and not completely disregard it?

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

Madam Speaker, I am so glad to talk about the effect of the carbon tax on Canadians' home heating.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Madam Speaker, it seems some disorder has broken out on the other side, but I am laser focused with my Conservative colleagues on making life more affordable for Canadians. We need to scrap the carbon tax. That would allow Canadians to buy more of what they need, which is fuel to heat their homes. That is what we are focused on.

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

Madam Speaker, in this bill, as in other budget bills, there is a glaring omission, namely health transfers for Quebec and Canada's provinces. This has been a glaring omission for 30 years in Canada.

Does my colleague think that it is high time Canada respected its own Constitution and its own constitutional agreements by increasing health transfers, with the understanding that increasing health transfers is a federal duty and that health transfers, in emergency situations such as a pandemic, are also a federal duty?

It is “and” not “or”.

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

Madam Speaker, the federal health transfer has been on the minds of all Canadians over the last two years with the COVID-19 pandemic, and the premiers have been asking to meet with the Prime Minister. They made some requests with respect to the Canada health transfer, and the Prime Minister refused to meet with them. It is an absence of leadership we have seen from the government on this file, and there are real consequences for Canadians across this country.

It is time for real leadership there. The Prime Minister should meet the minimum obligations of being the Prime Minister, actually sit down with the premiers and do the work.

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

Madam Speaker, it is absolute propaganda and misleading when the Conservatives rise in the House and start saying the federal government can remove the carbon tax in jurisdictions like mine in British Columbia. I have even seen Conservative MPs from B.C. suggest the same thing.

We have had carbon pricing in British Columbia since 2009. It was brought in by the B.C. Liberals and supported by all parties in B.C. Just as I said earlier, even the Conservatives supported a price on carbon in the last election, but it is not convenient for them right now.

We have been asking repeatedly whether the Conservatives will support removing the GST on home heating. It would also apply to electric heat, which millions of Canadians use. Will the Conservatives finally support the NDP's call to remove the GST on home heating?

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

Madam Speaker, there is an NDP promise from B.C. that I agree with: “B.C. NDP promises to kill carbon tax”. That is from 2009, when it was introduced in that province.

Maybe we will come full circle with my hon. colleague's party. I think the NDP of 2009 were bang on and now is the time to axe the carbon tax.

The House resumed from December 5 consideration of Bill C-32, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join the discussion today on the fall economic statement.

What we wanted to see is a plan for the future of all Canadians, but what we received from the Liberals in this fall economic statement is more reckless spending. We laid out two requests before the statement was delivered. One was no new taxes. The second was that if the government brought in more spending, it should find savings in the budget. That was not possible for the reckless Liberal-NDP coalition.

What we see right now is more spending and less money in the pockets of Canadians. We even heard the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem, say that there is a made-in-Canada inflation problem. That is as a result of the reckless spending by the costly NDP-Liberal coalition.

I will go through a few of the spending items that we see as possibly unnecessary.

For one of them, the finance minister could not even answer a question. When asked about the $14.2-billion spend in the economic statement that is unaccounted for, she could not answer what it was earmarked for. As the finance minister of a G7 country, she should really have a better handle on where the money is going.

To add to the idea that the government right now is not in control of its spending, the Auditor General released a report today, and there are some very concerning things in it. A few of the numbers we saw today gave us a second to pause and wonder where the government is taking Canadians. One has to do with “overpayments to ineligible recipients” regarding COVID–19 spending. There was $4.6 billion in overpayments to ineligible recipients that the taxpayers of this country will never get back.

Let us not stop there. There is another one about “payments that should be investigated further” by the Auditor General. This was just released today, and there is $27.4 billion for further programs that we need to look into. One of my questions here, and I hope one of my Liberal counterparts will ask me about it, is whether the Liberals believe this needs to be investigated as well. Are they curious about where that $24.7 billion is that they said was necessary for COVID spending? I ask because we all remember the solemn hand-on-heart moment when Canadians were told by the Prime Minister that he has their backs.

Do members remember one of the last fall economic statements delivered by the current minister and the government? There was a famous line that will go down as one of my favourite quotes from the Prime Minister. He said the Liberals were going to take on debt so Canadians did not have to. How is that working for the government now?

I think Canadians across the country are wondering when exactly that is going to happen, because they have seen the government take on massive debt, more debt than all other governments combined. What I am seeing and hearing from Canadians across the country is they feel that this debt is now being passed on to them. That is how they feel. Where is this solemn pledge by the Prime Minister that the government is going to take on debt so Canadians do not have to? That is not a thing and Canadians are falling further and further behind.

I have a few examples of some of the discussions I have had.

This past weekend, I had the opportunity to speak with the Association of Canadian Custom Harvesters in Saskatoon. People from all over the country do custom harvesting. By the way, in question period, the associate minister of finance, who is from Alberta, keeps saying that there have been massive crop failures across the country, yet I did not hear that from the people who actually harvest crops. That is another one of the fabricated stories the Liberals continue to tell to make sure they have a compelling narrative to keep shovelling out dollars.

At this conference in Saskatoon, it was great to hear about some of the innovations and new technologies these custom harvesters are using to lower emissions. There were questions they kept coming back to ask me: How much is enough? For the carbon tax, what level will make the government happy? I was dumbfounded. I did not know how to answer that because I do not think it will ever be enough.

One of the custom harvesters actually does work across the border in Montana and the Midwestern states, and then comes back up. I asked him what the difference in his fuel bill is when he is harvesting down south across the border compared to when he is harvesting in Canada. He said it is between $15,000 and $20,000 a week. Could members imagine doing business in a different jurisdiction where it costs an extra $15,000 to $20,000 a week on something they have no control over? They have to fuel their vehicles. They have to fuel their harvesters and trucks. I asked him how it makes sense to keep going back and forth across the border. He said it does not. Then and there it just hit me that this is why we are becoming so uncompetitive. That is why the jobs are going south. It is because the current government is taxing businesses out of existence.

Then I remembered a quote I heard from one of the Liberal backbenchers, the member for Whitby. It all made sense when he stood in his spot and said to Canadians that they will have to go through pain. Can members imagine a government member standing up and saying that it is going to get worse? Can members imagine him saying he is not sure it is ever going to get better, but that Canadians can be sure that, as long as the Liberals are in government, it is going to continue to get worse for them, with more pain and suffering? I say “kudos” to that member because that is probably one of the first honest statements I have heard from a member of the Liberal Party in being honest with Canadians and saying that under the Liberals it will continue to get worse.

We see that situation across the country. One of the biggest things that hits me when I look at some of the statistics here is that 1.5 million Canadians are using a food bank every month in our country when we are supposed to be the breadbasket of the world. We have the food, fuel and fertilizer the world needs and we cannot feed our own people.

I opened the mail the other day when I was at home and my wife brought a letter to me. We are both U of R alumni. It was from the University of Regina. Usually people get these fundraising letters when it is for a capital project or some kind of infrastructure project. My wife said, “You will never believe this is coming from the University of Regina.” I read the fundraising letter and it was literally to feed students. It was an anonymous letter from one of the students saying that they go to bed hungry almost every night. There are 58.6% of university students at the U of R who are going to bed hungry. This is in our country now and it is shameful. From where we were to where we are now as a country, the food bank usages are up. Students are living in hostels and going to bed hungry, and they were looking for a vision from this economic statement. The government cannot spend itself out of inflation.

We are getting to another point where, if there are two more interest rate rises in this country, we are going to see a rash of bankruptcies. What is the Liberals' plan for that? Times are getting tough. I know people on variable mortgages whose mortgages have gone up $600 or $700 a month. Now it has come out that grocery bills are going to go up $1,000 to $1,500 per month. Eventually, there is nothing left.

In our country, under the current Liberal government, taxes now exceed take-home pay for people who are going to work every day. This is unsustainable in our country. We need a vision and we need a plan. We need to start making paycheques pay again. We need to make it so that people who are going to work have the ability to support their families and do not have to put water in their milk so they can make it go further for the kids. Parents are literally now scared to take their kids to the grocery store. I have constituents who have sent pictures to me of what $100 in groceries is buying for their family now, and it is sad. It is a couple of loaves of bread, maybe a jug of milk, some pasta and some pasta sauce. That is not good enough.

I will leave members with a quote. It is something Premier Wall always said when we were in government. He said that the best thing a government can and should do is leave things better than it found them. The current government has failed on that miserably.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to read through the fall economic statement that we are here debating today, and I just want to correct the record. Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We have the lowest deficit as it relates to GDP in the G7. We have seen some of the highest economic growth among our comparator countries in that category as well.

I do not disagree with the member's assertion that government needs to be mindful of spending. The Minister of Finance has alluded to that herself. However, as he talks about other members being real or candid with Canadians on screen, will the member at least acknowledge the statistics that the Department of Finance has provided, that are before us here as parliamentarians today, about Canada's true fiscal and economic record?

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

Mr. Speaker, if we are being honest, I would also like that member to be honest with his constituents when they are not getting as much back from the carbon tax as they are paying. Every day in question period, we ask straightforward questions of this government, and the government members get on their feet and say that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off under their system and their carbon tax scheme, which is a tax scheme not an environmental plan. It is simply untrue.

If we are going to be honest, we should talk about controlling spending and where the $14.2 billion in this economic statement is actually going. If we are going to be honest, I would like the Liberal member to be honest with his constituents and say with hand over heart, “We have your back, but $200 billion out of the $500 billion that we spent on COVID spending, we do not know where it went.”

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

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

Some important people were overlooked in the government's economic statement. I am referring mainly to seniors. The worst inflation crisis in 40 years has left them vulnerable.

According to a study released last week by the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, an organization that advocates for the rights of retired and pre-retired people, in collaboration with the Observatoire québécois des inégalités, an organization that monitors inequality in Quebec, one in two seniors in Quebec do not have a livable income. These people do not have enough financial support to age with dignity.

I would like my colleague to talk about this matter, because the federal government is neglecting people aged 65 to 74. It increased old age security for people aged 75 and over, but inflation does not discriminate among seniors based on age. Groceries cost the same whether the customer is 63 or 76.

I would like to hear my colleague present the Conservative Party's vision and tell us whether he is in favour of increasing old age security for people aged 65 and over.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the statement that seniors are falling further behind. It is happening in my riding as well, especially, as the member brought up, the stories of going to the grocery stores and having to choose between paying for medications or their food.

One of the things seniors also depend on is their retirement savings plans and savings they use through retirement. One thing those are based on is the fiscal viability and health of the country and the economy. What we would like to see is getting our financial house in order, so those retirement savings actually grow instead of dwindle and inflation gets under control, especially when it comes to rental prices and the inflation on groceries. Those all go down when spending is under control and one's financial house is in order. What the Conservative Party would do, which would start to make the value of the dollar grow more in order to be able to afford more, is get our spending under control, get our fiscal house in order and make sure that our seniors who helped build this country are taken care of the way they should be.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard Conservatives time and again stand up and, quite rightly, talk about the cost of everything. I had the opportunity to visit the hon. member's riding in Regina a few weeks back and spoke to workers on the ground. The one thing they talk about, when they talk about the cost of everything, is the symptoms of capitalism, but they never talk about the structures.

I would like the hon. member to reflect for a moment. He likes to talk about taxation. Will he have the courage today to talk about the out-of-control corporate greed that is ultimately driving up the cost of living for people from Regina all the way to Hamilton Centre? Does the hon. member have the courage to do that? Does he have the guts to actually take on big corporate greed today, or is he simply going to continue to protect the corporate class?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked the member was in my riding and did not give me a call. I would have given him a tour of some of the food banks and union halls I get to visit. He would have been able to meet some of the hard-working members of Regina—Lewvan who are strong Conservative supporters.

However, I wish this member would stop trying to play class warfare. I wish this member would realize employees work for some of these big companies, and they are good-paying jobs. I wish this member would stop trying to pit Canadian against Canadian and being as divisive as his Liberal counterparts.

I would ask the member to go back home, talk about how he can get good-paying jobs and get hard-working union people back to work, support the oil and gas industry and make sure that all the guys at USW 5890 can continue to work at the steel plant and the guys at Unifor can keep working at the refinery. They are good-paying jobs in Regina, and I wish he would support them.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today in the House to speak to the fall economic statement. I appreciated the accolades from my colleague across the way, the member of Parliament for Regina—Lewvan. He gave me a shout-out for being authentic and real with Canadians, and I appreciate that. Although I disagree with most of the sentiments he shared, I appreciate the accolades from him. It is great when we can stand and be honest and authentic in this place.

In terms of the vision the member opposite claimed our government does not have, I would say the Conservative Party today seems to bring nothing to the table but angst and austerity, fear and division, and empty rhetoric and catchphrases. There are no solutions and no plan. I will argue in my speech today that we do have a vision, there is a plan and it is represented in the fall economic statement.

We know the challenges all too well that this country is facing and we have to understand those challenges in context. Coming out of the global pandemic, we have averted a sort of second coming of the Great Depression. It has been the worst public health crisis in 100 years. That is the context in which we need to understand our recovery and the fall economic statement. Canada has fared much better than almost any other country in the world. There have been fewer deaths per capita, higher vaccination rates and a stronger economic recovery than pretty much every peer country we could compare ourselves to.

Our real GDP recovery from the pandemic is strong and Canada is leading G7 countries. Our labour market is strong and has come back stronger than ever. Just yesterday there was a report saying that Canada has improved and has one of the highest participation rates among women in the economy at this point, due to some of the measures our government put in place. We have also seen what we call a V-shaped recovery, documented in the fall economic statement, which shows that our economy dipped drastically during the pandemic and then recovered quite quickly, which is exactly what the government had said multiple times would be the optimum scenario.

As another member pointed out recently in his question, we have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, we are forecasted to have the lowest deficit as a percentage of GDP and we have also maintained a AAA credit rating. That sounds pretty good to me. I do not know if other members in the House really pay attention to those fact-based details, but it certainly seems to me like that is a strong recovery.

Now we have global inflation that is the top issue Canadians care about today, although I will note that health care is trending and really overtaking inflation as the top issue. We know inflation is the direct result of pandemic-related supply chain disruptions, extreme weather due to climate change and geopolitical instability due to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. We all know these, as we have heard them many times in the House.

Coming out of the pandemic, demand for many goods and services has exceeded supply, and that has led to global inflation of course. There are inflationary pressures, and we know that. Even when we look at inflation in comparable countries, Canada has lower consumer price inflation compared to other economies. If we compare Canada to Italy, Sweden, Germany, the U.K., Europe, the G20 average, the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Norway, the list goes on, we have lower consumer price inflation in Canada.

Global supply chain pressures have started to subside after their pandemic peak, and commodity price fluctuations are still quite volatile, which we have seen, so tackling inflation is obviously one of the key challenges. A key measure that the Bank of Canada and all central banks around the world are taking is raising interest rates, with Canada doing so quite aggressively, to cool down and slow down the economy until supply starts to catch up to demand.

The postpandemic economic growth will slow as a result and Canadians are feeling the pinch. We all know this. It is tricky to get this right. Of course we have to have debates and be really thoughtful about how we approach this because there are lots of unknowns.

Global financial markets are not something within the federal government's control. We have to remain agile. We have to be careful not to add fuel to the fire. I think we have all heard these things. They are quite clearly outlined in the fall economic statement.

We must do what we can to alleviate the inflationary pressures, while we work toward preparing the conditions for growth. In my view, and in our government's view, it is to build an economy that works for all Canadians. What does that mean? It is an economy that is more equitable, fair, just and sustainable; that is more resilient; that addresses long-standing inequities that we experienced during the pandemic; that continues to fight climate change; and that we do not let up from the fight against climate change just because some of the members opposite do not agree that climate change is real.

We on this side of the House understand that climate change is real. There is ample evidence to suggest that we all need to be concerned about global warming and that Canada experiences even more than many other places in the world.

We have also provided immediate targeted supports for those who need it the most. We can think of the doubling of the GST tax credit, the rental top-up support of $500 and dental care as well for lower-income families and kids.

If I were to summarize all of this, we have a pretty good track record. We have had a strong recovery and we have dealt with the pandemic quite well. Now we are moving into a period of global inflation. The fall economic statement outlines three main areas we are addressing.

We have supply chains. We are strengthening the resiliency of our supply chains. That is very clearly laid out. That means those supply chains can withstand shocks in the future. There is the national trade corridors fund, which launched in 2017. There are $4.6 billion, $2.8 million allocated to over 130 projects, including the Oshawa port authority, right next door to my riding, which will be making major updates to the port so its infrastructure can accommodate more shipments coming in and out. The national supply chain task force is another initiative, which has already achieved some great recommendations that are being implemented.

People and their talents, skills and labour is another major theme in the fall economic statement. We are investing in the skills for a net-zero economy. There is the sustainable jobs training centre, a new sustainable jobs stream under the union training and innovation program, and a sustainable jobs secretariat. All of these are designed to help retrain people to take on the jobs in a net-zero economy.

The immigration levels plan has also been increased, which is great news for our labour market constraints.

My favourite portion has to do with sustainable finance. We are launching the innovation and investment agency, $1 billion over five years, modelled after the Business Finland and Israel innovation authority. The objective is to work to help new and established Canadian firms innovate, commercialize, research and create new economic opportunities for workers and businesses in Canada.

We are also launching the Canada growth fund, which is designed to attract substantial private investment in Canadian businesses and projects to help seize the opportunities provided by a net-zero economy. The policy goals are very clearly outlined in the fall economic statement. We will be able to capitalize on an abundance of natural resources and strengthen critical supply chains to secure Canada's economic environmental well-being.

Fifteen billion dollars of public capital will have a three time multiplier effect with respect to leveraging private capital. Think about how much that $60 billion will help build the economy of tomorrow. We saw an example of that just yesterday at the GM Ingersoll plant, which is producing Canada's first-ever electric cargo vans. This is great news for our country.

There have been substantive investments through the net-zero accelerator and some of the other government initiatives. We want to build that even stronger, so that in clean hydrogen and clean technology, Canada can be a world leader. Using the new financial tools, while using the government's leverage to basically de-risk some of those investments, is a key strategy in how we can move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech of the member for Whitby. He is a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and we have worked together on some things. He talked about the innovation fund. He said that it would add $60 billion and create investments. I hope it does a lot better than the Infrastructure Bank, which did nothing for Canadians but build pipelines in China.

In the 2019 campaign, the Liberals promised not to raise the carbon tax over $50 a tonne. They broke that promise and blew by that cap. By 2030, the carbon tax is supposed to be $170 a tonne, which increases the cost of everything from food to fertilizer to fuel. Everything people buy will be more expensive because of the carbon tax.

Therefore, how high is high enough? With the tax currently at $170 a tonne, the Liberals will break that promise as well. How high is the carbon tax going to go before they realize it is going to bankrupt Canadians?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the first part of the question of the member for Regina—Lewvan, in which he asserts that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has done nothing. My riding of Whitby, and across Durham region, has come up with a memorandum of understanding with the Regional Municipality of Durham to finance over 100 electric buses across the region over the next seven to eight years. To me, that is not insignificant. It is a huge investment, a $68 million investment. There will be loans that will be repaid. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is doing a lot of really good work, so I will take issue with that first off.

On the price on pollution, in every jurisdiction in the world that has implemented a price on pollution, the evidence shows that it is by far the most effective market-based mechanism for fighting climate change. We disincentivize the wrong type of behaviour, the behaviour in our industries that pollute, and incentivize innovation and the uptake of technology that will help us get to net zero.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems very pleased with his government's record on fighting climate change.

I do not know what world he is living in exactly, but it was pretty pathetic to see the Minister of Environment and Climate Change walk into COP27 with a retinue of oil company executives. It would have been entertaining, if not for his government's feeble track record.

Canada is the only G7 country to have increased its emissions since 2007, since the Liberals took office. It is the second-worst G20 country on average in terms of public investment in fossil fuels. I cannot believe the government is still patting itself on the back. I want to know what the plan is now.

We were talking about the carbon tax. At $50, the current price, it is not effective. It would have to be tripled immediately to achieve concrete results. What is the government's plan for dealing with the problems of climate change?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take issue with the member opposite's assertion that somehow our government has a poor track record when it comes to fighting climate change. In fact, we inherited over a decade of inaction from the Stephen Harper era, which was a dark shadow on our country—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order, please. The hon. member for Whitby has the floor.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take issue with the assertion from my hon. colleague that somehow our government's track record on fighting climate change is not superb.

[Some hon members]

Oh, oh!

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this elicits the same response from my colleagues, because it shows just how little they know about climate change and how they do not really take it seriously, which we have seen time and time again. Even at their national convention, they voted to say that climate change was not real. Who, in their right mind, these days could deny climate change is real?

I will go back to my point, which is our government entrenched our climate commitments in the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act to hold our government and every future government accountable. We have the strongest emissions reduction plan. We have implemented all kinds of initiatives that are making changes right across our economy. Every industry is fighting climate change at the same time. It is a big task to transform our economy to net zero and move people's behaviours over to a sustainable lifestyle. It is going to take time, but I am very proud of our record.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' fall economic statement outlines an agenda on how to support Canadians struggling with the cost of living, where, theoretically, no one is left behind. Guess what. Canadian seniors were left behind.

