Bill C-47

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations by
(a) enabling the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to use electronic certification of tax and information returns and requiring taxpayers to file electronically in certain circumstances;
(b) doubling the maximum deduction for tradespeople’s tools from $500 to $1,000;
(c) providing that any gain on the disposition of a right to acquire Canadian housing property within a one-year period of its acquisition is treated as business income;
(d) excluding from a taxpayer’s income certain benefits for Canadian Forces members, veterans and their spouses or common-law partners;
(e) exempting from taxation any income earned by the Band Class Settlement Trust in accordance with section 24.05 of the Settlement Agreement entered into on January 18, 2023 relating to the attendance of day scholars at residential schools;
(f) providing an additional payment of the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) credit equal to double the amount of the regular January 2023 payment;
(g) providing for automatic, quarterly advance payments of the Canada Workers Benefit;
(h) allowing divorced and separated spouses to open joint Registered Educational Savings Plans and increasing educational assistance amounts under those plans;
(i) extending, by ‚three years, the ability of a qualifying family member to be the plan holder of an individual’s Registered Disability Savings Plan and expanding the definition of “qualifying family member” to include a sister or a brother of the individual;
(j) allowing defined contribution registered pension plans to correct contribution errors and requiring that the contributions or refunds are reported to the CRA for the purpose of correcting the RRSP deduction limit;
(k) modifying reporting requirements in respect of reportable transactions, introducing reporting requirements for notifiable transactions and providing reporting requirements with respect to uncertain tax treatments, as well as extending the reassessment periods applicable to those transactions and creating or modifying penalties for non-compliance with those requirements;
(l) allowing the CRA to share taxpayer information for the purposes of the Canadian Dental Care Plan;
(m) expanding the definition of “dividend rental arrangement” to include “specified hedging transactions” carried out in whole or in part by registered securities dealers;
(n) implementing the Model Reporting Rules for Digital Platforms developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development;
(o) requiring annual reporting by financial institutions of the fair market value of registered retirement savings plans and registered retirement income funds;
(p) expanding the permissible borrowing by defined benefit pension plans; and
(q) implementing a number of technical amendments to correct mistakes or inconsistencies and to better align the law with its intended policy objectives.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Excise Tax Act , the Tax Rebate Discounting Act , the Air Travellers Security Charge Act , the Excise Act, 2001 , Part 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the Electronic Filing and Provision of Information (GST/HST) Regulations .
Part 2 implements certain measures in respect of the Excise Tax Act and a related text by
(a) clarifying that the international transportation of money benefits from Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) relief and other special rules in the same manner as a service of internationally transporting other kinds of freight;
(b) permitting a pension entity, in specific circumstances, to claim the pension entity rebate or an input tax credit, or to make the pension entity rebate election, after the end of the two-year limitation period;
(c) specifying that cryptoasset mining is generally not considered a supply for GST/HST purposes; and
(d) ensuring that payment card clearing services are excluded from the definition “financial service” under the GST/HST legislation.
Part 3 amends the Excise Act , the Excise Act, 2001 and the Air Travellers Security Charge Act in order to implement two measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Excise Act and the Excise Act, 2001 in order to temporarily cap the inflation adjustment for excise duties on beer, spirits and wine at two per cent, for one year only, as of April 1, 2023.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Air Travellers Security Charge Act to increase the air travellers security charge that is applicable to air travel that includes a chargeable emplanement after April 2024 and for which any payment is made after April 2024.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act to strengthen the regime for dealing with complaints against banks and authorized foreign banks by, among other things, providing for the designation of a not-for-profit body corporate to be the sole external complaints body. It also makes consequential amendments to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act and related amendments to the Financial Consumer Protection Framework Regulations .
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to, among other things, provide for variable life benefits under a defined contribution provision of a pension plan and amends the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act to, among other things, provide for variable life payments under pooled registered pension plans. It also makes a consequential amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act .
Division 3 of Part 4 contains measures that are related to money laundering and to digital assets and other measures.
Subdivision A of Division 3 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) require persons or entities referred to in section 5 of that Act to report to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada information that is related to a disclosure made under the Special Economic Measures Act or the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) ;
(b) strengthen the registration framework for persons or entities referred in paragraphs 5(h) and (h.1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act , which are often referred to as money services businesses;
(c) create two new offences relating to persons or entities who engage in activities for which they are not registered under that Act and the structuring of financial transactions undertaken to avoid reporting obligations under that Act, as well as a new offence relating to reprisals by employers against employees who fulfill obligations under that Act;
(d) facilitate the sharing, between the Minister of Finance, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, of information that relates to their respective mandates; and
(e) authorize the Minister of Finance to issue directives to persons and entities referred in section 5 of that Act in respect of risks relating to the financing of threats to the security of Canada.
Subdivision A also amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 in relation to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act .
Subdivision B of Division 3 amends the Criminal Code to provide for a new warrant authorizing a peace officer or other person named in the warrant to search for and seize digital assets, including virtual currency, as well as to expand the list of offences on the basis of which an examination of information obtained by the Minister of National Revenue under various tax statutes may be authorized. The subdivision also makes related amendments to other Acts.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff to extend the expiry date of the General Preferential Tariff and Least Developed Country Tariff to December 31, 2034 and to create a new General Preferential Tariff Plus tariff treatment that will expire on the same date. The Division also aligns direct shipment requirements for tariff treatments under that Act with those that apply to free trade agreements.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff to remove Belarus and Russia from the List of Countries entitled to Most-Favoured-Nation tariff treatment.
Division 6 of Part 4 allows the Bank of Canada to apply, despite sections 27 and 27.1 of the Bank of Canada Act , any of its ascertained surplus to its retained earnings until its retained earnings are equal to zero or the ascertained surplus applied to its retained earnings is equal to the losses it incurred from the purchase of securities as part of the Government of Canada Bond Purchase Program.