In a document with almost 40,000 words, seniors were only mentioned 16 times. Statistics Canada indicates that the population of seniors is expanding six times faster than that of children ages zero to 14. The number of Canadians age 85 and older has increased by 100% since 2001, reaching 861,000 in 2021. The number could triple by 2046 according to the current population.

Accordingly to Bill VanGorder, chief policy officer of CARP, Canada's largest advocacy association for seniors, the needs of older Canadians are increasingly relevant and significant as the population ages. Based on the numbers from Statistics Canada I just shared, I whole heartedly agree.

Despite this urgent need for greater attention to seniors, the 2022 fall economic statement does not adequately address the current struggles of seniors. Nor does it implement any of the recommendations put forward by CARP.

The fall economic statement promises that the government will boost old age security by 10%. A 10% increase will amount to $69, which will do little to help the soaring expenses due to tax hikes, inflation, heating and housing costs. With the tripling of the tax on home heating, gas and groceries, how does this help many seniors living on a fixed income? The 10% increase will not cover the cost of heating their homes. In Canada, we love our seasons, but this could be deadly for seniors.

In Atlantic Canada, seniors are worried about having to heat their homes this winter. I would like to share a quote from the Liberal Minister of Labour. He said, “I am sick and tired of people talking about the cold winter.” The Liberal Minister of Labour has shown a lack of compassion for our seniors and this quote underscores his denial of the significant debt we owe our seniors. They raised us, provided for us, worked hard for us and now they cannot even enjoy the fruits of their labour.

Sharon Callahan, executive director of Newfoundland and Labrador Public Sector Pensioners' Association and chairperson of the seniors' coalition said recently that seniors were experiencing extreme difficulty with the cost of living. If the price of fuel keeps going up over the winter and continues onto next winter, how will they survive? Ms. Callahan is concerned that many seniors will be forced to make choices between food, medication and heat. Seniors will be forced out of their homes.

In Canada, natural gas is also a form of energy used to heat our homes. Over six million homeowners use natural gas to heat their homes and their water. Using the Ontario Energy Board calculator, for a single detached home, approximately $22.03 would be added to the monthly heating bill due to the federal carbon tax. This is something for which even saving $13.99 on a monthly Disney subscription does not account.

What about gas for their cars so they can buy groceries? Food bank usage is at an all-time high. Food banks reported 1.5 million visits to the food bank in just one month. That is a 35% increase. While food banks are increasing their supplies to accommodate, the Prime Minister spends $6,000 a night in a hotel room. That money could have helped the homeless. That money could have helped our seniors. That money could have gone a long way.

The ArriveCAN app cost Canadians $54 million. What did it accomplish? Nothing. The money could have helped support seniors and all vulnerable adults and children. There are numerous examples of the waste.

The cost of housing is another pressing issue affecting Canadians and seniors that is not properly addressed in the fall economic statement is Canada has the second-most inflated housing bubble in the world. Interest rates are increasing at the fastest rates in a decade. A family that bought a home five years ago will now see, after renewal, their mortgage payments going up $7,000 a year. Canada cannot afford this, and Canadians have had enough.

What about the homeless? The recent report from the Auditor General highlights that, even though five years have gone by since the federal government first launched the national housing strategy to reduce homelessness, no organization in the federal government is taking the lead. Even though about half of the $9 billion has been spent, it is unknown whether this has benefited anyone. Where is the accountability? What happened? Where is the money? Who did it help? We have no answers.

According to CMHC, in 2016, of the 3.4 million senior households, close to 480,000 were in need of affordable housing. The national housing co-investment fund aims to create 7,000 new homes by 2027-28. That is 1.5%. How is this going to solve our housing crisis?

A CBC report on October 8, 2022, told the story of Lynn from Toronto, who never imagined herself being homeless when she retired. About four years ago she found herself living out of her car. She started working at the age of 15 and no longer has a home. She had a condo and had to sell it. At first she tried living with her sister, but that did not help. She slept in her car. She finally got into a shelter. The struggles are still there.

According to Homes First, an organization that helps people get off the streets and into supportive housing, Lynn's story is becoming increasingly common, and Toronto's seniors are struggling. It said, “That's due to the city's aging population, rising inflation and an increasingly expensive housing market”.

The other thing I want to talk about is the Canada pension survivor benefit for seniors. In the fall economic statement, nothing was mentioned. Why are we punishing spouses who decided to stay home and raise their children while their spouse continued to work? These seniors came here from other countries, like my grandparents and those of many of us here in this room. Most of the time the responsibility of raising the children fell to the mothers. Once the spouse has passed, his pension is gone. The wife has to endure the fact and make some choices, either go back to work or lose her home.

There is a shortage of long-term care facilities right across this country. Due to the lack of staffing, we are going to hit a crisis. We are going to find ourselves with seniors having no choice but to live on the streets. Recently a senior wrote to me about her financial struggles while she was caring for her disabled son. She is working three jobs to support him. This fall economic statement would not help her at all.

We have a major issue in this country, and the Liberal government needs to respect our seniors and understand the cost of inflation. The tripling of the carbon tax will see more and more families struggle to survive. Is this the Canada we want to reside in? Many individuals immigrated to this country in search of opportunities for themselves and their families, but this inflation is out of control. The spending by the government has proven deadly for all of us.

Therefore, when we look at hard-working Canadians, our seniors and the vulnerable in our communities, what is the government going to do to help them? The fall economic statement shows no respect for the people who raised us and nurtured us, and who paid their taxes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I took particular issue with the member opposite's remarks as they relate to Atlantic Canada and her mischaracterization of the Minister of Labour's comments

The Minister of Labour was very clear that he is sick and tired of hearing Conservative politicians misinform the public about carbon pricing as it relates to home heating in Atlantic Canada. There will be no carbon price on home heating in Atlantic Canada, and that member did not even acknowledge that today.

We have put money on the table to help homes transition, $250 million, including money for seniors in my riding and in parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. There was no recognition of that, but when we talk about seniors, will that member recognize that it was her party, under the last prime minister, who actually brought old age security back up to 67 and was going to try to take that away from seniors?

It was our government that brought that back, increased the guaranteed income supplement and brought 250,000 seniors out of poverty over the last term of our government. There was no recognition of that. The Conservatives have a terrible record on seniors, and it is despicable to hear the member opposite say that somehow Conservatives are the heroes for seniors in this country.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is despicable is the fact that the Liberals decided that being a senior starts at the age of 75. How would he explain to seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 why they are not getting the benefits—

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

We did not take anything away like you did.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is my turn.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order.

The hon. member for King—Vaughan has the floor.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, heating is important in this country. We live in a country where winter is the predominant season. Whether the increase happens this year or next year, it is going to happen, and the people in Newfoundland and Labrador cannot afford it.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague how much confidence she has in the government to actually implement measures that will satisfy Canadians, including when it comes to helping seniors 65 and older.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have an easy response to that. I have no confidence in the government, because as a senior, I see there is no responsibility taken by the government to ensure seniors can live their retirement as they planned.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a rare day I get to rise in the House and find common ground with my Conservative colleagues, but I think I may have found it. The Conservative member spoke about the inadequate rates for seniors in their pensions and retirements, and I completely agree.

She talked about how inadequate the Liberal government's increases were to it, so I would like to find some common ground with the hon. Conservative member and ask her to reflect on what she thinks would be a fair and adequate rate to allow seniors to retire with dignity in this country.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think what we need to do is go back to understand what our parents raised us with. They always expressed to us that we cannot make a dollar and spend a hundred. It does not work that way. We have to plan for the future.

For our seniors, what is important is that they did work. They raised their four or five children. They should not be penalized. They should have the opportunity to live a comfortable life, and I think that we have to look at the fact that when their partner passes, we need to compensate them for it.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague whether she is against us helping people 65 and older and whether she wants us to cut these benefits.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused. I do not understand the question. I did not speak about cutting at 65. I spoke about the fact that the Liberals have implemented that seniors get that extra bonus at the age of 75. When is the retirement age? Is it 65 or 75?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I gave the hon. member the opportunity to advocate for seniors and talk about what a living wage would look like in retirement, and she chose not to answer the question, so I want to put the question back to the hon. member. What is the rate and how far would she be willing to go on seniors' pension rates to help lift them out of poverty? I ask the member to give me numbers.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think what we have to do is understand that there is a point where seniors require that minimum amount. What is that minimum amount? It is going to depend on the individual and their lifestyle, but what is important is that, when a partner is gone, that pension is lost. It should be retained.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' spending is out of control. They are completely out of touch and do not have a clue about how the vast majority of people in Canada live.

Unlike their elite friends, whom they so fondly dole out tax dollars to in scandal after scandal, most people in this country work hard for what little money they have. The government is spending billions upon billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars on frivolous vanity projects, on initiatives that no one other than their seatmate at the World Economic Forum would really care about. All the while the government is raising payroll taxes, tripling the carbon tax and implementing inflationary policies that weaken the dollar, which prices essential goods out of reach.

The callousness on display, the elitist attitude of cancelling one’s Disney+ subscription to save money coming from the people who are not hurting and who do not struggle to keep food on their tables or heat their homes, has to stop.

After seeing another load of spending and learning about Canada’s national debt of over a trillion dollars, one constituent of mine, Chris, wrote in to say, “I’d like to see them in our shoes that is the middle class or low-income households, with our wages. With high inflation for food, gas, heating, rising Bank of Canada interest rates, the soon to be tripling of the carbon tax, pay our bills, our mortgage, our debts, and see if the budget balances itself. I don’t need a handout of my own taxpayer dollars. I need a government that will fix the real issues behind Canada’s problems.”

My message to this resident of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, and to all Canadians who share this view, is that if we want to see change, we need to vote Conservative in the next election.

Our leader, the member for Carleton, knows the same simple fact that nearly everyone but our Prime Minister understands, that budgets do not balance themselves and that more spending, like what was announced in this fall economic statement, only adds inflationary fuel to the fire.

This is not the only feedback that I have received about waste and misplaced priorities. Recently, a 12-year-old wrote to me with a message that has more common sense in it than this government has displayed in years. This is from Everett.

Everett says, “I have been thinking about why the Prime Minister wants to further tax our hard-working farmers and their families. This tax will dramatically increase the cost of food to the consumer.

“Here is what I would say in Parliament and to the politicians: 'Mr. Speaker, if the federal government continues to enforce laws that control our farmers, there will be widespread criticism to the Liberal government, which has already spent billions of wasted tax dollars. Canadians have already faced difficulties in the beginning of the decade. Forcing our farmers to pay a tax on livestock methane will only lead to farmers who can barely get enough money to pay the ever-increasing carbon tax! It will lead to more bankruptcies in the country. Canadians are fed up!'

“They had already said it in the beginning of 2022. The government silenced them. With inflation, it will make it harder for Canadians to get past this winter. Canadians will be starving and this government will have caused another famine and caused people to starve.

“When will the federal government end the mandates against Canadian farmers?”

Well said, Everett. I thank him for sending that in. I agree. It is true. The government cannot see the forest through the trees, which is funny because they have committed to planting so many of them. I think it was two million trees, and they have planted zero. Is that not another Liberal commitment that has flown by the wayside, just like their promises for accountability and transparency?

It is no wonder that they have to resort to using Conservative ideas to give their fall economic statement any substance.

What ideas could those be? Well, investing in Canadian-made, clean, green technology. That is something we on this side of the House, Conservatives, have been calling for for years.

In fact, making investments in and growing Canadian capacity to be a global leader in clean green tech is exactly what we put forward in our last two platforms. It is an idea, I should add, that creates jobs and helps the environment, which was opposed by the Liberals before.

After learning that their current war against the Canadian energy sector had cost 170,000 Canadian workers’ jobs without a credible plan to back up their big assumptions and magical thinking, it is about time that they saw the light.

We should also note that the first figure is on top of the 180,000 energy jobs that were already destroyed under the Liberal government. That is 350,000 jobs, and counting, killed to satisfy the Liberal government’s imagination. While these Canadians look for work, the government buys the oil and gas we need from dictators instead.

Canadians need more common-sense initiatives, and it should be obvious that it is Conservatives who will give them that. It is Conservatives who will support our domestic resource industries and make positive changes that benefit all, even if the government tries to hide its mistakes and take credit for our ideas.

Do members know that the average before-tax income of a millennial in Canada is under $50,000? Do they know that the average Canadian family pays $39,000 in taxes? For Canadians aged 25 to 40, that means it is nearly impossible to get ahead. It means they will not be able to afford a home until retirement age, and that is if they get to retire. It means every dollar recklessly wasted by this government to grow inflation only puts them further behind. Tripling the carbon tax and increasing payroll taxes so the government can keep spending taxes does not give them hope.

This situation is surprisingly similar to what Canadian seniors currently face. They have sacrificed to save their money. After years of working hard, they gave it all to grow our nation, to make it successful and a great place to live. However, many are telling me they are feeling left behind and abandoned, forgotten by a government that no longer sees them as useful, a Liberal regime that would rather offer them death than sufficient medical or mental health care. They see no hope coming from spending announcements. They only see their bills piling up, groceries getting more expensive and becoming unaffordable, and a winter ahead of them with not enough money to keep the heat on. This is all thanks to the Liberal government's spending and mismanagement of Canada's finances.

From our millennials to our seniors, Canadians are saddened to see this once-prosperous, thriving country with an incredible reputation on the global stage become what it has become today under the government: a tax-and-spend nation that is driving people into poverty and is quickly becoming the laughing stock of the world.

I can see from the faces of those opposite that they do not believe me, but they should pay attention to this next bit of testimony.

A senior from my riding, from Wallaceburg, wrote that they are on ODSP and their cheque has been cut by $500. It's winter right now, they said, and they need that because of the price of heating oil. The senior said it cost $1,800 to fill the tank, and that is what they now get from ODSP.

This Canadian has nothing to live on and no other options.

What do members think about this heartbreaking story from another young mother? She wrote that she had spent the whole day consoling two brothers aged one and three, sick with a bad virus. If she could have given them Tylenol or Advil, she said, they would have had a bad day but they would have survived. Instead, these two very active boys cried and moaned, threw up and begged to be carried. They slept in her arms and were miserable all day.

Instead of acting quickly to see that Canadian children have the medicine they need, the government waited. Instead of working to make certain Canada never faces a similar shortage, it announces boutique spending policies that help no one.

This economic statement does not address the cost of living crisis that the costly NDP-Liberal coalition government has created. Its reckless spending and mounting national debt is simply not fair to future generations.

I have also been hearing from young people that with inflation and the cost of housing, they will be living in their parents' basements until at least the age of 30 and they have given up on their dream of owning a home for their family to live in.

To afford food, to be warm this winter and to give hope to the next generation of Canadians, Conservatives will always stand strong against the Liberal government's reckless spending and fight for common-sense policies.

Finally, here are some questions from average Canadians that no one has been able to answer yet: Where is this carbon tax going? Who gets it? What is it being spent on? No one believes that it is coming back to them, like the Liberals claim. Since the inception of the carbon tax, many have been asking how paying money to the government stops the global temperature from rising. How does money going from their bank account to a slush fund for the Prime Minister's self-glorification clean up the atmosphere, especially when China is the world's biggest polluter by far? How does paying a tax stabilize the weather, when the sun is the biggest influencer of the earth's climate? How does my handing money over to the least transparent, least democratic, most expensive government in our nation's history stop a hurricane from hitting the east coast? It is time to scrap the carbon tax.

Liberal spending is out of control. For the reasons outlined, I cannot support this economic statement.

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

Mr. Speaker, whether it is this member or members in general from the Conservative Party, once again they demonstrate just how much they are out of touch with reality in terms of what the fiscal update budget is all about in the legislation the member is debating.

The member talked about seniors. Never in the last 50 years or so have we seen a government commit so much to seniors, whether it is literally lifting tens of thousands out of poverty or the increase of 10% for those aged 75 and over, which was an election commitment that was made by this government. That is not to mention the one-time payments that have been made over the years for seniors, and that everyone is getting a doubling of the GST credit over the next six months. There is a litany of things in this budget document.

The member continues to want to take the Conservatives' spin lines as to her opposition. Has she really gone through the fall economic statement? If so, how could she possibly say what she has said on the record today?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government's lack of attention to monetary policy is just letting too many Canadians fall through the cracks, especially our seniors. I am going to read for members an example from Martin, who sent me this letter. He says that he and his wife are pensioners. They live below the poverty line. At ages 73 and 68, they still work two to three days a week to make ends meet. He sent me a copy of his monthly budget and noted that after paying their bills they have no choice. They have to choose between buying clothing and putting gas in their car, and they have to save up to have some entertainment. He says, “We helped get this country to where we are today. Now, even at our age, retirement is not our future.”

Where is the help for Canadian seniors?

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with interest, and the issue of energy certainly came up a lot.

I have before me a statistic that shows that since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, Canada's big five banks have invested $694 billion in fossil fuels. Although much of it was in the form of loans, that does not change matters. Should we be doing something about the banks?

I have another concern, one I know the Conservatives share. How can we make our economy greener so that jobs in the energy sector are more sustainable? How can we raise awareness about oil's carbon footprint?

We are seeing a lot of innovation going on. Should we be investing more in that? How can we make the economy more resilient in the prairie provinces?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about how the government is so out of touch with Canadians and how life is getting so much more expensive for Canadians. One of my constituents said they were sure I was aware that everything is going up. Gas is up where they live. It is up to $1.83 a litre. Groceries are skyrocketing. Housing prices are becoming impossible and with the government's carbon tax increase, it is only going to get worse. People have suffered enough hardship over these last two years with the pandemic and need some kind of reprieve.

People like my constituent, who live in rural areas, do not have access to public transit. They say it is unfair of the Prime Minister to continually punish them for something that is completely beyond their control. My constituent also needs to heat their home during the winter months. Heat is a necessity, not a luxury, and my constituent respectfully requested that I bring this to the attention of the House of Commons and plead with the Liberal government to help them, saying that this is unsustainable and wrong.

I agree with my constituent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech expressing concern about seniors. However, I think she wants us to forget that it was the Conservative Party that tried to raise the age of retirement under the Harper government, and that had to be reversed. People would not be collecting OAS until age 67 if the Conservatives had their way.

On the other side, the member talks about young people trying to get a start. One of the main reasons I am supporting this fall economic statement is that it would take away the interest on student loans, which would go a great way toward helping people get a start in life.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, another senior in my riding emailed me who has a real concern about this winter because of the cost of living and what it is going to cost to heat his home. He said he just received his oil delivery yesterday for 415.4 litres of furnace oil at a cost of $885.82. He asks for somebody to please explain to him how he is paying more for furnace oil than for the price of diesel. He attached his receipt.

It is a very real issue for seniors. They are wondering how they are going to pay their bills and heat their homes this winter, and the tripling of the carbon tax is not going to help. We need to axe the tax.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today.

We are currently in a closure period imposed by the government, with the support and co-operation of the NDP, to limit the debate on the economic update. It is hard to consider this anything but unfortunate. As my Bloc Québécois colleague mentioned earlier, this is the twentieth time that the government has called upon its new NDP friends to stifle debate in the House. This is completely unacceptable and unfortunate and we must denounce it.

We are here to debate the economic update. We Conservatives are always very attentive to the government's reckless spending and mismanagement. Clearly, we have had a lot to say on the subject today, which is unfortunate for Canadian taxpayers.

Just today, the Auditor General released an initial report regarding the management of public funds during COVID‑19. The least that can be said is that it is quite disastrous for people who believe in the sound management of public funds.

The Auditor General “found that Employment and Social Development Canada established performance standards by focusing solely on the speed of payment” and identified at least $32 billion in overpayments and suspicious payments that require a thorough investigation. In short, to paraphrase the Auditor General, it was sloppy. This has been exactly the trademark of this government over the last seven years.

When the government indicated that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance would be tabling an economic update, which happened barely a few weeks ago, we made two very simple requests that were motivated not by ideology but by an acknowledgement of reality.

What do we do when we know that there are tough times ahead? Just like a good mother who has a family budget to manage, we need to stop the taxes, and above all, stop spending. If we have to make additional expenditures, it must be with caution and in a very specific and focused manner. Those were the two requests that we made; they were entirely logical and responsible, but sadly, the government did not heed them.

Should we be surprised that the government has continued in its seven-year-long tradition of spending recklessly? To hell with the expenses, as we say around here.

Let us not forget that, in 2015, those people stood for election and had the audacity to say that they were going to be bold, but responsible. They said they were going to run three small deficits in the first few years to stimulate the economy and then achieve a zero deficit in 2019.

That is the truth about that situation. After four years of the government's being in office under the Prime Minister, there were three huge deficits and another huge deficit in 2019. Liberals were elected saying there would be a very small deficit, but the truth is there are huge deficits, while, when the economy was reeling all around the world in 2008 when the Conservatives were in office, we were the first country in the G7 to get out of the crisis because we were serious in our administration.

Unfortunately, in their first term, the Liberals spent recklessly when, by rights, they should have been setting money aside for a rainy day.

Now, they are obviously going to tell us that, when they ran deficits, it was not their fault, it was because of COVID-19.

Well, we will play along. Sometimes, in a crisis, it is necessary to spend more. We recognize that. In 2008, 2009 and 2010, when we were in government, we ran deficits. The difference is that we brought them under control and then paid the money back and returned to a balanced budget.

However, since COVID-19 and since the Liberals have been in government, there has been a cumulative deficit of $500 billion. The deficit is like a bill we are leaving for our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren to pay, because we are living beyond our means. That is the reality.

Some will say it is not their fault that COVID-19 happened, but the Auditor General found that over 40% of this deficit has absolutely nothing to do with COVID-19, so that argument should be taken with a grain of salt.

The confirmation that the Liberals spend recklessly is that they are currently spending 30% more than before the pandemic. That is because they have been unable to control spending.

As for the excessive spending, we know these people have no shame.

About a year ago, the government decided to implement the sadly notorious ArriveCAN app for people arriving in Canada or those travelling abroad and returning to Canada. Travellers had to fill out a very complicated form. It made no sense. Worst of all, it cost taxpayers $54 million, when one IT company said that it was the type of job that would have taken them a weekend at most and cost a quarter of a million dollars. In short, instead of spending $54 million on something that did not work very well, and sometimes did not work at all, the government could have spent $250,000 and gotten the same thing done at a lower cost and more efficiently. Instead, this government overspent.

It was the same during the pandemic. Money was no issue, as they say. A $237‑million contract was awarded to Frank Baylis, a former Liberal MP, to manufacture 10,000 ventilators. Also, need I remind the House that CERB cheques were sent to prisoners and members of organized crime? It is a bit embarrassing, but it is a fact.

It is understandable that, in an emergency, processes are sometimes sped up. However, the Auditor General's assessment was scathing. The government mismanaged $32 billion during the pandemic. It makes no sense in this type of situation.

Also, as the member for Carleton, who is now the leader of the official opposition, said in April 2020, government should never punish or limit work.

All my life, I will remember going through the first summer of COVID‑19 as an MP. Every day, I met business owners who were angry and upset.

They were angry, because they were upset to see young people staying at home instead of working. That is the reality of what we faced the first summer, when young women and young men decided to stay at home and pick up the $2,000 from the CERB instead of going back to work.

I will never forget meeting the manager of a restaurant in Val-Bélair. I will not name the restaurant because he may not want me to tell this story. He came to see me and was very angry. He told me that it did not make sense and that it had to stop because it was not right. He said that a 17-year-old young man had come to see him and laughed as he told him that it was great because he would not be working over the summer.

That is not how a government should be run. That is not the right message to send our young people. When people are 16, 17 or 18 and working their first summer job, they are proud to get up in the morning and enthusiastic about working and earning their first three-figure paycheque.

We had the courage to identify the problem, but the Liberals went on as though nothing were wrong. Now we are dealing with inflation, the worst inflation crisis in 40 years. It is hurting everyone, particularly the most fragile and most essential sector of all: food.

As I noted yesterday during question period, the next few years are not looking any better. Four universities conducted a study and found that food inflation will remain above 10% inflation in the coming year. It is not a good sign when food banks report increasing demand and people who were donating to the food bank last year are now knocking on the door of that same food bank for goods and food. I see it in my riding.

That is why we will be voting against Bill C‑32. We believe that the government has not done its job properly in terms of sound management of public funds. It has spent recklessly. It has absolutely no control over its spending, but that has not tempered its ambition and desire to raise taxes.

The Liberals can say what they will, but raising taxes during a period of inflation is the worst-case scenario.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the issue of inflation. My friend has brought that up, and it is important that we put it in the proper perspective. Let us take a look at what is happening around the world. Whether we compare ourselves to the United States of America, England or many of the European countries, Canada is, at the very least, below the inflation rates of all those countries.

We understand it still hurts here in Canada. That is one of the reasons we have taken a number of measures to support Canadians directly. For example, we are doubling the GST credit for the next six months. That will put some cash in the pockets of people.

Would my colleague not agree that, in comparison to other countries, Canada is doing well? In fact, even though that is the case, we are doing more to support Canadians by bringing in good legislation such as the doubling of the GST tax credit.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me answer this question clearly. For sure, we see inflation all around the world. We also see, all around the world, serious governments lowering taxes. All the countries in the G7 reduced their taxation system except one country. Which one is it? It is Canada under the Liberal government. It not only decided to not lower taxes as every other country in the G7 has done, but also it plans to raise taxes with the carbon tax in 2023.

I cannot believe this gentleman, who I appreciate very much, is proud to say his government will raise taxes at a time of inflation.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent's speech, and we disagree on some things.

First, I think he is generalizing when he says that only young people benefited from the CERB. That is not true. I want to see his data. I do not agree with him.

Second, my colleague talked about government spending. We agree on that, but I think he has forgotten about one expenditure, namely the wage subsidy for businesses. The Conservative Party received nearly $1 million through that taxpayer-funded subsidy, which was intended to help businesses stave off bankruptcy and keep the lights on. The former leader of the Conservative Party, the hon. member for Durham, talked about that before the election campaign.

The Bloc Québécois demanded that the parties pay back that money, which came from honest taxpayers and was not intended to fill the coffers of political parties. I would like my colleague to tell me whether the Conservative Party has begun paying back the wage subsidy that was intended for businesses.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hold my colleague from Rimouski‑Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques in high regard and I thank him for his question.

To start, I am going to have to go back and read what I said. If, by any chance, I indicated that only young people benefited from CERB, I apologize. However, I do not believe that is what I said.

I still hear stories about the situation that occurred and that left a strong impression on many entrepreneurs and young people as well. Unfortunately, they did not have the pleasure and pride of working their first summer job and earning a living. No, they stayed home and received CERB. While it is true that some young people benefited from this money, they were not the only ones. Honestly, I do not think I went that far, but if I said they were the only ones, I apologize.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said at the finance committee that, “the $4 billion or $5 billion in this assistance for lower-income Canadians doesn't have a meaningful inflationary impact”.

Does the member agree that the windfall tax and the Canada recovery dividend are absolutely necessary so that these lower-income families that the Conservatives keep talking about can get the assistance they need from this bill?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the best way is to let people live out their ambitions. Nobody wants to spend all their life in troubled times. That is why we have to help everybody. The best way to help them is by not raising taxes and by leaving more money in the pockets of the people. Do not print more money and give it to everybody. We can be sure that by lowering taxes people will keep more money in their pockets, and they could have a good future with that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to join in today's commemoration of the 14 women killed at École Polytechnique on December 6, 1989. The first shots were fired at exactly 5:10 p.m. We must remember, but above all, we must say, “Not one more woman”. We can truly make a difference by taking action together. I want to acknowledge all the shelter workers who are helping women flee violence. They can count on our support.

I will be speaking about the economic statement, Bill C-32, even though closure was once again invoked on the economic statement just a few hours ago. That is one time too many, because closure should be the exception in the House. It should only be used in genuine emergencies that require us to stop debate, for democratic reasons, for instance. That is not the case here, and it was not the case for many other bills. With the NDP's complicity, the government has once again missed an opportunity to take the time to make the debate fully relevant. That is what I hope to do with my speech.

The Bloc has already announced that it will be supporting the economic statement. The NDP is going to support it, and the Liberal Party wants to speed up debate. However, I hope the government will listen to our concerns about the economic statement. I hope it will listen and realize that it is never too late to act.

The Bloc Québécois asked for three things in the economic statement and Bill C‑32.

First, we asked the government to support health workers and sick patients by increasing health transfers. The government said no.

Second, we asked the government to provide proper support to our seniors aged 65 and older, most of whom are women. Seniors are being hit hard by the current economic conditions. They need appropriate support, which means ensuring that the increase to old age security starts at age 65. Seniors must not be discriminated against. That request was also denied.

Third, we asked for an urgent reform of EI, which is a federal program, a support program, a social safety net. At least, that was what it was supposed to be when it was created. It is the best economic stabilizer in difficult economic times. Again, we got no response, just radio silence.

The government rejected those proposals. We can only see this as a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers and Canadians cope with the difficult times they are already experiencing or may face in the coming months.

As the Minister of Finance said many times in her speech on the economic statement, a crisis is coming and we need to be vigilant. I would say that we need to be bold. As I was saying, EI is the ultimate economic stabilizer during a recession, and a recession may be just around the corner. Times like these may offer the best opportunity to reform the program. Perhaps we should avoid waiting until we are in the midst of a crisis. EI is also a tool for social justice that protects workers from the ups and downs of the market economy.

While a growing number of analysts are concerned about the possibility of a recession as early as 2023, the Canadian government seems to be going back on the comprehensive EI reform it promised in the summer.

On June 6, we asked the Minister of Employment a question here in the House about when we could expect the EI reform to happen. The minister responded as follows, and I quote:

Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard to modernize employment insurance. Quickly, when we got into the pandemic, we recognized that the EI system had not kept up with the way Canadians work. That is exactly why we are working to improve the system in terms of adequacy, in terms of access and in terms of the individuals who pay in and who do not yet have access.

What we do know, however, is that the system, which has not been reformed in 15 years, is so broken that six out of 10 workers who lose their job are not entitled to EI. It is shameful.

The government has been promising to reform the EI system for seven years. It made that promise in its 2015, 2019 and 2021 campaign platforms, but nothing has been done and time is short. We definitely need to avoid a scenario where we are forced to improvise a new CERB to offset the shortcomings of the system if a recession hits. During the pandemic, we saw that improvised programs cost more and are less effective. However, the government's financial forecasts prove that it does not anticipate accepting more workers' claims.

With respect to the 26 weeks of sick leave announced recently, this was a measure included in Bill C-30 to update budget 2021, passed 18 months ago. The minister finally announced the measure, which will take effect on December 18 and only for new claimants. That is too little too late. We again decry the government’s lack of ambition. It is happy with a half-measure, and one that should have been in place last July.

According to the Canadian Cancer Society, 1 in 24 people have been diagnosed with cancer in Canada over the last 25 years. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that claimants with a serious illness need an average of at least 41 weeks of benefits to recover. Therefore, even with an increase to 26 weeks, the government is leaving claimants with a deficit of 15 weeks without income. They will not be able to recover with dignity.

It is insulting, quite frankly, especially since a motion was adopted and two bills have been introduced here in the House in that regard. The Bloc Québécois introduced the Émilie Sansfaçon bill to increase EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50 weeks, and the official opposition party introduced a bill to increase sickness benefits to 52 weeks. Although a motion was adopted in the House, some parliamentarians still refuse to listen. The government has deliberately chosen to ignore the very well researched and careful advice of parliamentarians, experts and witnesses we have heard from.

As for EI reform, we are still waiting for the minister to come forward with a proposal for comprehensive reform. The temporary measures that were in place but were abolished in September would have been a good basis for reform. We still do not understand why the government eliminated them, only to go back to the status quo and the outdated system we have now.

This is despite the fact that the minister's mandate letter is quite clear. It says, and I quote:

...by Summer 2022, bring forward and begin implementing a plan to modernize the EI system for the 21st century, building a stronger and more inclusive system that covers all workers, including workers in seasonal employment and persons employed by digital platforms, ensuring the system is simpler and more responsive for workers and employers.

Let us just say we are a long way off. Ever heard of the winter gap?

I see that my time is up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise the issue of what the civil service has been able to put together over the last couple of years. At a time when we had a worldwide pandemic, the development of the CERB program came from virtually nowhere, as we all know. When we take a look at issues such as employment insurance, we have seen a number of modifications to support Canadians to get them through our current situation. The minister herself has already indicated that we are looking at ways to make some additional changes to EI.

Would the member not agree that at the very least we have seen significant changes to date and that new programs have been there to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way? The CERB program helped over nine million Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, seriously, with respect to EI reform, apart from nice words and good intentions, nothing is happening. The government had promised it seven years ago. Now, we are hearing nice words about how EI needs to be reformed and adapted, but nothing has been done. The government has had to cobble together some measures from scratch because there are gaps in the system.

It eliminated measures that existed in September and that could have made a big difference for workers in the seasonal industry. This for me is the winter gap. The government will leave workers in limbo for periods of 15 to 17 weeks with no income and no work because it changed the eligibility criteria.

Is that what the Liberal government wants?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are experiencing a state of emergency. From indigenous communities to Quebec, it is no secret that violence against women is increasing in Canada. This is a critical issue, especially as everyone in the House just this morning marked the importance of understanding that action is greater than words. Women have passed away in the last few weeks in Winnipeg, and today we are marking the tragic memory of many women in Quebec who have passed away due to misogyny and violence against women.

I know the member has spoken passionately in the past about ensuring that we create equity, opportunity and resources for women, including women who are survivors of domestic violence and women who are survivors of many more kinds of tragedies.

The fall economic statement bill, Bill C-32, fails to acknowledge the fact that women are experiencing this national emergency. Could the member speak about the importance of ensuring that the government provides real resources to tackle misogyny in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what my colleague has just said.

More must always be done to support women and ensure that equal rights translate to equality in fact. When we talk about supporting women in cases of violence, we must also consider women in the workplace. They constitute over half of humanity, whether they are seniors or health workers. They must also be provided support through strong programs.

What I deplore is that the current government is more concerned with telling us what to do in programs that belong to the provinces than with enhancing its own programs, such as old age security, the issue of health transfers and EI reform. That is the problem.

We are losing time here trying to pass bills, like the one for dental care, for example, that infringe on provincial jurisdictions, instead of tackling EI reform, among other things.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her heartfelt intervention.

I think that we agree that on this December 6, we have to work on addressing violence against women.

Listening to my colleague talk reminds me that there is a direct link between poverty and violence against women. To help women escape the cycle of violence, we need to make sure that they have a bit more money in their pockets.

How can the government claim to have a feminist agenda while maintaining an EI system that is more discriminatory toward women? The same goes for refusing to increase old age security benefits. We know that this has a greater impact on women.

In what way do these two programs affect women more?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague for her question, and I would like to acknowledge her very moving speech.

The employment insurance system discriminates against women in several ways.

First, it is often women who work in non-standard jobs. Because of the current EI rules surrounding eligibility criteria, it is very difficult to qualify for employment insurance when you work in a non-standard job.

Second, pregnant women who lose their jobs while on maternity leave or upon return from maternity leave are no longer eligible for EI. That is another way that EI rules discriminate against women.

Women won a court battle, yet the government has not even corrected this. What a disgrace.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville for her speech. Members will see that the spirit of my speech is somewhat similar to hers. Perhaps it is because we wear the same colours in the House.

As a human being, as a woman and in good conscience, I cannot help but bring up the three points raised by my colleague. These are the Bloc Québécois's demands. In short, the government has come up with an update that leaves us wanting more. We always expect more from the government, but in this case we were expecting at least a little something. These measures were already announced but not implemented last spring or, as has been said several times, are simply minor legislative adjustments. Basically, this is an update, but it is not something that required vision. It is not something that requires that attention be paid to what is going on around us right now.

We go to our ridings and we know what is happening. People stop us to talk about bread, butter and health. This bill is not really something that will go down in history. It is very unremarkable. The Bloc Québécois will be voting for the bill not because we are particularly enthusiastic about it, but simply because we cannot oppose a bill that does so little. The legislative adjustments needed to be done. That is the first thing I wanted to raise.

I talked about the Bloc Québécois's three priorities, which we mentioned several times recently, just before the update. I am here to represent the Bloc Québécois, but I would also like to talk about my riding. I sometimes feel like the government does not realize that, for residents in my region, the north shore, the issues of health transfers, EI reform and old age security for seniors aged 65 to 75 are intrinsically linked. First, there is the issue of money, and then the issue of health. I represent an ageing population of 100,000 people who live in an area where jobs are precarious, even for seniors. Sometimes, there are very good jobs in the mining industry. However, work in forestry, fishing or tourism is really seasonal. The workers are not seasonal, the industry is. Also, the region is vast. My riding spans two time zones. That says it all.

Residents are struggling with these issues, but the government does not seem to notice. It does not even mention them in its economic statement, even though the opposition keeps raising the issue of inflation and the amount of groceries people can afford keeps shrinking from week to week. In short, these issues went totally unmentioned, yet they are crucial for my constituents. For them, it is a matter of being able to keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table. I believe I have said this in the past. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, these are basic needs. People need to be healthy, they need to eat, and they need shelter. That is what we are talking about.

I would also like to come back to the issue of old age security. I talked about conscience at the beginning of my speech. I honestly cannot imagine what the government was thinking when it decided to divide retirees who have the same needs into two groups, seemingly arbitrarily. I think they all need three meals a day, whether they are 62 or 73. The government divided them in two and is doing nothing to change that. It is not doing the right thing. It is not saying that it was in fact a huge mistake, that it did not realize this would be a problem, but it could do that now, which would do it credit.

Instead, the government is leaving things that way out of pride. My constituents cannot live on pride, unfortunately.

I also wanted to come back to EI reform. My colleague mentioned the winter gap, which makes winters a time of great hardship for seasonal workers. I am referring to the seasonal gap, the period when workers in seasonal industries are left in limbo. This is happening at a time when people, including many of my constituents, are no longer employed in the seasonal industry and live in an area where there are not 28 other jobs available. It is not necessarily consistent over time.

It is not a labour shortage, it is simply that there are no jobs. These people have no income. However, industries and communities need workers, and the workers themselves need to work, of course. These people are not even getting any help.

As an aside, I read an interview recently with the Minister of National Revenue and member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine concerning EI. I must say that I was stunned, and my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville was probably stunned as well, to read that she wanted EI reform. However, it was not to honour the Liberal government's promise from 2015, but to address the labour shortage.

Right now, six in 10 people are not eligible for EI, and precarious workers and seasonal workers, which include women, students and youth, are struggling to make ends meet at the end of the year. In addition, our villages are experiencing an exodus. Now the Minister of National Revenue and member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, who is sort of my neighbour on the other side of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, comes along saying that EI will fix the labour shortage.

We have been hearing it for 20 years. There has even been talk of it since 1996 and the Axworthy reform. There are reforms going on. What we are being told is that it will be more generous and fix the holes in the safety net. However, the Minister of National Revenue and member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine says that the criteria will simply be made even more restrictive, that people will be forced to travel 200 kilometres or 300 kilometres from home, rent an apartment and leave their family in order to work. At least, it seems it will be that way in my riding.

I would love to see the minister visit the fishing villages on the Lower North Shore. Fishers from Newfoundland came to settle in Quebec, and they now live there in communities of 200 or 300 people, where the economy is based on the processing industry in the village, on fishing. I would love to watch her to tell them that they will end up having to go work in Sept-Îles and Baie Comeau, 700 kilometres away, because hotels need workers in the winter.

That is not going to work, and it is frankly ridiculous. More than that, to me, it is an insult to my constituents, to the workers in my riding who contribute to the Quebec economy and the Canadian economy just as much as other workers. I have a lot to say about this topic, because I am deeply concerned about it. I am not even hearing good news. Not only is the government not talking about it, but worse still, we are getting bad news. That is really what the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine is saying. She is a bearer of bad news.

Finally, I would like to talk about health transfers. I mentioned how big my riding is. Imagine having to travel four, five or six hours from home for dialysis. Dialysis is not a yearly treatment. It is administered several times a week. That means choices have to be made, choices that are heartbreaking, because services are not available. They are not necessarily available in the cities, either. We have seen what is happening in the hospitals, which are overflowing right now. As we have seen, the Red Cross was called in to help out at CHEO. What is happening right now is very serious.

The provinces want health transfers. This is essential. We have talked about health care, and it is once again beyond me why the government is so determined not to meet people's needs. This is what the premiers of Quebec and the provinces are asking for.

As I have said before, this is about lack of vision and will. I believe I have talked about this in other legislative assemblies, but this trend is worsening. It is becoming increasingly apparent; there is no denying it. The government has no desire to undertake anything and would rather do the bare minimum. It avoids making waves. It takes shortcuts. Then it takes measures nobody is keen on and tries to ram them through.

The Bloc Québécois will reluctantly vote in favour of Bill C‑32 even though we think it completely lacks substance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Bloc, on a number of occasions, bring up what the member and some other members of the House have brought up. It is the presumption that the federal government arbitrarily decided that those who are over 75 would get more supports than those between 65 and 75. In reality, when we look at the data, it shows that once people hit the age of 75, their costs increase, their savings decline and their pensions are no longer indexed to inflation at the same rate.

The data shows that seniors over the age of 75 need more supports. It is not the first program we have developed in this country that is based on need. What we did when we brought in this program was look at where the need was and deliver it to those Canadians.

Why is it so difficult for the Bloc to accept the fact that the data shows people over 75 need more supports?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my hon. colleague may be confusing certain age groups.

There are also those aged 64 to 75, of course. I understand the idea of need. We completely agree on that. Perhaps I should also repeat it. The problem is that this is not about information, or data, as he said, but about people.

In my riding, the main groups that represent seniors and defend seniors' rights are calling for the elimination of discrimination. What seniors are receiving is already too little. The government must not tell us that it is enough for those 75 and older. It is not enough.