Division 7 of Part 4 enacts the Canada Innovation Corporation Act . That Act continues the Canada Innovation Corporation, which was established under another Act, as a parent Crown corporation, sets out the Corporation’s purpose to maximize business investment in research and development across all sectors of the economy and in all regions of Canada to promote innovation-driven economic growth and includes transitional provisions. The Division also makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize additional payments to the provinces and territories.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to renew the authority to make Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing payments for another five-year period beginning on April 1, 2024 and makes a technical change to improve the accuracy of the programs. It also makes a technical change to the calculation of fiscal stabilization payments. Finally, it provides for the publication of the details of all amounts authorized to be paid under that Act.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Special Economic Measures Act , the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) to strengthen Canada’s ability to take economic measures against certain persons.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Act to, among other things, enable the Paris Protocol to be implemented in Canada.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the Service Fees Act to, among other things, clarify the definition “fee”, exempt certain fees from the application of that Act, make certain exceptions in that Act applicable only with the approval of the President of the Treasury Board, make certain changes to the annual adjustment provisions and provide authority for the President of the Treasury Board to amend the regulations made under section 22 of that Act by taking into account the factors established by regulations.
It also amends section 25.1 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act to provide for the application of sections 16 to 18 of the Service Fees Act to low-materiality fees, within the meaning of the Service Fees Act , that are fixed under section 24 or 25 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act .
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Canada Pension Plan to allow the Minister of National Revenue to make available information to the Minister of Employment and Social Development that is necessary for the purpose of policy analysis, research or evaluation related to the administration of that Act.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to grant the Minister of Employment and Social Development the authority to collect and use Social Insurance Numbers for the purposes of administering or enforcing any Act, program or activity in respect of which the administration or enforcement is the responsibility of the Minister.
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code in respect of leave related to the death or disappearance of a child to, among other things, increase the maximum length of that leave from 104 weeks to 156 weeks and to repeal paragraph 206.5(4)(b) of that Act.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to provide that a claim for refugee protection made by a person inside Canada must be made in person and, with regard to a claim made by the person other than at a port of entry, that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration may specify the documents and information to be provided and the form and manner in which they are to be provided.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to clarify that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration may give instructions in respect of an application to sponsor a person who applies for a visa as a Convention refugee, within the meaning of that Act, or as a person in similar circumstances.
Division 18 of Part 4 amends the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants may seek an order authorizing it to administer the property of any licensee of the College who is not able to perform their activities as an immigration and citizenship consultant;
(b) extend immunity against proceedings for damages to directors, employees and agents and mandataries of the College, among others;
(c) authorize the College to enter into information-sharing agreements or arrangements with any entity, including federal or provincial government institutions; and
(d) expand the areas in respect of which the Governor in Council may authorize the College to make by-laws.
The Division also makes related amendments to the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to clarify that any person who is the subject of a notice of violation issued under either of those Acts has the right to request a review of the notice or the administrative monetary penalty set out in the notice.
Division 19 of Part 4 amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things,
(a) grant the Minister responsible for the administration and enforcement of that Act the power to collect biometric information from persons who make an application under that Act — and to use, verify, retain and disclose that information — in accordance with the regulations;
(b) authorize that Minister to administer and enforce that Act using electronic means, including by using an automated system; and
(c) grant that Minister the power to make regulations requiring persons who make an application or who provide documents, information or evidence under that Act to do so using electronic means.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends the Yukon Act to authorize the Minister of Northern Affairs to take any measures on certain public real property that the Minister considers necessary to prevent, counteract, mitigate or remedy any adverse effect on persons, property or the environment.
Subdivision A of Division 21 of Part 4 amends the Marine Liability Act to, among other things,
(a) increase the maximum liability for certain claims involving a ship of less than 300 gross tonnage;
(b) establish the maximum liability for claims involving air cushion vehicles;
(c) remove all references to the Hamburg Rules;
(d) extend the application of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001 to non-seagoing vessels;
(e) provide for public notice requirements relating to the constitution of limitation funds under that Act;
(f) clarify that the owner of a ship is liable for economic loss related to fishing, hunting, trapping or harvesting suffered by an Indigenous group, community or people or suffered by a member of such a group, community or people; and
(g) expand the compensation regime of the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund to include certain future losses.
Subdivision B of Division 21 amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 to, among other things,
(a) expand the application of Part 1 of that Act in relation to certain pleasure craft;
(b) expand the exemption powers of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans;
(c) allow the owner of a Canadian vessel to enter into an arrangement with a qualified person under which that person is the authorized representative of the vessel;
(d) give the Marine Technical Review Board jurisdiction to make decisions on applications for exemptions from interim orders;
(e) authorize the Governor in Council to incorporate by reference in certain regulations material that the Minister of Transport produces;
(f) broaden the Governor in Council’s power respecting fees, charges, costs or expenses to be paid in relation to the administration and enforcement of matters under that Act for which the Minister of Transport is responsible;
(g) increase the maximum amount of fines for certain offences;
(h) provide authority, in certain circumstances, for the Chief Registrar to refuse to issue a certificate of registry and for the Minister of Transport to refuse to issue a pleasure craft licence;
(i) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting emergency services;
(j) authorize the Minister of Transport to, among other things,
(i) direct a master or crew member to cease operations,
(ii) authorize the Deputy Minister of Transport to make interim orders in response to risks to marine safety or to the marine environment, and
(iii) direct a port authority or a person in charge of a port authority or place to authorize vessels to proceed to a place selected by the Minister; and
(k) permit designating as violations the contravention of certain provisions of Parts 5 and 10 of that Act and the regulations made under those Parts.
The Subdivision also makes a related amendment to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act .
Subdivision C of Division 21 amends the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act to, among other things, establish the Vessel Remediation Fund in the accounts of Canada and provide the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with certain powers in relation to the detention of vessels.
Division 22 of Part 4 amends the Canada Transportation Act to, among other things,
(a) allow the Governor in Council to require air carriers to publish information respecting their performance on their Internet site;
(b) permit the sharing of information to ensure the proper functioning of the national transportation system or to increase its efficiency, while ensuring the confidentiality of that information;
(c) allow the Minister of Transport to require certain persons to provide certain information to the Minister if the Minister is of the opinion that there exists an unusual and significant disruption to the effective continued operation of the national transportation system;
(d) establish a new zone in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, in which any interswitching that occurs is subject to the rate determined by the Canadian Transportation Agency, for a period of 18 months; and
(e) broaden the scope of the administrative monetary penalties scheme.
Division 23 of Part 4 amends the Canada Transportation Act to, among other things,
(a) broaden the authority of the Canadian Transportation Agency to set fees and charges to recover its costs;
(b) replace the current process for resolving air travel complaints with a more streamlined process designed to result in more timely decisions;
(c) impose a greater burden of proof on air carriers where it is presumed that compensation is payable to a complainant unless the air carrier proves the contrary;
(d) require air carriers to establish an internal process for dealing with air travel claims;
(e) modify the Agency’s regulation-making powers with respect to air carriers’ obligations towards passengers; and
(f) enhance the Agency’s enforcement powers with respect to the air transportation sector.
Division 24 of Part 4 amends the Customs Act to, among other things,
(a) allow a person arriving in Canada to present themselves to the Canada Border Services Agency by a means of telecommunication, if that manner of presenting is made available at the customs office at which they are presenting themselves; and
(b) subject to the regulations, require that the operator of a commercial aircraft arriving in Canada ensure that baggage on board the aircraft is transported without delay to the nearest international baggage area.
The Division also makes a related amendment to the Quarantine Act .
Division 25 of Part 4 amends the National Research Council Act to, among other things, provide that the National Research Council of Canada may procure goods and services, including goods and services relating to construction and to research-related digital and information technology. It also establishes a new Procurement Oversight Board.
Division 26 of Part 4 amends the Patent Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Commissioner of Patents to grant an additional term for a patent if certain conditions are met;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the number of days that is to be subtracted in determining the duration of an additional term; and
(c) authorize the Commissioner of Patents and the Federal Court to shorten the duration of an additional term if the duration as previously determined is longer than is authorized.
Division 27 of Part 4 amends the Food and Drugs Act to extend measures regarding therapeutic products to natural health products in order to, among other things,
(a) strengthen the safety oversight of natural health products throughout their life cycle; and
(b) promote greater confidence in the oversight of natural health products by increasing transparency.
Division 28 of Part 4 amends the Food and Drugs Act to, among other things, prohibit
(a) the sale of a cosmetic unless its safety can be established without relying on data derived from a test conducted on an animal that could cause pain, suffering or injury, whether physical or mental, to the animal, subject to certain exceptions;
(b) the conduct of a test on an animal that could cause pain, suffering or injury, whether physical or mental, to the animal if the purpose of the test is to meet a legislative requirement that relates to cosmetics; and
(c) deceptive or misleading claims, on the label of or in an advertisement for a cosmetic, with respect to testing on animals.
Division 29 of Part 4 enacts the Dental Care Measures Act .
Division 30 of Part 4 amends subsection 41(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act , in response to the decision in R. v. Gorman , to limit the Canada Post Corporation’s authority to open mail other than letters.
Division 31 of Part 4 expresses the assent of the Parliament of Canada to the issuing by His Majesty of a Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the applicable Royal Style and Titles.
Division 32 of Part 4 amends the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to provide that the Public Sector Pension Investment Board may incorporate a subsidiary for the purpose of providing investment management services to the Canada Growth Fund Inc. It also amends the Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022 to increase the amount that may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund on the requisition of the Minister of Finance for the acquisition of shares of the Canada Growth Fund Inc. and to provide that the Canada Growth Fund Inc. is not an agent of His Majesty in right of Canada.
Division 33 of Part 4 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act , the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things,
(a) expand the mandate of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to include the supervision of federal financial institutions in order to determine whether they have adequate policies and procedures to protect themselves against threats to their integrity or security; and
(b) expand the Superintendent of Financial Institutions’ powers to issue directions to, and to take control of, a federal financial institution in certain circumstances.
It also makes a consequential amendment to the Winding-up and Restructuring Act .
Division 34 of Part 4 amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, lower the criminal rate of interest calculated in respect of an agreement or arrangement and to express that rate as an annual percentage rate. It also authorizes the Governor in Council, by regulation, to fix a limit on the total cost of borrowing under a payday loan agreement. Finally, it provides for transitional provisions.
Division 35 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend, until October 26, 2024, the increase in the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers.
Division 36 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to, among other things,
(a) establish an account in the accounts of Canada to be called the Environmental Economic Instruments Fund, for the purpose of administering amounts received as contributions to certain funding programs under the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment; and
(b) replace references to “tradeable units” with references to “compliance units”.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Canada Emission Reduction Incentives Agency Act .
Division 37 of Part 4 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to clarify that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation may administer any contract related to deposit insurance entered into by the Minister of Finance and to allow the Minister to increase the deposit insurance coverage limit until April 30, 2024.
Division 38 of Part 4 amends the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to, among other things,
(a) establish the Employment Insurance Board of Appeal to hear appeals of decisions made under the Employment Insurance Act instead of the Employment Insurance Section of the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal; and
(b) eliminate the requirement for leave to appeal decisions relating to the Employment Insurance Act to the Appeal Division of the Tribunal.
It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 39 of Part 4 amends the Canada Elections Act to provide for a national, uniform, exclusive and complete regime applicable to registered parties and eligible parties respecting their collection, use, disclosure, retention and disposal of personal information.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