There is still discrimination, and I would like to say that the government should not kid itself. It should not think that depriving a certain group of seniors of adequate income will make them get a job, if the idea is to get them to support themselves even though they worked their whole lives for a decent retirement.

That is what the Bloc Québécois has to say.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her speech. I would like to ask her a question.

There is not much in this bill about health and health care funding. Could the member comment on that?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to. I thank my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for her question. I would like to mention an anecdote that comes to mind whenever I hear the term “health transfers”.

Mr. Chrétien, the former prime minister, once said that cutting health transfers was really good because he got to keep something in his pocket and the government that would get blamed was the one that had jurisdiction over health care, meaning Quebec.

In other words, he got to keep the cash, and the problem stayed in Quebec and the other provinces, which had to make up the difference because the needs were still there. People did not stop getting cancer just because Chrétien decided to cut health transfers.

That is one of the first comments I would make. We should get the monkey off our back and put it back where it belongs, on the government's back.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for her intervention. I enjoy working with her at the indigenous and northern affairs committee. I have similar constituents. My riding has three time zones and is much larger, so I connect with her intervention, clearly.

The NDP supports this bill because it provides for the Canada recovery dividend, which will tax for-profit corporations such as the banks and insurers that are showing major profits. I wonder if the member agrees that the Canada recovery dividend needs to be extended to the big box stores, which are clearly contributing to the hardships of our constituents.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the question in English. I hope I understood it correctly.

I thank my colleague from Nunavut, with whom I have a lot in common. I could talk to her about going to stores in my riding in the north. I think there are Northern stores in her riding as well. I have nothing against the chain itself, but the issue of the exorbitant costs for residents is something that must be addressed.

Here is another anecdote that illustrates what is happening in my riding. In grocery stores in the north, a can of Maxwell House coffee costs $55. Coffee is considered a luxury. Generally speaking, one of the issues that is very important to me is having programs to lower costs so it goes directly into the pockets of people in my riding.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

As much as I enjoy the energy of the next member, I will have to cut him off in about four minutes.

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)]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that when you said you were going to cut me off, a number of Conservatives clapped, so I will try to make the four minutes worth their while.

It is unfortunate that, once again, we are in a situation where the government has had to bring in time allocation on very important legislation to serve Canadians and to bring resources to them, in particular those who are in the most need. I will reflect on the fact that 38 members of the Conservative Party have spoken to the bill. Twenty-six Liberal members, six NDP members, 10 Bloc members and one Green member have also spoken to it. The bill, now back to the House at report stage, has had a number of interventions at the various different times. To somehow suggest that democracy is not in full effect as it relates to the bill would be extremely disingenuous.

We all know what happened to the fall economic statement of 2021. When we tried to act in good faith with the Conservatives to continually bring that bill forward so they could have more and more discussion on it, we never ended getting to vote on it until May or June of 2022. It is entirely fair to assume that the same thing would probably happen again this time, and therefore bringing in time allocation was certainly a requirement.

I want to talk specifically about something I am hearing quite a bit in the House, particularly on this legislation. This is the discussion about inflation. There is no doubt that inflation is real, that it is hurting Canadians and that it is difficult. It is creating a lot of uncertainties in the lives of people and in the marketplace. However, the problem is that Conservatives want to talk about inflation as though this is a problem that is isolated only to Canada. The reality of the situation is that inflation is happening globally right now.

We could try to accredit a number of things to it. We could say that it was the various attempts of G7 or OECD countries to support their constituents during the very difficult times of the pandemic. We could say it is about the war in Ukraine. There are a lot of different contributing factors to it.

However, it is happening throughout the world. In fact, in the G7 countries, Canada has the third-lowest inflation rate. The only two countries lower than Canada are Japan and France. Every other country has a higher inflationary rate. Of course that brings little comfort to those who are trying to deal with inflation, but it is important to reflect on the fact that this is a global issue and something that citizens throughout the world are trying to tackle.

This bill is specifically about that. It is about trying to make life more affordable for Canadians, in particular those who are struggling the most. When we think about things like the Canada housing benefit, or the dental benefit that was previously adopted, or the GST credit or some of the various other measures that the government has brought in specifically to help low-income people, we know those measures will have very little impact on inflation. We know they are right measures to take right now to support constituents throughout Canada.

I look forward to continuing afterward question period, and taking some questions at that time as well.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-32, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

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

Mr. Speaker, when I left off just before question period, I was reflecting on the fact that there is too much attention being paid by the Conservatives in the House to inflation only as it relates to domestic inflation. They are not considering the whole picture of inflation being a global issue, something that countries throughout the world are, quite frankly, dealing with right now.

Canada has the third-lowest inflation rate in the G7. Of course, that is little comfort to those who are experiencing the effects of inflation right now, but that is exactly why we are debating this particular piece of legislation today. This is legislation to help those who are feeling the impacts of inflation the most with trying to get through this very difficult time.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I apologize for interrupting the hon. parliamentary secretary.

I would remind everyone that debate is taking place and people should take their conversations into the lobby or the hallway. Inside the chamber, we all want to hear what the hon. parliamentary secretary has to say, and when the questions come, we will want to hear them as well.

The hon. parliamentary secretary can proceed.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is the first time somebody has ever said that everyone wants to hear what I have to say. I certainly thank you for those kind words.

This bill is bringing in measures that are specifically designed to assist those most impacted by inflation right now. Most important is to look at the impact of the measures we are talking about in this bill in support of Canadians, those who need it the most. It is well documented that the impact of those measures on inflation is next to nothing.

I think it is very important that we reflect on exactly what some of those measures are. For starters, the one measure in this bill I am very happy to see, because I think it is long overdue, has to do with the elimination of student loan interest from the federal portion. I know it has been said in the House that we do not have a student loan problem. I would disagree with that. I suggest that is exactly the opposite of the truth because we do have a problem when it comes to education.

The reality is that decades ago, when my parents were in their teens and early twenties, all one needed to get a job that could provide security to build a family and buy a house was a high school diploma. By and large, one could find stable employment to provide for oneself and one's family. That is not the case any more.

Now, one needs much more than that. One quite often needs a university degree, to be highly skilled in a trade or, in some cases, have completed a masters or postgraduate work. The difference between now and then is that secondary school is covered through taxes. It is covered through property taxes and taxes that individuals pay to support the school system. To get to the point of being able to provide and start a family back then was free. Now we are in a situation where education is a lot more expensive. The cost of getting to that place of providing for and building a family is much more expensive.

When we start talking about things like eliminating the interest on student debt, I think it is absolutely important because it moves us toward being able to provide the education that people need to get stable employment. That employment can be used to build a family, buy a house and so on. From my perspective, we ultimately have to get to a point where either community college or university for Canadian citizens is almost as easy to access as high school is because it is through that that people can experience the quality of life that previous generations, like that of my parents, were able to experience.

I really think that this piece of legislation is absolutely key right now. We need to get this through the House. I am glad to see that we are at the final stage of this. The reality is that there are Canadians out there waiting on this legislation to be passed so they can start to get some of the supports in it. We know full well that the House could end up debating this fall economic statement until May or June, just like the Conservatives forced us to do with the last fall economic statement. We have had numerous speakers on this: 38 Conservatives, six NDP, 10 Bloc, one Green and 26 Liberals. After all these speakers, I cannot understand how anybody in the House would possibly think that continuing debate on this piece of legislation would be more important than getting the supports the legislation provides to Canadians.

I am glad to see that there is time allocation on this. We need to get to a point where we can have a vote on this. Let us have our voices heard through that vote, and if it passes, get the supports to Canadians. There are Canadians out there suffering right now who need these supports.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's review of the fall economic statement, Bill C-32, he categorized $14.2 billion as unannounced spending. I am just wondering if, before we go to actually vote on this bill, the member would tell us what the details of that spending are.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be completely honest. I am not fully versed in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, but I would say that every member of Parliament gets the information from the government at the exact same time.

The member assumes that I am going to somehow have access to that before him, but that would be against the rules of the House. I am allowed to see what is tabled when he is allowed to see it. He knows that. To suggest that there is some kind of information that I have that he does not have is simply not the truth.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has any comment on this as we debate Bill C-32. I understand his point that other members have spoken. It was almost getting to be like The Twelve Days of Christmas with how many members have spoken. I expected it to move into music. I ended up being the one Green who spoke.

There are other thoughts and comments that we would like to make, but we do not want to prolong debate unnecessarily.

The fundamental point is that we have rules and procedures in this place. We have time allocated for debate. If that is truncated on a routine basis continually, what does that mean for the future of this place as a place that is the heart of democracy, where debate takes place and where we do not truncate and bring down the bâillon every time?

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

Madam Speaker, I think that the member brings up a very good point. It is unfortunately the reality of the place where we are now. It is an inevitable cycle. Conservatives are just using every single tactic they have, not only to slow down legislation that they are against, but also to slow down every piece of legislation of the government.

It is almost as though they want to force the government to use time allocation so they can say we are being undemocratic. The cycle continues so they can say that we did it 50 times, 60 times, 70 times and so on. Perhaps the member is on to something, in that we need to look at our Standing Orders and how we deal with this kind of stuff.

I will be completely honest. Before I got here, when I used to hear of Stephen Harper bringing in time allocation and terminating debate, I used to think it was an egregious thing to happen, until I realized, when I am sitting here, exactly how this place functions.

When Canadians actually figure out how this place functions, I know they will understand why it is necessary to do this and why it is necessary to end the games.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to get back into more of the substance of the debate. The member has mentioned the student relief and interest payments.

One of the things that we also see compounding is that students are graduating with fewer opportunities to be in a job for a longer period of time, with benefits and pensions. I wanted his thoughts about that. I see a lot of young people simply getting buried and falling behind, and that has caused significant problems for them starting families.

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

Madam Speaker, the member makes an excellent point.

Back in the sixties and seventies, one could graduate from high school in Kingston and go and work at DuPont or Alcan. One could have an entire career there, have a pension at the end and have benefits with that pension. The reality is that those jobs are becoming fewer and fewer.

We do not see the ability for individuals to have one job. I think that the average person now has seven or eight jobs throughout their employment time.

To answer his question, what is important now is that the government needs to recognize that the labour force has changed. We cannot rely on these companies to be providing these pensions and long-term strategies for retirement. It is becoming more onerous, quite frankly, for the government to provide those strategies and to make sure that people are prepared for their retirement because the opportunities this member mentioned, and that I mentioned at the beginning of answering the question, just do not exist anymore.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-32, the government's fall economic statement.

With inflation at record highs, interest rates rising and tax hikes on the way, Canadians are paying more attention to the government's spending now more than ever. They expect their government to be fiscally responsible with their tax dollars, and Canadians expect their government to make outcome-based investments and things that matter to them.

Unfortunately, since the Liberals took office in 2015, rural Canadians have been neglected by the government. I wish the government had spoken to rural Canadians and listened to their priorities and concerns before introducing the fall economic statement. Clearly, it failed to listen to rural Canadians.

Missing from the fiscal update is a plan to address rural crime. Rural crime is a pressing issue for Canadians who live in rural and remote regions. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has been silent on this issue.

Statistics Canada has reported that the crime rate in rural Canada has increased at a much higher rate than in urban Canada. The data shows that rural crime rates are 30% higher than in urban communities. Rural Canadians are vulnerable, and criminals are deliberately preying on the individuals and families in rural areas, knowing that the RCMP response times are highly delayed.

I spoke with a woman who lives just outside of the small community of Ethelbert, Manitoba last summer. She told me how her home was broken into multiple times in one year. Her home was invaded, her personal belongings were stolen and her safety was threatened. It took hours for the RCMP to respond, not because the police officers did not care but because they were so busy dealing with other responses.

Like many rural Canadians, the dream of living in a peaceful and tranquil region of our nation has turned into a reality of fear for one's safety. This is just one story, but I can assure members that nearly every Canadian who lives in rural Canada has, or heard, a similar one.

However, now the Liberals want to use the very limited policing services in rural Canada to implement their politically driven buyback program to confiscate legally acquired firearms. Even the provinces and territories are speaking out against this. New Brunswick, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Yukon oppose this wasteful use of police resources.

The provincial minister of public safety in New Brunswick said:

New Brunswick’s bottom line is this: RCMP resources are spread thin as it is...We have made it clear to the Government of Canada that we cannot condone any use of those limited resources, at all, in their planned buyback program.

The Liberals would rather use RCMP resources to enforce a firearm ban, which will do nothing to address rural crime, than use RCMP resources to protect the vulnerable families that live in rural Canada.

I should remind Canadians that violent crime has increased by 32% since the Prime Minister took office, and gang-related homicides have increased by 92%. Clearly, the Liberals' plan is not working. The Prime Minister has no plan to address the 30% higher crime rate in rural Canada, and that is very concerning.

The fiscal update did include new measures to support the victims of hurricane Fiona, and while I applaud the support, I want to raise an issue that was not addressed.

I was recently in P.E.I., meeting with Atlantic Canadians who feel neglected by their federal government, particularly the rural Canadians who feel their government is ignoring their needs.

Access to reliable, high-speed Internet and cellular service is critically important to rural Canadians from coast to coast to coast. When hurricane Fiona hit Atlantic Canada, cellular towers were down for days. The inadequate backup capacity on cellular infrastructure meant that Atlantic Canadians could not make a phone call in times of need.

Thousands of Atlantic Canadians waited weeks before they could reliably make a call on their cellphone. Imagine a single mother who does not know if she can contact local emergency services after a storm. Imagine seniors knowing they may not be able to call their loved ones in times of trouble.

While some cellular towers had backup generators, many did not have sufficient capacity and others had no redundancy at all. I found this very troubling. However, what I found even more troubling was the fact that this issue was raised by Atlantic Canadians to the Liberal government less than three years earlier after hurricane Dorian.

Atlantic Canadians called on the Liberals to address cellular redundancy in Canada, but their request fell on deaf ears. The Prime Minister failed to address cellular backup capacity in disaster-prone areas, and Canadians once again felt the impact of his neglect to this issue.

Even after the premier of Nova Scotia wrote to the Liberals urging them to address this issue, nothing was mentioned in the fall economic statement. Canadians deserve access to reliable cellular service.

If we want to connect Canadians with high-speed, reliable internet and cellular services, we need to increase competition in Canada. The only way to get lower prices and better service is to increase competition, enabling more innovation and choice.

Canada has among the highest, if not the highest, wireless prices in the world, according to a report by Rewheel/research. The minimum monthly price for a 4G smartphone plan that includes at least 20 gigabytes of data is higher in Canada than in Greece, New Zealand, South Africa, Norway, Germany, China, the United States, Finland, Sweden, Japan, Australia, Spain, the United Kingdom, India, Brazil and Italy, and the list goes on and on.

The Liberals think they can solve the problems with big government spending, but a lot of solutions emerge when we remove the government gatekeepers.

I think of Starlink, for example, a private company that provides internet through low earth orbit satellites. This is a company that is not reliant on government funding, that entered the Canadian market on its own, and has probably connected more rural and remote Canadians in one year than the government has since it took office. That is the power of innovation. That is the power of competition.

We should be encouraging private sector growth and innovation, not discouraging it.

Before I conclude, I want to point out one more thing. I noticed that there was a heading in the fall economic statement entitled “A Fair Tax System”. This reminded me of an encounter I had with a local taxi driver this year.

I was heading to the airport at four in the morning. A taxi driver had picked me up from my hotel and he told me he would only work for another two hours. I asked him why. He said that if he worked too much overtime, the increase in his tax rate would not make it worth his time. He would be working to put more money in the government’s coffers than in his own pocket. We should let that sink in.

Our tax system is discouraging Canadians from working. The government is discouraging seniors who want to top up their pensions. It is discouraging students who want to work for their tuition. It is discouraging parents who want to work a little extra to pay for Christmas presents. This is heartless and in no way a fair tax system. We should always be rewarding those Canadians who want to work.

Canadians are concerned with the rising cost of living. They are concerned with the irresponsible government spending. They are concerned with the neglect displayed by the government. They are concerned with what the future holds. I will continue to stand up for these Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservative members always express concern with respect to the government spending. I do not know to what degree they recognize the true value of some of the spending that has taken place. We can talk about child care from coast to coast to coast. We have seen massive reductions for the first time with the national child care program. We have seen historic amounts of health care transfers to support provinces and address the needs of Canadians and their expectations on health care. In fact, we brought in a national dental program for children under the age of 12.

Would my colleague not recognize these are the types of programs on which Canadians expect their national government to deliver?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing the member talked about was spending. I will point to the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General found, “Employment and Social Development Canada established performance standards by focusing solely on the speed of payment”, and identified at least $32 billion in overpayments and suspicious payments that required further investigation. We are focused on that kind of spending.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am going to ask the member a similar question I have asked other members. Given the context that, as we all know, some major corporations are making major profits, windfall taxes on corporations like Loblaws and oil companies need to happen, because the people he talked about are the ones who are suffering the most. Revenues from windfall taxes could go upward of $4.3 billion, if this kind of windfall tax was put on corporations like Loblaws and oil and gas companies.

Does the member agree these major corporations need to pay their fair share of taxes?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to taxes, it was one of our asks in this fall economic statement. We were looking for the Liberals to stop increasing taxes, in particular the carbon tax. Eliminating the carbon tax on home heating immediately would at least cut the costs for people to heat their homes, not sometime when we pass a bill, not sometime when we happen to get the House in order and not when we start to tax someone else. The government would immediately stop taxing Canadians who work so hard to heat their homes.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on his excellent speech.

He talked a lot about rural areas across Canada. I wonder if he could elaborate on what he would have liked to see in this budget statement. I agree with him that there is not much in this statement for rural areas.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, the one thing that really stood out to me was that it did not address Canada's needs at all, especially when it comes to rural crime. Today we talked about things that happened a long time ago and we said it should never happen again. In rural Canada, crime is 30% higher. There was not even a breath spent on that, not even on how we would address it or how we would take those sacred resources from the RCMP and apply them to rural Canada so we could look after rural Canadians. The government has totally blown up that whole idea.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

Earlier the member for Winnipeg North praised the government's actions in the area of health transfers with all kinds of conditions. Health care systems in Quebec and the provinces are in a critical state. Now is not the time to dither and try to set standards with absolutely no knowledge of exactly what they entail.

My colleague did not seem to respond as nervously as I did on this issue. I would like to hear his comments on this.

Why is the federal government so determined to impose standards for health transfers? Does my colleague agree that there should be no standards and that health transfers should be increased, as the provinces and Quebec have unanimously called for?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry that I did not answer the question about health care.

Health care squarely belongs in the realm of the provinces especially, but the key for the federal government to keep our country together is to work with the provinces, respect their power and work as a team. as a country, and not to divide us and take us in different directions. It needs to work as a true leader. A Conservative government will do that.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will begin my remarks with a short aside about Sainte‑Adèle, a municipality in my riding. On Friday, a terrible fire destroyed the Hôtel Mont Gabriel, which is a Laurentides—Labelle institution. The hotel has been perched on the summit of Mont Gabriel since 1936. I have a personal attachment to it because, in the 1960s, my father worked at Mont Gabriel to pay for his education. I want the staff and the general manager, Martin Lavallée, to know that I am with them as they confront this calamity, which has struck just days before Christmas.

Today, I am here to speak about Bill C‑32 at report stage. This bill seeks to implement the government's economic statement. Unfortunately, as we can see, it basically amounts to some minor legislative amendments. Quite frankly, I really feel that this is an attempt to implement the budget that was tabled a few months ago. I would like to elaborate on the economic reality that Quebeckers are facing. Bill C‑32 is backward-looking. It mentions inflation 108 times, but how much attention does the issue really get? The content of this bill is not anchored in the future or in the present.

I am trying to find ways to get us through these difficult times. Some examples of the challenges we face are skyrocketing grocery bills and the inability to fill our tanks with gas while we wait to buy an electric vehicle to get to work, because in the regions, a car is essential. Unfortunately, public transportation is not available everywhere. Donations to media food drives are also down because people are struggling.

The government has identified the cause of the higher cost of living, but it has done nothing about it. It has announced that there are difficult days ahead, which we obviously are aware of, without providing a way to get through them. Still, even though the measures in Bill C‑32 are not perfect, because there are shortcomings, we can say that we are relatively satisfied with the measures presented.

However, the government should have given more consideration to the Bloc Québécois's requests. They are simple and clear, and we know that they will be effective. We have proof. These measures can directly help Quebeckers. Our three requests were to increase health transfers, provide adequate support for those aged 65 and over, and urgently reform the EI system.

The Liberal government ignored our offer of help and rejected our proposals. This is a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers. I know Quebeckers are watching, and I want them to know that we will not give up. I must admit that there are some positive elements, however, and I will mention them today.

As we know, property flipping is really driving up prices on the housing market and making it very difficult to buy a home, particularly for first-time buyers. I commend the federal government on its initiative to tax gains from property flips. I hope that will help curb real estate speculation and make it easier for people to buy a home.

Another related measure that I welcome is the creation of the tax-free first home savings account. I talked about it with my older daughter and her friends, and they say that it will definitely help them.

That measure was in the spring budget. Things have changed, and we had to adjust.

Bill C-32 is not perfect. However, we are happy to see the provision that amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to eliminate the accrual of interest on student loans as of April 1, 2023, and the provision that seeks to phase out flow-through shares for oil, gas and coal activities. Obviously, we welcome that.

The pandemic made it clear just how much desperately the Quebec health care system needs help. As we speak, the three emergency rooms in the Laurentides—Labelle area are alarmingly overcrowded. I have to say it. The occupancy rate in the small municipality of Rivière‑Rouge is 80%. It is 167% in Sainte‑Agathe‑des‑Monts and 240% in Mont‑Laurier. The holidays have not even begun yet. The numbers speak for themselves. We need those transfers, and we will not give up.

In my riding, the holidays also herald the arrival of vacationers and, potentially, higher demand on our emergency services. It seems the government is trying to divide and conquer. It has been aware of this request, which has been made repeatedly, for quite some time. I get the impression it is trying to wear us down, but at what cost? Unfortunately, there may be accidents on ski hills this winter. Where are people supposed to go? There is no more room.

To take care of our people, we need our money to be transferred to our province and the other provinces. Quebec's health care system needs the means to care for Quebeckers. My sense is that the federal government is more interested in politicking. Enough is enough. I am not looking forward to rising in the House again this winter with updated occupancy rates.

Unfortunately, when Canada's health ministers met in Vancouver in November, the Liberal Party's attitude was just as condescending and disdainful as ever when it comes to provincial jurisdiction. I do not appreciate that at all. ER doctors are telling us that ERs are at a breaking point. The federal government has our money, but it is not doing anything.

The Bloc Québécois is defending the united position of Quebec and the provinces, and we are asking that the health transfers be increased from 22% to 35%. Unfortunately, taking care of people does not seem to be the Liberals' number one priority. In health care, the results are not there when it comes to ensuring the dignity of seniors with sufficient quality of life and financial support.

At the start of the pandemic, I had the opportunity to ask the former governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Poloz, some questions. He appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance, which was studying the COVID-19 emergency measures. When we spoke about EI as an economic stabilizer, he mentioned that it was important. We took action. In the current context, I am wondering why we cannot use what worked in the past to deal with what we are going through now. There are proposals on the table, and we will vote in favour of this update even though there are a number of things missing.

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

Madam Speaker, there was a time when the provinces and Ottawa got together on health care and the provinces would say they did not want more cash; they wanted a tax point transfer. They got a tax point transfer as opposed to receiving cash. That took out billions of federal dollars going to the provinces. Now we hear the Bloc saying that Ottawa should be nothing more than an ATM machine, and that when the provinces want cash, we should just give them cash. That does not recognize the history of what has taken place.

Does the member believe that Ottawa should never have given the tax point transfer, and that instead of giving the tax point transfer, it should have stuck strictly to giving cash?

Second, does the member not recognize that there is an obligation for the Government of Canada, through the Canada Health Act, to provide health care services, something I personally believe in?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

However, for the people watching, I would like to point out that decades ago, 50% of the tax dollars collected by Ottawa were transferred for health care. There was never any question as to whether the provinces were able to deliver services. No, the fact of the matter was that Ottawa trusted them and it had other things to manage.

The day that this government can demonstrate that it is properly managing what it is supposed to manage, we will stop saying that we need health transfers. Let the provinces do what they are good at in health care.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle for her presentation.

I just have one question. She talked a lot about her riding. I assume that, like me, she saw very little in the way of improvements to telecommunications and the cellular network. In my opinion, concrete action is needed to improve the cellular network as a matter of public safety.

Could the member share her thoughts on that?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, this is just a rehash of the budget, but it took a pandemic for the government to say that high-speed Internet is an essential service.

Now, when we talk about public safety, the government points out that there is broadband, but if there is no electricity, what will our providers or people who live in more remote areas without cellphone coverage do? Again, we will have to wait months for the government to say that it is an essential service.

That is one of the shortcomings of the economic statement.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the great Canadian economist Jim Stanford just published a report through the Centre for Future Work, and he found the following:

...15 sectors...were...the source of the fastest price increases experienced in Canada since 2021. Products like gasoline, groceries, mortgage interest, home energy products, and building materials have led the acceleration of inflation—and those higher prices flow directly into the record profits recorded in those 15 sectors. Large price increases for just 8 specific products sold by those super-profitable sectors account for over half of the rise in Canadian prices in the latest 12-month period; without those 8 products, overall Canadian inflation would be one-third lower.

Does my hon. colleague agree with the NDP that unless we attack the record profits and excess profits made by these corporate sectors, we are not going to get a handle on inflation in this country?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I am not a tax expert or an economist, but what I do know is that we need to listen to scientists, to those who are recommending measures to offset this inflation. We saw it with the key rate, which continues to rise, even though inflation is still very high. Nevertheless, I rely on science and everything that will be proven to help us deal with what is coming. We all know that winter is going to be difficult, both in terms of our health and our finances.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to represent the people of London—Fanshawe and to speak to Bill C-32 today.

There are a lot of issues that have been raised in this bill that we have been talking about for a long time. We have been fighting for Londoners, of course, but fighting for a fairer economy and bringing that voice into this place.

There are a lot of pieces of this bill that we think are a good start and reasons we support this bill, but as usual there is a lot lacking. As a New Democrat, I work, I push and I continue to fight for so much more for the people of London—Fanshawe. One of the key points is that we are supporting the removal of the federal portion of interest on student loans. That could make a real difference for students.

I was formerly the post-secondary critic for the NDP in this place, and we fought for so much more. We called for the cancellation of up to $20,000 of federal debt per student and a break from that repayment. We made it retroactive. We talked about going even further. Ultimately, the government is making money off the backs of our future, off those who will contribute to our economy in so many ways through the education system, and that is very short-sighted. We could go so much further, but it is a good start.

On the windfall tax, we support some of these measures, but the government could do much more if it had the political courage to go further. Big banks, big box stores and oil and gas companies have made record profits from COVID.

If we had raised that proposed 15% and made it permanent, we would see an extra $4.3 billion in the federal coffers. We could reinvest that in people and in social programs that establish the solidity that people need. The equity that people can get from social programs is the role of government, not to play catch-up to big corporations that are at the very top.

We have concerns with this bill, because it does not go far enough. As New Democrats, we were fighting in the last Parliament to deliver supports under the CERB and the wage subsidy to handle and to deal with what people were facing with COVID-19. When the government provided those supports and said it had people's backs, people needed that and they believed it.

Now we see the government clawing that back. It is clawing back the benefits that people applied for in good faith. There are people I know, who come to my constituency office, and do not know where to turn. They count on the government to provide fairness and support, and they are not seeing that.

I was here a few weeks ago with my hon. colleague from Elmwood—Transcona. I am always awed by his ability to give a speech in this place, off the cuff. He has so much knowledge within.

Something he was talking about really stuck with me. It was the need for respect and the call for the respect that people deserve. They work so hard, play by the rules, do everything they are supposed to and do everything the government asks of them. They are paying their fair share in taxes, yet when they need the government to help them, it is not there. They become frustrated and angry. They do not know where to turn.

It is that need to show respect that is a piece of the tax fairness we talk about. The government has to find the right balance to show that respect to Canadians. It has to have the courage to ask those who make the most in this world to redistribute those excess profits and to not take advantage of people who are just trying to get by and who are just trying to feed their families. They need to pay their fair share.

I am so happy to see that my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has championed this issue and has received unanimous support to investigate the greedflation from grocery stores that we talk about, at the agriculture committee. However, it is clear that the $1 million a day that Loblaws makes in profits, because it is taking advantage of people, is driving inflation. It has to be a part of that fair taxation.

According to the new study released by the Centre for Future Work, 15 profitable industries, including the grocery sector, are driving inflation in Canada. The combined profits of these 15 sectors are up by a whopping 89%. Nobody's salaries are up by 89%. People feel that, and they see that unfairness. They are asking for solutions from the government.

The windfall tax that we have been calling for on excess profit could go so far in systems that are now in crisis. That is because of underfunding and government cuts and because of downloading of responsibilities from the federal to the provincial government and from the provincial to municipal governments.

We are seeing that in our health care system. In my hometown of London, Ontario, hospitals have seen a surge, like so many across this country, especially in the children's hospital. Patients are waiting up to 20 hours for service.

I cannot imagine being a parent and watching my child suffer. It is one thing for parents to take that on themselves and try to deal with it, but they have to watch their child go through that, to suffer in a hallway, to wait and then to be told to go home. Surgeries are being cancelled in London, because they cannot deal with the influx of patients. People take their kid home and they are suffering. I cannot imagine what that has done to families.

Now people in London are, in an innovative way, trying to deal with those long wait times in emergency rooms. London Health Sciences Centre is trying to change how it structures its emergency room policies. It is trying to create a separate emergency room system for those dealing with mental health crises and addiction crises. It is trying to make something work.

The Doug Ford Conservative provincial government said that it is not going to fund it, and that the city needs to take the burden of that cost. It is $300 million on a city in Ontario that cannot carry a deficit, and it has to somehow figure out how to service the people in our municipality and not overburden the taxpayers.

One of the things regarding inflation that we have heard is that the government is at fault and it is overspending. Conservatives have a very simplistic view that it is just about taxes. We know that is not true. The Conservatives will not accept the fact that, even though there are studies about it now, including the one that I just referenced, this could potentially be about greed.

I will come back to the point that the member for Elmwood—Transcona was making about respect. Instead of continuing to protect big corporations, if we could implement true tax reform to make these companies that are making massive excess profits pay their fair share and to hold those wealthy friends accountable, then that would be respect. That would be showing the Canadian public that we are willing to do the work, and that we have the courage to stand up to ensure they have that fairness and they see that fairness.

One of the problems that I also see is regarding the Bank of Canada and its continuous pursuit to hit that 2% target, yet in that lies the potential of a recession. If it hits that 2% target, it could risk 850,000 jobs. There are already people desperately trying to make ends meet, and now they have to worry about losing their job and figuring that out.

London has such a proud manufacturing history. There are McCormick, Dr. Oetker, Labatt, Indiva in my riding and Environize. There is a place called the Cakery. There are so many places and I wish—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member's time has expired. I am sure she will be able to add more during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kings—Hants.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague touched on the profits of grocers. As the chair of the agriculture committee, I had the privilege of listening to some of the testimony yesterday from corporate leaders in the grocer sector in Canada. They maintain that even during the pandemic, their margin was around 2% to 4% on food-related profits.

The member talked about excessive profits, and I can appreciate that this government has made important investments and made sure banks and insurance companies have been paying additional corporate taxes.

However, what is her definition of “excessive” as it relates to grocers? Is 2% to 4% excessive in her mind? That is an honest question so we can see where that basis might be.

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

Madam Speaker, I would imagine $1 million a day is pretty excessive. Grocers can talk about it being about the supply chain and so on, yet the amount of money they are making, is $1 million in profits a day. We could talk about the bread price-fixing scam and that they never really paid that money back. We could talk about the money that they were given by the government to improve their refrigerators, money that they were going to invest in their own companies anyway, but the government rushed to the rescue and gave them more taxpayers' dollars. It is the same pockets, but it is just in different ways that taxpayers have to pay.

It is not the government's job to defend companies. Its job is to equalize payments, taxes and programs to ensure equality.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I think there may be one thing she forgot to talk about, and that is employment insurance.

As we know, EI is an economic stabilizer during a recession, and we hear there may be a recession in 2023. I am worried for the people in my riding with respect to EI, because six out of 10 workers will not be eligible for EI.

After seven years, the government still has not made a move. What does my colleague think the government should do to finally reform EI?

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

Madam Speaker, I was taking too much time and that was the next point in my speech. It was about those workers and how they have given to the EI system. However, because successive Liberal and Conservative governments have used it to pay off debt and make themselves look better in terms of their bottom lines, they have taken advantage of that money and, at the same time, restricted how workers can use EI when they need it. This is a huge fear, and it is what New Democrats have been fighting for in order to ensure EI fairness.

One of the things we want to do is introduce a service guarantee that will make departments responsible for establishing and publishing binding service standards for programs like EI. That would be a start, but ensuring we strengthen it to allow more workers to access it is really key.

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

Madam Speaker, at the end of my colleague's speech, she talked a bit about layoffs, and we know that in the fall economic statement the government was beginning to hint at the possibly of a recession early in 2023. However, we have not seen the government's much-promised and vaunted EI modernization.

I am wondering if the member wants to talk about the importance of EI reform as we head into a potential recession.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for all of his work on this file.

This is really key and something that New Democrats, for a long time, have been fighting for. We have been trying to ensure we are protecting the deferred wages that workers are putting into that system, so they know they are there and they will be allowed to access them when they need them. Those are the key things. It is not about ensuring that governments can use them to prop up what they consider is a balanced budget.

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

Madam Speaker, as usual, it is an absolute privilege to see everyone here and to be able to discuss Bill C‑32, which implements the measures outlined in the fall economic update.

I had the opportunity to speak at second reading of the bill. I am very pleased with the way the Minister of Finance has struck a balance between providing important programs for very low-income Canadians in a targeted way while remaining fiscally responsible.

Today, most of my comments will be on important issues for the future, particularly in the context of a potential global recession in 2023. Indeed, the global economic situation is a bit bleak right now, and I think it is very important to create additional opportunities for the future while finding ways to not spend government funds.

I am going to cover three areas. I hope that as we get close to the end of the time I will get a signal so I can try to allocate my time accordingly.

As we try to make the transition to a low-carbon economy, the first thing that I think is really important for all of us as parliamentarians to give some thought to is the amount of energy generation that is going to be required in the country. Estimates suggest that we are going to have to double the generation of electricity in Canada in the next 15 to 20 years. That represents about 130 Site C dams, which is a major hydroelectric project in British Columbia.

I have said it before in this House and I will say it again that the government is focused on it, but I think we as parliamentarians need to be focused on the question of how we actually create that generation capacity. I have been a strong proponent, a strong voice, for small modular reactors. Whether or not it is the hydrogen opportunity that exists or whether it is looking at the hydroelectric opportunities, we need to be thinking about how we are going to generate that electricity in a zero emission way to be able to work towards our goals by 2050.

Whether it is major energy projects or it is things such as critical minerals, we need to be mindful of how we could help drive forward and expedite major projects that are going to be important to our transition towards a low-carbon economy. The two areas would be electricity and critical minerals. We have seen our Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry do tremendous work on lining up a supply chain in Canada around the automobile industry. I know this is going to matter for everyone in the country, but particularly for those in Quebec and Ontario, where we do have a very strong auto tradition. That is going to be the future.

We also need to consider the critical minerals that are associated with those vehicles, with that transition on an energy front and on an environmental front, but also on the security side as well. China controls 90% of the global rare earth minerals in the world. Canada is playing a role and can play an even bigger role, but I think we need to give some thought as to how we are going to allow major mining projects and major energy transition projects to happen in the country in an expedited manner. That is something we need to see in the days ahead. Our various cabinet ministers who would be on this file are thinking about that, but as parliamentarians we need to be providing solutions and giving some thoughts on that as well.

I have mentioned presumptive approval for Health Canada. Health Canada regulates a whole bunch of different things, from hockey helmet specifications to carbonated drinks to feed additives, crop protection products and vaccines. It is quite an extensive list when we see the swath of what Health Canada regulates.

I would like to see us look at ways we can change the approval process of certain elements. As the chair of the agriculture committee, my reflection over the last year or so has been that there are ways we can rely on other jurisdictions. What I am suggesting here in the House today is that we look at things such as agriculture-related products and try to find a way to make sure that our farmers have the same tools that other jurisdictions might have and make sure we are competitive. We would do that by looking at other jurisdictions whose regulatory processes we trust.

I cannot speak for all my colleagues, but I would suggest, by and large, that we respect that as the regulatory process goes forward in United States it is done in a reasonable manner. The European Union, for example, would be another jurisdiction that we respect and believe the process it is undertaking is valid. There is Australia, New Zealand and Japan, as well. Everyone would have their examples, but there are jurisdictions that we think would mirror the process that we have in Canada. What if we had a process where, if an applicant arrived in Canada with a particular product, and I will stick to agriculture for now, that already had approval from the United States, the European Union and maybe Australia, let us say it was three out of six jurisdictions whose regulatory processes we trusted, we would give that product a presumptive approval.

I think it is very important to find other solutions to speed up regulatory processes in Canada so we can make sure our farmers, our processors and our businesses have the tools they need to be competitive.

That would ensure they are actually in hand and are there. It is something I lay before the House. It is something that does not cost any money, but I think is extremely important and could be a really good sign for our stakeholders in the country without putting our Canadian consumers or Canadian values at risk, because we would be relying on existing processes that we trust. We would still be doing the process in Canada, but providing a presumptive approval until such time that Health Canada either found there was a reason to suspend the approval or it went through the entire process and was approved. It would of course reduce that delay time.

One of the two other areas I want to cover is the offshore wind opportunity in Atlantic Canada. There is a global race right now on being able to develop zero-emission hydrogen products. That is important for the future. We have seen the Prime Minister sign an accord with the German chancellor on being able to deliver Canadian hydrogen by 2025. We need legislation to make sure that the offshore petroleum boards in Atlantic Canada can service the regulator on actually developing offshore wind to drive the hydrogen market. It is a multi-billion dollar opportunity in Canada. There are other jurisdictions around the world that have the same potential, but we need to make sure that legislation is in place. It is something that I look forward to working with all my colleagues on, indeed on the government side, to make sure that is in place. There is a requirement with the Nova Scotia legislature as well.

The last thing I want to talk about is the Atlantic loop. I held a press conference last week where I took the opportunity to provide some comments regarding my frustration with the provincial government in Nova Scotia, particularly around the question of affordability and some of the measures it could take in Nova Scotia to be able to join us on the federal side with respect to some of the measures we are putting in place. What is concerning is the premier's comments around what is a really important energy transition project, the Atlantic loop. I will be calling on our government to make sure there is federal leadership at the table to have the Atlantic loop in place, but at the same time, it is not helpful when the Premier of Nova Scotia is sending mixed signals on the best path forward.

I respect the fact that the provincial government is trying to help support affordability by limiting the increases around power rates in the province, but in the process Bill 212 in the Nova Scotia legislature has downgraded Nova Scotia Power's credit rating and is estimated to cause an almost 2% increase in electricity rates to make up for the fact that any future borrowed money, including for projects like the Atlantic loop, are going to have to come from ratepayers themselves. The Atlantic loop is something that I will be encouraging my government colleagues to be supporting to show federal leadership. It is something that matters to the region.

I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member talk and what he did not mention at all is the Inflation Reduction Act that was passed in the United States and the government's response to that.

At the international trade committee, we heard over and over again that investment is going to evaporate in Canada unless changes are made. There are a couple of little sprinkles here, but the IRA was introduced in August and it is now December. Why has it taken the Liberal government so long to meaningfully respond to the significant risk to Canadian businesses as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act?

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

Madam Speaker, it is an important question, and I only have 10 minutes.

I talked about some of the things that I think are going to be important, including the regulatory measures. I hope the member opposite would agree it is simply not a spending race, in terms of the government being able to draw private capital. Yes, that matters, and as I mentioned in my speech, we have seen our Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry drawing private capital here.

I am not sure we are necessarily going to be able to match the level of spending we have seen in the United States, but I agree with him that there are measures in the fall economic statement that are important. I suspect the government will have other measures in the budget for 2023. However, I will remind him it is not just about spending. It is also about other measures that can draw private capital in to help make a difference and drive these projects forward as well.

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

Madam Speaker, something outrageous happened during question period today. The member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine made some unacceptable remarks that left no doubt she does not have confidence in the Auditor General and does not find her credible. She gave two absurd examples, described the situation as being worse than the Second World War, and more. I will spare the House the shocking details.

The government has to work with the Auditor General. It also has to work with the opposition when it comes to the budget and the economic statement. In my colleague's opinion, do such remarks jeopardize those relationships?

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

Madam Speaker, I did not hear the comments made by the Minister of National Revenue during oral question period. I understand the importance of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, of course. Since I did not hear the Minister of National Revenue's comments, it is hard for me to answer my colleague's question.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad there was discussion with regard to auto investments. I would like to hear comments from my colleague with regard to EV incentives. Unlike the United States, Canada has nothing for used batteries, and we only have a $5,000 incentive federally. The U.S. actually has $7,500 U.S., which is around $10,000 Canadian, and they have state incentives as well. The Prime Minister did say in Washington, D.C., that he would harmonize those incentives. He has not done so, which is going to distort our auto market and the introduction of electric vehicles.

What solutions does the government have, given the fact that right now the Biden administration will provide a better incentive for Canadian-made vehicles than the current Prime Minister?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not speak on behalf of the government, but of course, I am on the government side as a caucus member.

I am proud of the way this government was able to step up and work with the United States to make sure their tax credit was aligned. I take note that the member opposite wants to make sure there is public money on the table to try to have a symmetry between those. That is a conversation I am happy to have with my hon. colleagues, whether it be with the minister responsible for trade, the minister responsible for global affairs or others, to see whether we will see that alignment.

I want to remind the hon. colleague that we are coming into a period where there could be a global recession. We are going to have to make some choices between supporting health care, making sure we support future investments in defence and making sure Canada has a role in the world. There is a finite amount of resources on the table. I am happy to have the conversation with our government ministers, but we are going to have some important choices to make in the days ahead.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to the fall economic update.

“Canadians have never had it so good,” is the message we get when we listen to Liberal members talk about what is going on in Canada. They say things are great, that Canadians should be grateful for everything that is going so wonderfully here in this country. They talk about how it is so wonderful because of all the money they have spent. The answer to every problem in Canada, if one is a Liberal, is to spend money. That is the solution, so spend they have.

The Liberals have doubled the national debt. The amount of debt of every prime minister up to the current Prime Minister, the Liberals have doubled. Every prime minister before accumulated a certain amount of debt, and the current Prime Minister and government doubled it in a few short years. They say that as a result of that, things are great.

Maybe we should talk about how great things are as a result of all this spending. First of all, we just heard from the Auditor General that a lot of the spending did not really go anywhere that it should have. There were $4.6 billion in confirmed overpayments during the pandemic and $27 billion in suspicious payments, so we are looking at $32 billion of money that went who knows where, not where it should have gone. This includes the fact that 1,500 people in jail received these benefits.

To this point, there is absolutely no real plan to get any of this money back. Liberals say they are working on it and the wheels are in motion, when they are not saying the Auditor General was pushed into making this report by the opposition and trying to undermine the Auditor General. It is an interesting position for a government to take, when it appointed the Auditor General.

We look at all that spending and at the issues across the country from coast to coast to coast. Many members have been rising in this chamber to talk about the issues in hospitals all across the country. The premiers have said the federal government should be transferring more money to the provinces for health care, and the government is saying that the cupboard is kind of bare.

I am thinking that $32 billion, if it had been properly managed, would therefore have been available for health transfers, but that ship has sailed and the government is doing virtually nothing to get that money back.

There is $27 billion a year now being paid in interest on the debt, which has doubled over the course of the last number of years under the Liberal government. That is $27 billion every year that could be spent on things like health care. Right away, if we put those things together, one year of the massive interest on the massive debt plus the $32 billion spent on who knows what, and we would have over $50 billion for health care.

There are some hospitals and some provinces across the country that would very much be interested in receiving some of that money, but of course they cannot, because the Liberals have spent it on other things.

The interest on the debt is actually going to go to $43 billion a year by 2026. Let us think about that number. It is staggering: $43 billion a year simply to pay interest on the credit card.

When one raises issues like this, the government says it spent so Canadians did not need to spend. Well, Canadians are spending now, through their taxes, paying $27 billion a year in interest, which is moving to $46 billion. However, that is okay, because everything in this country is fantastic. Canadians have never had it so good.

Right now, inflation is at a 40-year high. People in this country are having to choose to eat or to heat their homes, but Canadians have never had it so good.

In one month, 1.5 million Canadians used a food bank. It is unprecedented. The struggle of Canadians after seven years of spending by the government is worse than it has ever been, so the rationale that we have spent all this money and things are great is completely debunked, because things are not great.

There are so many Canadians who are within a few hundred dollars of not being able to make ends meet, and inflation is eating into that every single day, but, right, everything is great. The money was spent to make the lives of Canadians better, except that their lives are not better. By virtually every measurable index, the lives of Canadians now are worse than they were 10 years ago.

There is no apology from the government on this. It will say things like, “Yes, but we are going to pay this benefit here or this little benefit there.”

When a person is $200 away from not being able to make ends meet, a one-time payment of $500 is not going to help. It might get them through the first couple of months, but there are 10 other months in the year in which we have to try to make ends meet.

One in five Canadians are skipping meals, but all this spending was so great for Canadians.

The result of the economic policies of the government has been to impoverish the nation, and that is where we are when we look at all the statistics that are adding up.

There is absolutely no recognition of this by the government. There is no apology for it. It simply says, “We have this little program here. We have another program here. That is all Canadians need.”

The other glaring omission from the government has been any meaningful response to the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States. It is a transformational document on how the United States is going to have its economy move going forward. No, we cannot match, dollar for dollar, the kinds of programs the United States is offering, but it offers these things in very clear ways. It offers tax incentives for governments. It offers production incentives for businesses.

What we are being promised here in Canada are programs. There is going to be a program here that a business can apply for, an opaque program. At committee, we heard industry representatives say that these programs are given according to a naughty list and a nice list. If one is on the naughty list, one has no idea why one is on the naughty list, and one does not get the funding.

When the government is picking winners and losers in business, everyone loses. The response is not sufficient, and the response it is offering is not going to help Canadian businesses.

We have heard over and over again from witnesses that this is a game-changer in the United States and that the government needs to act quickly. Well, my definition of “quickly” is not waiting for the budget in two, three or four months to announce some measures, sprinkling a couple of things here in the update and then saying to businesses, “Do not worry. Everything is going to be fine when the budget is released.”

Businesses cannot wait three, four, five, six or seven months. Investments are happening in the United States right now.

The government has impoverished Canadians over the last number of years, and now it risks losing out on the manufacturing bonanza for electric vehicles, etc., that is coming, because it is just acting so slowly.

This is an update that we cannot support and Canadians cannot afford.

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe the way the member ended his speech, by saying the government is the reason Canada is lagging in terms of electric vehicles.

Does it not have anything to do with the way the opposition has acted over the last seven years? We are talking about a political party that does not even believe climate change is real. We are talking about a political party that at every single opportunity goes on and on about extracting more fossil fuels from the ground, and now the member is trying to suggest that, suddenly, Conservatives are going to be the champions of electric vehicles. It is absolutely ludicrous to hear that.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the member spend a little less time standing in the chamber pontificating and maybe spend some time at committee listening to what industry is saying. Industry is unequivocal that the government is leaving it behind. Whether it is with respect to the production of electric vehicles or whether it is with respect to the production of electric vehicle charging stations, the government is so woefully behind on this that there is no chance there is going to be anywhere near the number of chargers needed. This is clear and on the record at committee.

My response to the member is this. Maybe he should spend a little less time in the chamber talking and a little more time researching and listening to witnesses.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague's last intervention was very interesting. It was about production and delays involving electric vehicles.

The Bloc Québécois keeps proposing a gradual energy transition, which would mean taking the money that is being invested in Albertan oil and investing it in the development of clean energy instead.

I will ask my colleague a question, since he seems to be on the same side as me on the issue of encouraging the purchase and production of electric vehicles.

Would he agree with the Bloc Québécois's suggestion to stop funding the most polluting energy sources and using that money for investments in clean energy so that Alberta can continue to be a leader?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, if a person lives in a riding like mine, Dufferin—Caledon, and does not have any gasoline, and the production of gasoline is stopped, they are going to have a hard time getting to work. In the town of Orangeville there are six charging stations, six for a town of 30,000 people.

What I would suggest is this. We can transition in a responsible manner. I do not know how long that transition is going to take, but I can tell colleagues that it is not going to come anywhere near the timelines the government is talking about. It is so woefully behind on the charging network. It has no plan whatsoever for how we are going to triple electricity generation in this country. The provinces cannot afford it.

RBC has put out a report stating that the path to net zero is $2 trillion. How much has the government allocated for any of it? The answer is not even 10% of it.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Caledon was the critic for environment as well. How out of touch the Liberals seem to be. Could he just give our Liberal colleagues an idea of the actual cost of these charging stations, and what the estimation was that the Canadian motor vehicle association was giving us at committee so he could get himself educated?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very clear that just to build out the charging network itself requires billions of dollars to be spent every year, starting now. The estimate is somewhere around $5.4 billion a year. The government is not spending even a fraction of that. It is not building out the charging network. The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association was very clear on how far behind we are.

The government is using a model for how many charging stations we need that is incongruent with those used by every other country in the world. It is saying we need far fewer than European countries and others, and it has no plan to double or triple our electricity-generating capacity across the country, which we need if we are doing this transition. It is all talk and no action, just like this economic update.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Government Priorities; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for North Island—Powell River, Health.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to the fall economic statement this afternoon.

I have to say that I am, along with many Canadians, deeply disappointed in the fall economic statement because it was an opportunity to provide real leadership to Canadians, give relief to small businesses in this country and take action to address the rising costs we are seeing coast to coast to coast.

It seems that the Deputy Prime Minister has forgotten that we are in the worst cost of living crisis we have seen in a generation. Inflation, as we have talked about for months in the House, is at a 40-year high. Gas prices are still at record levels, especially diesel. Housing is more expensive than it has ever been.

Where did this crisis start? This time, the Liberals cannot blame the person by the name of Stephen Harper. They have had seven years to correct this. They want to blame global economic conditions, and sure, maybe that has a bit to do with it. However, what is the real root of the inflationary crisis we find ourselves in today? What has made everything worse in this country? The Liberals know, but they do not want to say. They know that the crisis has been caused by years of massive out-of-control Liberal deficit spending.

I was here in 2015 when the Liberals came into power, and Conservatives left them with a balanced budget and a very good economic forecast. That was left to them by a responsible Conservative government. They, in seven years, squandered it. I get it. The Prime Minister could not help himself. His agenda was failing, so he needed to try and buy votes every way he could think of.

However, the chickens have now come home to roost. The price of chicken, by the way, has doubled since the Liberals took office in 2015. All that spending they have done in the last seven years has driven inflation to a 40-year high. Canadians coast to coast to coast are struggling mightily.

Canadians are having to choose between filling their cars with gas, putting food on the table and heating their homes. A paycheque today does not go as far as it used to. Liberal inflation, combined with Liberal tax hikes, means that Canadians need to do more with less.

What does the government propose? It proposes to make everything worse in this country. This economic statement introduces another $20 billion of inflationary spending to drive inflation up even further. It also includes hikes to EI premiums next month and to CPP contributions, taking more money off of everybody's paycheque.

Instead of stopping their tax hikes, the Liberals are pushing forward with their plan to triple the carbon tax in 2023. That is right. In the dead of winter, the Liberals will be raising the cost of fuel, home heating and groceries.

Food bank usage, as we all know, is already at an all-time high in this country, with a 35% increase in the last year. In my city of Saskatoon alone, with a population of about 250,000, about 20,000 people a month visit the food bank. The city of Saskatoon used to be the economic engine of Canada.

Executive director, Laurie O'Connor, admits the numbers she sees coming through her door every day are very concerning. The donations of food and purchasing power have significantly decreased because food is so expensive. It is going to only get worse.

Members may recall that the 13th edition of Canada’s Food Price Report came out yesterday. It says a family of four will see their food bill go up by over $1,000, reaching about $16,000 a year. According to Stuart Smyth from the University of Saskatchewan, who helped in the report that was released yesterday, a family of six will pay over $21,000 in 2023 for food.

The problem is right in front of the Liberals' faces, and they have simply ignored it.

In Saskatchewan, the temperature today hit between -30°C and -40°C, and it is early December. People of my province are trying to figure out what temperature they can afford to set their thermostat to. If we think about it, in the last week in Saskatchewan, it was -30°C to -40°C already, and we are not even at January temperatures.

I want to know what the Prime Minister would say to the families who are already struggling to put food on the table when they see the last few dollars they have being used up when they move the thermostat up. The Prime Minister and the Liberal government has failed those families. They have failed retirees and the people living with disabilities who are on a fixed income.

What should the government be doing today?

First, without question, it should cancel all planned tax hikes and stop any government-mandated increases to the cost of living, with no hikes at all to payroll taxes and no tripling of the carbon tax. Canadians simply cannot afford any more of this Liberal tax increase.

Second, it needs to stop creating new inflationary spending. We know that government spending is only going to make inflation worse. If a minister wants to spend more money, he or she should have to find the equivalent savings in their budgets. Even the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that a bit in the fall economic report. However, while she did mention it, the Liberals gave the CBC an additional $42 million over two years. Why? It is because the CBC had a tough time during the pandemic.

This is the type of spending that has got to stop in this country. The CBC, the public broadcaster, already gets between $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion, but they will then be given an additional $42 million over two years. Plus, we found out today that it is going to be at the trough when Bill C-18 gets cleared through the House. The public broadcaster will be one of the biggest beneficiaries from Google and Facebook when that bill passes through the House.

When the Prime Minister was first elected he promised that deficits, as we all recall, were not going to exceed $10 billion and that he would balance the budget by 2019. We all know that was a farce.

The pandemic is not the only thing to blame here. Forty per cent of the government's new spending measures had nothing to do with the last two years of COVID. Since coming to power, the Prime Minister has introduced $205 billion in new inflationary spending, which had nothing to do with COVID, and I just mentioned the public broadcaster.

The cost of the interest payments on the federal government's debt has doubled. The payments are nearly as high as the cost of the health transfers to the provinces. Imagine what could be done today if that money were directed elsewhere.

Instead, due to this Liberal mismanagement, we have interest rates that are increasing faster than they have in decades. In fact, we expect another 50 basis points tomorrow by the federal Bank of Canada. Mortgage payments, as we all know, are going sky high. Therefore, anyone who bought a house a few years ago and has to renew their mortgage could pay up to $7,000 more a year. Many Canadians cannot afford that. Some, unfortunately, are losing their homes.

While the Liberals are focused on making the problem worse, Conservatives are going to propose some solutions for Canadians. Instead of printing more money, a Conservative government would create more of what money buys. We will get more homes built and make Canada the quickest place in the world to get a building permit. Young Canadians who have never been able to afford a home and start a family under the Liberals will find a more competitive and more affordable market under our Conservative government.

A Conservative government will make energy more affordable. We will repeal the anti-energy laws and axe the carbon tax. We will not punish Canadians for heating their homes or simply driving their kids to activities, if they can even afford those activities in 2023.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I particularly enjoy every time my hon. colleague speaks in the House, but more for the tone than the content.

I would like to ask the member about something that I know is being celebrated in my community with respect to the economic statement. It is the removal of the federal portion of interest on student loans. I wonder if the member could speak to what kind of a powerful impact that could have on students in his riding.

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

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that if they do not have to pay the interest, and we can defer the interest payments for I do not know how many years, that would obviously help the students of today going to school. At the same time, who is paying the interest on those loans? It is going to be Canadians.

I can say that it was a good gesture to help not only university students but also students going to college who are taking part in the trades we have in this country. It was a good gesture. I do not know how long we can go on with it because of the Liberals' spending. We are seeing interest rates rise almost every two or three weeks in this country because of the money they are spending.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on the following question. We in the Bloc have focused on the three main elements we wanted to see in this bill, specifically, employment insurance, pensions for people aged 65 to 75, and health transfers. For years now, this has been part of the Bloc Québécois DNA and what we have been calling for. That is what we want.

Does my colleague support these priorities? Would he support these Bloc Québécois priorities?

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

Madam Speaker, yes, health care is essential in this country, but we have seen, coming out of the pandemic, that there is excruciating pain in every hospital in this country. The pandemic was not easy for every hospital in every province in this country.

We are fighting the shortage of doctors and nurses. It would be nice if we could take out of the air an extra hundred doctors and put them in the city Saskatoon, but that is not possible. We will see where it is going to go. It is an interesting time, as we are coming out of the pandemic. With the Liberals' spending, it is going to be tougher to get out of it because of the interest rates that we are going to see in the next little while.

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

Madam Speaker, I did not hear the hon. member, in his speech, talk about the increasing cost of housing and how difficult it is for people to be able to afford that. Ultimately, here in the House, we believe that housing is a human right and that the financialization of the market through things like real estate trusts and investment trusts are part of that problem. Could the member talk about that?

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

Madam Speaker, I am fairly confident that in the province of Saskatchewan we have really moderate housing costs compared to everybody else in the country. I feel for those people starting out who are living in Vancouver and Toronto and the GTA, where it is without question nearly impossible to start under $700,000 or $800,000. In my city and my province, that would get people a pretty good house these days.

Canadians really do want to save for housing. It is going to take a little time. I am really disturbed by the interest rates. I lived when they were 12% to 18% in the 1970s and 1980s. It was hard. The younger folks, if I can say this, have never seen 12% to 18% interest rates. They have to get used to it because the way the government is spending, we are getting there faster than ever before.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to rise again to speak to the economic statement and Bill C‑32. Actually, I am getting a little tired of this. Let me explain. It is not because I do not want to do my job, it is just that I would have preferred to discuss something with a little more content and substance.

There were three clear, repeated demands, the same ones that the Bloc Québécois always brings forward. The government knows what they are. It is not a secret. It is not as though we kept them to ourselves just to throw them in the government's face at the last minute. No, these are the demands we have always made. My colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles said it earlier: This is about increasing health transfers; providing better support for seniors starting at age of 65 and stopping this kind of two-tiered plan that favours seniors aged 75 and over; and respecting the commitment to comprehensively reform employment insurance. This commitment dates back several years, and it is especially important in view of the possible recession on the horizon.

We know what a refuge, a comfort and a safety net employment insurance can be when there are fears of a recession. This is true for workers, of course, but it is also true for businesses and for society as a whole. One can only imagine what would happen if people were to suddenly lose their jobs because their firm or business closed and they were left without any recourse or resources in the meantime.

Today, I want to talk a little bit about the stress and anxiety people feel, the real fear of not getting enough to eat, despite the fact that they have worked all their lives and have taken it for granted that their years of good and loyal service to society would be recognized at retirement. In other words, people believe that their government will not let them down at the stage of their lives when they are most vulnerable. Despite what my colleagues opposite will say, that is exactly what the Liberal government is doing now.

Seniors' associations, and even seniors themselves, come knock on our door begging us to help them. These seniors and associations protest against this system, which they say is discriminatory and enables only those 75 and older to get increases and support cheques during the pandemic. The others, those aged 65 to 74, are hung out to dry. That is what seniors tell us. They say they are being hung out to dry, even though they worked their entire lives. They worked on assembly lines in factories, earning low wages, not making enough money to put something aside for their old age. Then, they find themselves struggling and facing hardship. They are the ones who come to see us, these honest, humble people who have the right to fully enjoy their retirement and their well earned quality of life at 65, not just at 75. What is left for these people?

The government changed the rules halfway through the game, so it is too late for them to pivot and talk to their banker about setting aside a little more of their paycheque. Actually, many of them never actually had money to set aside. Now they have a choice. They can go back to work. The government says there is a labour shortage and jobs available all over the place. Another option is to get help from food banks. Hello, dignity.

I want to share one person's story. Mr. Danis is a constituent of mine. He is 72 or 73 years old. I know he is in that age group because he is concerned about the government discriminating against seniors on the basis of age. Mr. Danis is at the forefront of my mind whenever I talk about seniors. I have lost track of how many times he has called me. He has come to my office when I was not even there. He has called outside of office hours, on weekends. He has contacted me through Facebook messenger. He has done everything in his power to talk to me.

When we finally managed to meet up and have a conversation, I cannot even begin to describe the emotion in his voice. We are talking about a man who worked hard, very hard, his whole life for little income. It is exactly the situation I was describing earlier. Mr. Danis lives in the same house. It is his house. He has lived there for 53 years. His roof is leaking and needs to be replaced. He says that he is going to let it leak because he cannot afford to repair or replace it. He also cannot afford to take out a new mortgage. He is struggling to make ends meet on a small government pension. What is more, that pension has not increased, even with inflation being what it is.

Mr. Danis is a proud and dignified man. He has some health problems and must travel 45 kilometres to a nearby city for treatment he cannot receive in Drummondville, where he lives. Due to the cost of gas, he cannot fill up his tank, and his car is not in good condition. What can we do for these seniors who worked all their lives and cannot even meet their basic needs and take care of their health because their pensions are frozen? These seniors are not old enough to be eligible for the pandemic support cheque.

I will draw a parallel to health transfers, the third very important request that the Bloc has made in years. I will give the example of Hôpital Sainte‑Croix, which is in my riding of Drummond. This hospital is the pride of the region. It was a fine hospital at the time, and the services were exceptional. I want to commend the medical staff and all support staff. All the employees at this hospital are personable, professional and competent. There is no arguing about that.

However, last year, the elevators were in terrible shape. One was not working at all, and the other broke down. Had there been a crisis or a fire, had there been any need to evacuate the hospital, patients on the third floor and up could not have been evacuated. This is a hospital we are talking about. We do not have enough money to maintain hospitals adequately.

We are going to build a new hospital. The Liberals think that, if we have enough money to build a new hospital, we must have tons of money, so there must be no need to increase health transfers. I just do not get it.

The health care funding shortage comes at a human cost too. Triage now means dismissing situations that would have been emergencies 20 years ago.

I am going to talk about seniors again. Mr. Rocheleau is a very nice guy, and I really like him. He is 80 years old, and he has been chairing the Remembrance Day poppy campaign for the past 10 years, but he has been involved with the campaign for 53 years. He waited for hip surgery for two years. Two years could be 25%, 50% or 75% of what an 80-year-old has left in their active life. It is inhumane to make elderly people wait for operations that would guarantee their quality of life for the years they have left. It is absolutely mind-boggling to me.

I have about two minutes left. I want to take this opportunity to talk about the infamous EI reform, which we are waiting for. How many demonstrations are held here on the Hill by workers' groups, unions and just about everyone else calling for EI reform?

One woman in particular came to the Hill a few years ago. I am talking about Émilie Sansfaçon. She came to meet the Prime Minister and members of all parties. Everyone was at her feet, everyone wanted a photo with Émilie. What a fighter, people said. Émilie was fighting cancer, and it may have already been terminal at that point. She is no longer with us. She was asking for 50 weeks of EI sickness benefits so that people like her who have to fight a serious illness can do so with dignity, free from financial worries. Is that not the least we could do for them?

A government member will probably stand up in a few minutes to boast about what the government did for health and everything it did to save lives during the pandemic. That is what the government keeps telling us over and over again. If it really wants to look good with its spending, maybe it could spend in the right places.

Everyone agrees that 26 weeks of EI sickness benefits is not enough. It is a good step forward, but when a person is battling cancer or other types of serious illnesses, 26 weeks is not even half of what they need. This measure would not have cost much, and it would have gone a long way.

I commend Louis Sansfaçon, Émilie's father, who continues to fight on behalf of his daughter. I promise him that one day, there will be 50 weeks of sickness benefits, and that the Bloc Québécois will be there to keep fighting for the government to spend taxpayers' money, money that it has been entrusted with, on the things taxpayers need most.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question about heritage. My hon. colleague sits on the heritage committee, and I am wondering if he would like to take the opportunity to talk about media in Quebec, what is happening there and what steps we can take as a Parliament to assist news outlets, especially when facing foreign tech giants.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thought I was going to be taken to task by the Liberals after my speech, but instead, in hockey parlance, they are giving me an assist. I thank my colleague, who is also a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. He knows where I stand on the media, artists and the cultural industry.

There are two extremely important bills that really should be passed quickly. One is stuck in the Senate, which is outrageous. The Senate needs to stop playing games with Bill C-11. The cultural industry is depending on it. The web giants need to pay their fair share in every sector in which they are making a profit in Canada and Quebec, and that includes both the cultural industry and the broadcasting industry. This is also about protecting our news media.

We are working hard on Bill C-18, which is currently being examined in committee. Things are moving along well, and there is goodwill. I completely agree with my colleague. We need to do everything we can to ensure that the web giants contribute in sectors where they are making exponential profits.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his fine speech. He talked about a number of issues, including seniors. He also talked about employment insurance. Of course, when someone has cancer, as my sister did, and is in remission, 26 weeks is not nearly enough.

It is the same thing with seniors. The government must not wait until people are 74 years old. They become seniors at 65. One day, we will reach the age of 65 too, and we will deserve a proper pension.

What is my colleague's proposal for getting the government to do more and meet these demands, which are so important not only for Quebec, but for all of Canada?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question and her comments.

It is not complicated. As I said earlier, I firmly believe that all the members of the party currently in power want to make things better. I simply cannot believe that they are acting in bad faith, just to do things differently from what the opposition parties are proposing.

There are plenty of places where they can invest taxpayers' money in a constructive, sustainable and positive way. Health transfers are not a frivolous thing. This is an urgent need. We have been calling for a $110-a-month increase in seniors' pensions for a long time. Seniors aged 65 and over are calling for it. I cannot imagine which seniors are telling them that it is okay for the increase to start at age 75. I have not met any. None of my 31 Bloc Québécois colleagues has heard a single senior say that 75 is the right age.

There are places where the government could spend the money better and where the Liberals could make their mark. That would be positive, and we would be the first to congratulate them.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, housing is obviously a necessity, and it is in crisis in many parts of the country. In the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, which I represent, housing is unaffordable.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague can tell the House what suggestions he would like to see in this budget that would help Canadian families and individuals afford a safe, secure and decent place to live.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know that I do not have much time left, and I will try to answer quickly because it is a very pertinent question.

One of our Bloc Québécois colleagues, the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, is a strong advocate for housing. The entire country is grappling with this crisis. It is more acute in certain places, of course, but it is also starting to affect cities where it was not previously a major problem. We could be taking action.

The term “inflation” appears 108 times in this economic update, but there is no concrete measure to actually provide direct assistance to Quebeckers and Canadians in the event that a recession materializes.

The housing crisis will not improve unless much more vigorous action is taken. In that regard, I believe that my colleague and I very much agree.

It feels like the Liberals are standing with their arms crossed, watching a train go by, and that they will wait until it derails and pick up the pieces afterwards. We cannot do that. Action is needed now. Human beings and families are affected.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House to speak. Today I am speaking to Bill C-32, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, and the fiscal update.

When I spoke on the government's last fall economic statement and fiscal update in February, I shared how frustrated the people of Flamborough—Glanbrook were feeling about the cost-of-living crisis and the housing crisis. I am sad to report that over the course of the past year, and certainly after hearing the fall economic statement that was delivered earlier, their frustration has only become worse.

Canadians wanted hope, and instead they got increased heating and grocery bills. They wanted a plan for the economy and for the recovery, and instead the PBO and other organizations predicted private sector growth will be sluggish or even worse. Canadians wanted to hear an update that would give them confidence in these uncertain economic times, and instead what the government delivered was an update that failed to address the out-of-control cost-of-living crisis. It actually adds fuel to the inflationary fire. With more government spending and more taxes, Canadians have never felt more pessimistic about their financial future.

When I spoke last winter, the inflation rate was only the worst it had been in 20 years. By the spring it was only the worst it had been in 30 years. Now it is the worst it has been in 40 years. How much more can the government expect Canadians to suffer?

I spoke recently to Mary, a senior in Waterdown, a community in my constituency. She expressed how gravely concerned she was with the rising cost of rent, utilities and groceries, and how they had risen so quickly that she is barely able to manage the basics anymore. Her exact words were, “I just manage to survive, never thought my retirement years would be so sad.”

Those words “my retirement years would be so sad” break my heart, and they should break the heart of all members of this place. Seniors like Mary have worked hard their entire lives, and they deserve to enjoy their retirement years. The reckless policies of the government are robbing them of that.

It is not just seniors that are feeling the pinch; it is also young families. A couple of months ago, at one of the fall fairs in my riding, I spoke to Will, who is a father of a young family in my constituency. His mortgage renewal is coming up in a few months, and he is very concerned. Not only is he seeing his grocery bill double, but he is also seeing the cost of fuel to get to work increase dramatically. He is now seeing his heating bills increase as winter and the cold weather start to set in. In the back of his mind, he has the fact that his mortgage is coming up for renewal. We know there are higher interest rates happening because of the inflationary spending of the government.

Out-of-control government spending has created more dollars chasing fewer goods, causing higher inflation, leading to higher interest rates. We know that tomorrow the Bank of Canada is going to announce the latest in a series of rate increases, the seventh, I believe. This is going to further increase the cost on families like Will's. It is really the cruellest tax of all.

In growing suburban Ontario communities like mine, people like Will are putting on a brave face and are trying to plow through, but they are dealing with these inflationary pressures on food, home heating and they are looking down the road at their mortgage rates as well.

We ran a survey of the people in Flamborough—Glanbrook this past fall. We asked them how the cost of living was impacting them. We already knew the answer from all of these anecdotes. Over 900 people responded and the results really told the story. Ninety-four per cent surveyed said they were feeling the financial pinch, and more than half of those were going to change their habits or hold off spending plans as a result. The pinch, of course, is not limited to people in my riding. Six in 10 Canadians across the country have said that they are feeling the impact of inflation in their daily lives.

A study out of Dalhousie University reports that a quarter of Canadians are cutting back on essentials like food, housing and utilities. We know that when people go to the grocery stores these days, they are cringing at the price of some basic items. Meat is up 7.6%. Dairy is up 10%. Bakery products are up 15%. Vegetables are up 12%. Those are the figures from a couple of months ago. We know they are probably higher today.

Food banks, as has been noted, are seeing a record number of visits, with 1.5 million Canadians visiting food banks. That is a dramatic increase. It is an all-time high. It is a shame. How much more does the Prime Minister expect Canadians to take?

People like Mary and Will cannot afford to pay their mortgage and rent, while our Prime Minister is spending $6,000 a night on hotel rooms in London. Is there a more blatant example of how out of touch the Prime Minister is? How much more can the government expect Canadians to take before they break? They are looking for hope. They are looking for strong and competent leadership.

There is a host of problems and inconsistencies throughout this bill. First of all, I do not see actions lining up with words.

The government talked about the fact that Canadian farmers grow the food that feeds the world. We know we have an abundant food supply here, but we have seen the government attack farmers and slap a fertilizer tariff on them and the carbon tax on the heating and cooling of barns and the drying of grain. The growing of those crops that feed Canada and the world are breaking their operations.

Also, in the statement they said that we have the natural resources to support our allies with energy security, which sounds great, but the Liberals have been ensuring we cannot get these resources out of the ground. Just last week we saw Germany finally give up on us and sign an agreement to import LNG from Qatar instead.

Perhaps the biggest inconsistency of all is the fact the economic update was purported to help make life more affordable for Canadians. How can we make life more affordable for Canadians when we are tripling, tripling, tripling the carbon tax and increasing other taxes as we head into winter? A Conservative motion was put forward to exempt home heating fuel from some of those taxes to bring a bit of relief. That is important to people in my constituency who heat with propane or home heating oil because there is not the natural gas infrastructure in certain parts of the riding and they do not have that option. However, the Liberal and the NDP coalition voted to defeat that motion.

If I can conclude anything from Bill C-32, it might be that the Liberals are true to their form. They will tax and spend believing that will get us out of a cost-of-living crisis. We saw $30 billion more in spending. There is perhaps a grab bag of credits to give the appearance of supporting Canadians. While we certainly support relief through the GST credit, we saw a whole bunch of other money spent. What is happening is the Liberals are taking more money out of one pocket and giving a bit back and pretending it is actually going to help people.

What is happening is Liberals are profiting from inflation. They are increasing taxes on things like home heating and food, and there is the resulting interest rate increases. One of their solutions was for people to cut their Disney+ subscription. Canadians want a better answer than that.

We know the interest on the national debt that has been racked up by the government is going to exceed in the coming years the amount of money that is spent on the Canada health transfer. We have $27 billion in interest payments this year. That is money that should be and could be spent helping farmers, families and seniors rather than gobbling up their bank accounts to pay for more government spending through taxes.

That is why a Conservative government would commit to any new spending being matched by a dollar-for-dollar equivalent in savings, just as households manage their own budgets, rather than just racking up the credit card endlessly. At the end of the day, they are paying for that plus the interest rate increases they are going to see as a result of the inflationary spending.

Instead of creating more cash, Conservatives would create more of what cash buys, more homes, more gas and more food. We certainly have all the resources in Canada to do that. We will make energy more affordable by repealing some of the anti-energy laws and getting Canadian energy out to markets so we can generate jobs and economic activity here. A tax plan is not an environment plan. It is actually a tax plan. We have an opportunity to change that.

We will also make Canada one of the better places—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member's time is up, but I am sure he will be able to add during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

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

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member's speech and he spoke about speaking to his constituents. I know when he was speaking to his constituents he did not talk about the rebate on the price of pollution and I am guessing he did not mention to his constituents that he ran on a carbon tax. When he was speaking to his constituents about affordability, did he mention the CCB and the fact that his party voted against it? Did he mention to his seniors about voting against rental and dental supports? Did he mention voting against the OAS and GIC increases, or is that just inflationary spending that people should not receive?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, we are opposed to inflationary spending, because what that is doing is increasing the interest rates. We are going to see that again tomorrow. People in my community who have housing prices now approaching $1.2 million on average are going to pay for that in interest rates. We know that the average homeowners in Canada are going to see, when it is time to renew their five-year mortgage, a $7,000 increase in mortgage payments. In my community, we are above the average, so people are going to see about $1,000 a month more in expense.

I think Canadians would rather pay less on their mortgage and less on interest than for the inflationary spending and policies of the government.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook spoke about making energy more affordable. On this point it is important that we talk about the extent to which oil and gas companies across the country are gouging folks at the pump, including in his riding. In the last year alone, the wholesale margins, in other words, the profits, are up 18¢ a litre.

Is the member concerned about this gouging that is happening? Would he not agree that more needs to be done to recover these funds and use them to invest in making life more affordable for people across the country?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I respectfully disagree. Energy companies in Canada create thousands of jobs and pay millions of dollars in taxes. All of that contributes to the Canadian economy. It contributes to what we are able to pay for health care, education and the services that we value in this country. In fact, we have one of the most abundant supplies of energy in the world. It is clean. It is environmentally sourced. We are consulting with indigenous communities on extracting it. If we were to get more of our natural gas to the B.C. coast to liquefy it and get it to China, it would help that country get off coal, as it is planning to build a thousand coal plants over the course of the next years.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is estimated that the interest alone on the debt will be greater than the combined health transfers to the provinces. How will this burgeoning, continually snowballing debt impact Canada's ability to care for our citizens?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has asked this very good question many times throughout her long tenure as a member of Parliament.

It is a very important one because when we are spending $27 billion and more, growing to $30 billion, $40 billion over the course of a number of years, on interest on the debt, we are not spending that money on health care, education and the things that matter.

My mom is a retired nurse. She worked in the health care system in Hamilton, Ontario, and saw that first-hand. My dad just went through chemotherapy. I know all Canadians who have gone through health issues understand this. We value our health care system, so rather than spending $27 billion on interest, let us spend more on health care. Absolutely, that makes a lot of sense.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, we will not oppose Bill C‑32, which implements the government's economic statement. Seasons may change, but this government's economic statements remain the same. We are not very excited, because this one is virtually the same as the spring economic statement, which contained nothing in the way of a constructive or reassuring vision for the people of Quebec and Canada.

The Bloc Québécois decries the economic update, which mentions inflation 108 times but does not offer a dime in extra support for recognized initiatives, such as transportation electrification, or for seniors, the unemployed, or families trying to put a roof over their heads. The cornerstone of this government's everything-old-is-new-again approach to solving problems is interference. When it comes to interfering in areas under Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction, none can equal this government.

Let us think about that for a minute. Retirees who contributed their entire working lives to the economic and social development of their communities, who humbly and honestly paid their taxes, as my colleague from Drummond was saying earlier, and who suddenly are 65, or 70 or 74, are being completely ignored by the government. However, the contributions they made while working were used to run the public service, including the seats in this place. Now, we thank them by telling them to go back to work, to do something else, to find a way to earn some income, to go to food banks, because there is no money for them.

All of a sudden, at 75 years of age, they receive a cheque. It is extraordinary. Sometimes magic happens, but we do not know why. We do not know what justifies it and the reason behind it.

In fact, I think that the government does not know its citizens. In any case, it does not know the citizens of Quebec. Does it have any idea what their reality looks like? That is the question. Does the government know Mr. Lucien, who no longer has affordable housing, who has to use the food bank and make tough choices to be able to afford his medication? Does the government know Ms. Mariette, who has to pay for essential home care services to be able to continue living at home because that is what she wants more than anything? She has to turn the heat off at night and eat only one meal a day so that she can continue to live at home. Does the government know Ms. Agathe and Mr. Georges, who did not make much money when they were working? Even so, they worked for 45 years and were honest about paying their taxes. Ms. Agathe is in a wheelchair because she worked as a waitress all her life and no longer has any circulation in her legs. She lives on the outskirts of the city and so she has to take public transportation to get health care. Her husband, who is a little younger than her, retired unexpectedly early because he saw that his wife was unable to get around. Today, they live at home. They have not had any additional income for more than 15 years. They are aged 72 and 65 respectively.

With inflation taking a heavy toll on seniors' meagre incomes, old age security offers little in the way of actual security because fixed costs, rising food prices and gas taxes are not going away.

What really worries me is that seniors have been getting poorer for a very long time. The government has not taken them into account when making decisions for a very long time. I think society agrees on that. We can blame a lot on the pandemic, but the health care issues we are dealing with now have everything to do with the fact that the pandemic amplified indifference, complacency and callousness on the part of both governments—for these decisions were not made by just one government—toward the people who built the Canada and Quebec we know today. By the time people reach old age, they have built their lives and contributed in the hope of benefiting from a decent social safety net. What we are seeing now is people who, if they had more money, would manage to live at home instead of crowding long-term care facilities and hospitals.

There is a whole network of interconnected issues that are the result of the government not paying attention to the seniors who built this society. I find that particularly painful, because I know many of them in my riding. They are upright, reliable and honest people who have really given everything in the hope of receiving a little something. Now the government is telling them that it is not going to happen.

It seems that there is no accountability at the federal level these days. No one is accountable for anything. Things go wrong, but it is nobody's fault. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals are accountable for their past actions. To hear them tell it, each party has done much better than the other and nothing is their fault. It must be that thing called fate, or the evil pandemic, or the global inflationary crisis.

Then there are the excessive oil investments and environmental failures—both of which make people sicker and sicker—but they are nobody's fault. Elderly people and the unemployed find themselves on the street, but it is nobody's fault. Small and medium-sized businesses are closing down because there are no accommodating tax provisions for them, while foreign and oil mega-corporations conveniently squirrel their profits away in tax havens, but that is nobody's fault.

On top of that, people need to be asked more and more to have confidence in politics, so we go on plastering faces on placards during every election campaign, when we have the nerve to tell people we will be forming government and doing great things for them. Yes, the government will do things like interfere and impose its position and its assessment of the reality facing seniors, as if there could suddenly and magically be two categories of seniors. It will also interfere by determining how much money will be paid into the health care system and, more importantly, how the provinces will spend it, when the federal government has no idea what choices the provinces must make in managing health care.

Let me give an example. In Quebec, we want to encourage seniors to remain in their homes. If the government offers money on the condition that we invest only in hospitals and long-term care facilities, is that a good condition for Quebec? The answer is no. That is one reason why we do not want conditions. We want the money that, in principle, is owed to us.

The government likes to interfere in provincial jurisdictions, and so it is interfering in the protection of the French language with a bill that I would describe as odious and that will paralyze all of Quebec's efforts to impose the use of French in federally regulated businesses and to teach French to new Quebeckers. The government is also interfering in the housing sector and property taxes. It watches everything and tries to make its way into every sector.

It is also perpetuating the status quo on employment insurance. We have been waiting for EI reform for years. There are new realities in the labour market such as seasonal work and self-employed workers. With respect to employment, there are support measures for people who suffer from serious illnesses, illnesses that are becoming more prevalent than they were 15 or 20 years ago. I am also thinking of Émilie Sansfaçon, who left behind two children. She came to this place, despite being under treatment and not feeling well, to raise awareness and ask the government to change its position and support seriously ill people looking to heal with dignity.

I will conclude my speech by saying that the independence movement did not come out of nowhere. It is not a delusion. It is not a bubble in the brain of someone who appeared just like that. The independence movement is a movement that advocates free management of its own public funds, a movement that wants to take its own direction.

I think that the Government of Canada is a Titanic right now. It has not noticed, but the hull has been breached. I hope it will realize this fact before meeting the iceberg of opulence, because opulence is fatal in the eyes of our constituents.

In Quebec, our hull is solid and our engines are remarkable. We are successful. Resources are invaluable and almost unlimited. We have unique economic development levers—

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

I must interrupt the member because she has far exceeded her speaking time.

The hon. member for Saint John—Rothesay.

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

Madam Speaker, as a government, we often hear about everything we are doing wrong. It seems to be one thing after another. Certainly, the official opposition is quick to remind us that we cannot manage the economy, yet it ran nine straight deficits. The economy was in a mess when we took over.

In the fall economic statement, we came forth with a lot of good programs. To be sure, we hear from the party opposite about eliminating the tax on home heating, which would be about $40 or $50 per tank, but what about the doubling of the GST credit? What about the elimination of interest on student loans? What about the rent support? What about all of the programs we have offered that will help Canadians through the situation we are in now?

Can the member opposite tell us which of those programs she would cut?

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of programs that we helped the current government develop. We are satisfied with some of those programs, but what bothers me and what I would tell my colleague is that there are not enough programs.

The government needs to improve its overall economic management to be able to offer more services to the public through new programs, those that we have long been calling for.

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

Madam Speaker, this afternoon, during oral question period, we heard the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine make preposterous comments that cast aspersions on the Auditor General.

The Auditor General's report was tabled today and, in it, we learned that the government overspent approximately $23 billion, if I am not mistaken.

In keeping with the really great speech my colleague gave, I would like her to draw a parallel between the money wasted and the economic statement, which contains nothing new and no additional measures.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my wonderful colleague for his question, which allows me to elaborate on my comments.

The $23 billion that the Auditor General mentioned is likely money that could be allocated to the various programs we were talking about earlier.

What worries me even more is that, at the moment, the government is checking whether CERB was paid out to the right people. People are being asked to pay the government back, then the government realizes that it was correct after all and gives the money back to them. Meanwhile, the Titanic is headed for the iceberg.

During the pandemic, we suggested that the government should be careful about handing out the CERB. It has access to the annual income of anyone who pays taxes, so it could have easily directed supports to where they were needed most, and we would not have the problems we are facing today. We would be much further ahead.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned in her speech that not a lot is different from the spring economic statement. I would highlight that we experienced hurricane Fiona on the east coast, and spending was dedicated to that for rebuilding Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec.

I wonder if the member could comment on how important it is to help rebuild resilient communities moving forward in the future.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, of course there should be a climate change resiliency piece and a fund. We are no longer talking about what is going to happen 15 years from now. It is happening now. It is important to acknowledge that because water levels are rising, and fast. The government absolutely has to make this situation a priority.

What we want to see is that $23 billion, which people are searching high and low for, being available the minute the storm hits. That would mean money to support small boat harbours, fishers and anyone affected. We absolutely need a fund to help communities face clear and present climate change.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the government's fall economic statement, a fiscal and economic blueprint that falls short.

The Conservatives called on the Liberals to do two important things. First was to stop the deficit spending that is fuelling inflation and driving up the cost of living for everyday Canadians. Second was for the government to commit to no new tax hikes. After all, Canadians are facing a cost of living crisis as a result of 40-year-high inflation being driven by the Liberal government's reckless spending. Food inflation has hit double digits. One in two Canadians is $200 away from insolvency, and an astonishing 1.5 million Canadians are going to a food bank every month, which is a 35% increase from last year.

The Liberals often say that they have the backs of Canadians. Well, in the face of a cost of living crisis, the least one would expect from a government that truly had the backs of Canadians is for it to commit to no new tax hikes. However, what we learned is that those are just more empty Liberal words, because they did not do that; they did the opposite, with tax hikes that are going to hit workers, seniors, families and small businesses.

This starts with a payroll tax hike on January 1, not to be outdone by a carbon tax hike on April 1, which will further drive up the cost of essentials, including gas, groceries and home heating. The carbon tax, by the way, has done nothing to reduce GHGs, which have gone up not down under the Liberals' watch. It is a carbon tax that the Governor of the Bank of Canada has determined exacerbates inflation, causing a 0.4% increase in inflation, further worsening the cost of living crisis.

When it comes to spending, the government doubled down on its failed inflationary policies. We saw $20 billion in new inflationary spending, and that is on top of half a trillion dollars in new deficit spending over the past two years.

The Liberals will claim that this is as a result of COVID, except the Parliamentary Budget Officer has clarified that it is not and that 40% of the half a trillion dollars in spending pertains to non-COVID-related measures. The evidence of this is that after all the COVID programs and supports expired, government spending increased an astonishing 30% in just two years. The government has a spending problem.

Why all the spending? Simply put, the government measures its success on how much it has spent, as opposed to what it has delivered, and the results are not positive. Let us look at a few Liberal lowlights.

It gave $35 billion to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which was supposedly going to leverage private sector investment to get infrastructure projects completed. However, after six years, not a single infrastructure project has been completed. After $35 billion and six years, there is not a single infrastructure project. Talk about taxpayers not getting value for their money.

The Liberals brag about spending $40 billion on housing. Has that increased the housing supply? Has that made home ownership more accessible? No. Housing prices have doubled on the Liberals' watch.

Then there is the $54-million app, the ArriveCAN scam, as it has become known, that should have cost $250,000 instead of $54 million to complete. It should have never been built in the first place given that it caused travel chaos and resulted in more than 10,000 healthy Canadians needlessly having to quarantine.

Today, there was a shocking Auditor General report that determined that $32 billion of the Liberals' COVID spending went to recipients who should not have received the money. It was $32 billion out the door and wasted. To put $32 billion in perspective, the government spends $45 billion on the Canada health transfer, so nearly three quarters of what the federal government spends on health care annually was wasted, out the door and gone.

We talk about waste and mismanagement, but the Liberal government is not one to learn lessons, because in the fall economic statement, $14.2 billion was found to be unannounced by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. There were no details about where that $14.2 billion is going. When my colleague, the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, asked the finance minister where the $14.2 billion was going, she could not say or would not say. All we know is that it is a blank cheque to who knows what. Talk about a lack of transparency. Talk about a lack of respect for the sweat-soaked tax dollars of hard-working Canadians.

For all of this spending, what do we have? We have 40-year-high inflation. If we listen to the Liberals across the way, they act as though they are bystanders to the 40-year-high inflation, except they are not. Their policies have driven it. Let us look at the facts.

To pay for half a trillion dollars of deficit spending, the Liberals, through the Bank of Canada, embarked on a policy of quantitative easing, something the Canadian government has never done before. It is essentially money printing. What happened over two years? The money supply increased by half a trillion dollars, on par with the Liberal government's half a trillion dollars in deficit spending. This is not a coincidence. What we have seen is a 27% increase in the supply of money at only a 2% rate of economic growth. We cannot have cash outbid goods and services tenfold and not have inflationary pressures, and that is precisely what has happened as a result of the government's out of control spending.

The finance minister is fond of saying she will not take lessons from the Leader of the Opposition. I would say to the Minister of Finance that she should start listening to the Leader of the Opposition, because it was the Leader of the Opposition who was among the first to sound the alarm that all of this spending was contributing to inflation. Had the finance minister listened to the Leader of the Opposition, we would not be in this inflationary mess that is pummelling everyday Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, the member does not talk about the facts. He says that we as a government are responsible for Canada's record-high inflation rate, but he does not look at the world's circumstances. We are responsible for having a lower inflation rate than the United States of America, England and many other European countries. Compared to the G7 and the G20, Canada's inflation rate is better, but it is still not good enough for this government. That is why we continue to bring in supports for Canadians, which the Conservative Party consistently votes against.

Would the member not recognize or give us credit for the fact that in comparison to other countries in the world, in particular the United States of America and those in Europe, we actually have a lower inflation rate?

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

Madam Speaker, the fact that the United States or the United Kingdom has worse inflation than Canada is cold comfort to everyday Canadians who are struggling.

No matter what the parliamentary secretary says, he cannot evade responsibility for the policies of his government that have driven 40-year-high inflation, with the supply of money outpacing goods and services tenfold as a result of the half a trillion dollars thrown out the door, billions of which were wasted. On top of that, the government is making life even worse with tax hikes in the new year.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, speaking of increased inflation, the Ambassador Bridge is close to me, and the illegal blockade of the Ambassador Bridge saw the vast majority of outsiders illegally shut down Canada's number one infrastructure and trade route to the United States. In fact, 40% of Canada's daily trade occurs there.

I am wondering whether the Conservative Party supports the City of Windsor's request to be made whole given the $5.7 million it cost to pay for police officers and to keep people safe during this illegal blockade. It is very important, because now that is thrust upon municipal taxpayers. Constituents could not get to doctor appointments, including children. It was significant.

I am wondering where the Conservative Party is with that request of $5.7 million, because the cost of the illegal occupation, mostly by outsiders, is now on the backs of municipal taxpayers.

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

Madam Speaker, at the end of his question, the member for Windsor West spoke about the backs of taxpayers. If he had the backs of taxpayers, he would not be supporting the tripling of the carbon tax. He would not be supporting payroll tax hikes. He would not be supporting measures that are making life more unaffordable. He certainly would not be supporting the $20 billion in inflationary deficit spending that is exacerbating the cost of living crisis.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We do agree on one thing: The economic statement is very disappointing.

Consider vulnerable people. It is important to increase health transfers. Old age security also needs a boost to provide adequate support to people aged 65 and up. EI reform is another urgent matter.

Does my colleague agree with the points I just raised?

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

Madam Speaker, I understand where the hon. member is coming from given that this was a disappointing fall economic statement.

The member cited health care. We have seen no meaningful commitments from the government when it comes to health care. Indeed, thanks to the government's reckless spending, debt servicing costs will soon outpace and be a larger amount than what is allocated to the Canada health transfer annually.

Quite frankly, there would be more money for health care if the government would rein in its wasteful, reckless spending.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑32, which seeks to implement the government's fall economic statement.

To be clear, let me just say that my pleasure stems not from the content of the bill, but rather from the fact that I get to stand up and be the voice of Canadians and the people of Beauce regarding what should have been included in the bill.

To begin with, I would like to take a moment to denounce the inflation created by the Liberal government itself. With punitive policies like the carbon tax, this government is destroying local businesses while at the same time driving up grocery prices. This out-of-touch government has also imposed an equally disastrous fertilizer tariff on farmers. Even as our country grapples with the worst food inflation in 40 years, the worst since the days of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, as I recall, the government is still looking to line its pockets with new taxes. Ours is the only G7 country to have imposed a tariff on fertilizer during the most difficult time in recent years.

Food bank use is growing so quickly that organizations in my riding, such as Moisson Beauce, are struggling to meet demand. In Beauce, a third of new food bank users are children. This government refuses to look in the mirror and admit its shortcomings. The Conservatives have been fighting for months against these taxes and tariffs, but this NDP-Liberal coalition has a hidden agenda, so it refuses to do the right thing. As a country, we should be taking care of the things that we can control. Everything starts in our own backyard. We need to help farmers lower production costs so that, by the time the food they produce gets to store shelves, people can afford to feed their family. Currently, one in five Canadians is skipping meals to stay afloat financially. That is shameful. This needs to change.

In this budget, agriculture is not even a minor priority for this government. We would think that after seven years, the Prime Minister would understand that feeding our population is essential and that it starts at the farm. Farmers have been ignored long enough. It is time to give them the tools they need to grow our economy and produce affordable food for everyone. This is a powerful economic driver for our country, and we have to exploit its full potential. We just need a leader who can open his eyes and see that.

Similarly, I would like to draw members' attention to another failed Liberal plan, the plan to open our Canadian borders to all Ukrainian meat products. The Conservatives are all for supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia, but there are much better ways of doing it. On Friday, in a press release, the government authorized import permits for unlimited quantities of chicken from Ukraine, without even conducting an impact analysis to see how that would affect the Canadian markets. To top it all off, the Liberals did not even consult stakeholders before signing this agreement.

Our American counterparts put off accepting Ukrainian meat for food safety reasons, and I cannot blame them. We could provide Ukraine with financial support while helping famine-hit countries closer to it by sending them those products. This is not just about taking care of our country's food system first. It is also a matter of global food safety. The last time the Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspected a chicken factory in Ukraine was in 2019, yet the government expects sanitary conditions to have remained the same in a war-torn country. How can this government be so naive?

Furthermore, given that this government promised to protect supply management, why did it sign this agreement to open up the market after stating over and over that it would make no further concessions with respect to supply management? The Liberal government is playing with fire at a time when we must be extremely vigilant.

Avian flu is becoming more prevalent in North America, and the problem is just as bad in Europe. Countries such as Poland, one of Ukraine's neighbours, have had several cases of avian flu in recent months. How can we have any assurance that imported meat is safe if we have no protective measures in place?

I would now like to move on to another topic, that of immigration in this country.

Canada's immigration system is broken. The Liberal minister rises in this place, makes bold promises and uses the same talking points every day, but nothing is happening in that department.

Every day, my two offices in Beauce receive multiple requests for updates from people who need help and from business owners about the system backlog. According to recent studies, there is a backlog of 2.3 million applications. Whether we are talking about applications for permanent residence, work permits or sponsorship, everything is at a standstill because of the government's poor management. Businesses in my riding are losing contracts and threatening to move abroad because they cannot get the temporary foreign workers they need in time.

Doctors are waiting for work permits and documents when they could be working in local hospitals and helping my constituents. It is shocking. It is not just the immigration system in this country that is broken. Name any department and there is a good chance that it is broken as well. Whether it is Service Canada with pensions, the guaranteed income supplement or the passport fiasco, the list of failures goes on and on.

When my staffers talk to employees on the phone, it is clear that things are disorganized and there does not appear to be any direction from the top. Employees are bouncing from department to department, burning the candle at both ends.

Training has slowed to a crawl, and most officers are too junior to help with complex cases. Some employees are still working from home. When is the government going to get its public servants back in the office and on track to better serve our communities?

The workers cannot be blamed for the government's incompetence. I sincerely respect these officers and the tough job they do, but something has to change. There is only so much they can do with the tools they have been given.

Now I want to touch on some issues that my colleagues have often heard me talk about here in the House. Rural Canadians are being left in the lurch. My riding does not have public transportation. We have to drive to get to work and take our kids to their activities. The people of Beauce are hard-working, as evidenced by our 2.1% unemployment rate, which I believe is among the best in Canada. Unfortunately, the carbon tax is eating up Canadians' paycheques. Cell service and high-speed Internet are not even close to what they should be in 2022, but there is nothing in the budget to fix that problem either.

Now, this government also wants to prohibit my law-abiding constituents from owning certain hunting weapons. Many Canadians make their living in part from hunting. This is one way we feed our families, but the government wants to eliminate that option too.

I could go on and on, but since I am running out of time, I have a message for Canadians. The Conservative Party of Canada will continue to be there for them and fight for what Canadians need, which is more money in their pocket at the end of the week and healthy, affordable food on the table for our families this holiday season.

A Conservative government would have made much more tangible changes if we, the Conservatives, had had the opportunity to introduce our own budget. I hope that Canadians are taking note of what this NDP-Liberal government is doing to our country. The time for change is approaching, and I hope that the Liberal government will be held accountable for the disastrous choices it has made.

I will continue to defend the people of Beauce and all Canadians by condemning this inflationary government in the House at every opportunity.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, with whom I am fortunate to sit not only on the Standing Committee on Agriculture, but also on the Standing Committee on Official Languages from time to time.

I heard him talk about supply management and how important it is to him. I hope he is convincing his colleagues of the importance of the amounts announced in the fall economic statement. I hope we can count on his support. I hope he will be able to convince all his colleagues, because that is what the dairy farmers have been asking us for.

This bill will provide $1.7 billion for the entire supply-managed sector, and I hope my colleague will stand up in the House and tell us that he will absolutely support this.

My question for him is this: Will he support Bill C-32, yes or no?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I think that there are far too many problems with Bill C-32 for us to support it. With regard to all the money the government plans to spend, I think the government is just serving up leftovers, because these amounts were already allocated in previous budgets.

I wanted to raise one of my concerns today. The Liberal Party says that it supports supply management but, because of the measure that came into effect on Friday regarding Ukraine, we are now coming under heavy scrutiny from many countries around the world.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Beauce on his speech. I respect the member a great deal and hold him in high regard.

We are actually on the same wavelength on several issues that he raised in his speech.

Towards the end of his speech, he addressed the issue of Bill C-21, which is currently being studied and has many people talking. Hunters are very worried about it. I was a little disappointed to hear him getting into semi-false information about the list of prohibited weapons allegedly directly affecting hunters' rights. That is not entirely true. It is true that we have work to do on Bill C‑21, which is far from perfect. The bill is actually a bit sloppy in some respects. However, I wish everyone would stick to the facts.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on the health care situation. In Beauce, like everywhere else in Quebec, the health care system is sorely strained. I would like to hear what he has to say about the government's management and the issue of increased health transfers, which the provinces and Quebec have long been calling for.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his questions.

I will start with the last question. As far as health transfers are concerned, it is undeniable that the Conservative Party has always been in favour of respecting provincial jurisdictions. That is the most important thing to us. When we are in power, we will be there to help increase these sums.

As for the first question on firearms, I do not know if the situation is the same in my colleague's riding, but I just spent three full weekends touring my riding, and countless hunters talked to me about this issue. There is some real concern. I agree that there is still a lot of work to do, and my fear is that the bill will be passed too quickly and it will be botched.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for giving his speech like a Beauce. My question is about the Canada recovery dividend, which is in this legislation. It is a one-time, 15% tax on profits over $1 billion for Canada's banks and financial institutions. It is about bringing back public money that went out to companies that were very profitable. It is a really important component of getting some of Canada's largest and most profitable corporations to pay their fair share in the context of what we are living through right now. I would like to know the member's thoughts on the Canada recovery dividend.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is definitely an important component. However, when I look at all the inflationary policies this government has brought in, particularly in the latest budget statement, I think that even if it manages to recover larger amounts of money, the consequences of all the new taxes coming in the next few months and next year will be far more negative than positive.

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

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, my speech will have to be curtailed, which is something that should have been thought of before the Liberals came up with Bill C-32.

The fall economic statement, which could have done so much to help people in need, does absolutely nothing to address the real crises that Canadians are facing, like inflation, the cost of living and more taxes. Where it could have stopped new taxes and tax hikes and stopped new spending and wasteful spending, it fails to do so and only adds to the inflationary economy. The people of Saskatchewan cannot afford these out-of-touch policies that take their hard-earned money out of their pockets and put it into government coffers.

Each and every household in this country is feeling the effects of the Liberal incompetence when it comes to managing inflation and the cost of living. This year alone, government revenues have increased to $41.1 billion. Where is that money coming from? It is coming from the single mother who is skipping meals to make sure that her kids have enough to eat each week. It is coming from the families who have to pick between putting gas in their cars or keeping the lights on that month, because they are all paying higher taxes.

These are things the Prime Minister does not worry about and has never had to spare a thought for in his entire life. He is completely out of touch with his inflationary deficits, which are now at half a trillion dollars. It is clear that he has no problem profiting off the backs of Canadians and leaving the issues for future generations to deal with. He does not have their backs. He is profiting off their backs.

As we all know, this is Christmastime and a festive season for many. People are trying to get out, celebrate and help where they can. However, they are concerned, especially when a report that came out yesterday said that the cost of their food is escalating and, in 2023, prices will be 5% to 7% higher. Families will pay $1,065 more for groceries in 2023.

My wife goes out of her way yearly to assist with baking for hospitals, charities and people who have lost loved ones, as well as my family. Yesterday, she was making some cookies and went to buy some supplies. One box of graham cracker crumbs, two small cans of Eagle Brand condensed milk, two oranges, two lemons, a small 125-millilitre bottle of artificial vanilla and two 450-gram sticks of butter, which fit into one bag, was a total cost of $82.54. That is a lot of money for cookies, and next year it is going to be closer to $100.

The Liberals are killing rural communities and are doing it without even batting an eye. Measures like the carbon tax are killing businesses both small and large, including farming operations that have stood the test of time for generations. It is a tragedy to see family farms having to sell off their operations just so they can pay the bills. Many ranchers and farmers are close to walking away from the industry because of these escalating input costs.

As we all know, the Prime Minister has a pattern of promising something and doing the complete opposite. Many years and many billions of dollars ago, he said that he would not exceed $10 billion of debt. How soon people forget. The Prime Minister has now added more debt than all previous prime ministers combined. Furthermore, an alarming 40% of all new spending measures, roughly $205 billion, has nothing to do at all with COVID.

Ultimately, it is going to come down to what I call the “heat or keep” principle. In Saskatchewan, winters get brutally cold with temperatures dropping down into the minus forties multiple times during the season. In fact, as I speak today, it is below -30°C. Thanks to measures like the carbon tax for the last few years, people have been wondering if they can afford to heat their homes, a concern that no Canadian should have to grapple with. Now, because of the ever-rising interest rates and inflation, they are wondering if they will be able to keep their homes. The Prime Minister could never begin to imagine the stress that is felt by those who have to decide to heat or keep, but this is what it has come down to.

If we take a look at the numbers, the outlook is grim. Families who are financially on the brink who bought a typical home five years ago with a typical mortgage that is now up for renewal will pay $7,000 more a year. This is completely unsustainable and has the potential to financially devastate many hard-working homeowners who are just trying to live the life that they have earned and deserve. For example, someone with a mortgage of $400,000 amortized over 25 years with a monthly payment of $2,400 is not eligible for the relief that the Liberals are touting as the solution to the problem.

Speaking of the carbon tax, this could be a great opportunity for the government to actually help Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. The Liberals could make the decision to cancel the tripling of the tax, but they will not.

Another big issue that I have with this economic update is that it fails to adequately address the Inflation Reduction Act that the U.S. passed in August, specifically with respect to investment in emissions reduction technology here in Canada.

The fact is that the Liberals have missed every single emissions reduction target they have set, yet they are still not doing enough to incentivize investment in clean technology. That is shameful. The United States has a 45Q tax credit that is straightforward, easy to understand and provides industry with certainty over things like regulation prices and timelines. By contrast, the measures created by the Liberal government are largely ineffective due to the high level of bureaucracy involved, with a mess of programs and credits layered on top of each other that create confusion and lack clarity.

We have already seen projects worth billions of dollars choose to operate in Texas over Alberta because of the ease of doing business in the U.S. The Liberals are choosing not to listen to industry experts who are prepared to assist and advise on clean tech like carbon capture and storage, or CCUS, because they do not want to be associated with the word “coal”. Is it the industry they are trying to kill, or is it the emissions?

Surely it is the emissions and the fact that CCUS can do it is something that we should be investing in. It is something that this economic statement does not move forward on and assist all Canadians by investing with private money, not public money.

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

It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

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

Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 7, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you might find unanimous consent to call it 6:30 p.m. so that we can begin private members' hour.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from December 6 consideration of Bill C‑32, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:18 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C‑32.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #232

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, and I believe the government whip also has something to add to that.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the result from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting no.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will be voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will be voting yes.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #233

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.