moved that Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for me to split my time with the member for Nepean.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to talk about the budget implementation act. Last month, our government released budget 2023, our made-in-Canada plan for a strong middle class, an affordable economy and a healthy future.

It comes at an important moment for our country. Canada's economy has made a remarkable recovery from the COVID recession. Last year, Canada delivered the strongest economic growth in the G7. This is thanks to the hard work, resilience and ingenuity of Canadians. In fact, there are 865,000 more Canadian workers today than at the start of the pandemic. This shows that our strategy of keeping Canadians healthy and focusing on a jobs-based recovery is working. In fact, we have recovered over 128% of jobs lost during the pandemic, while the United States has recovered only 115%.

In the short term, however, Canada and the world face several headwinds. We face a slowing global economy, high interest rates and inflation. While the inflation rate in Canada has been consistently lower than for our economic peers, that is cold comfort to Canadians who feel the impact on their pocketbook every single day. It is important that we address these challenges. Fortunately, our budget provides a direct response.

It delivers billions of dollars to the public health care system, a prudent investment after coming through the most significant health care crisis we have faced in over 100 years. We go even further by investing in dental care for millions of Canadians, a measure that has already benefited over 250,000 children under the age of 12.

The budget provides important investments to build Canada's clean economy, creating even more good jobs for the middle class while ushering in a new era of economic prosperity for Canadians. In the future, when nations around the world look for new technology to help combat climate change, they will be able to turn to Canada.

The budget offers a responsible fiscal plan that will allow Canada to preserve the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. This means that our country enjoys not only the strongest economic growth, but the strongest balance sheet in the G7, which is why we have retained our AAA credit rating. This allows us to provide new, targeted relief from inflation for those Canadians who need it the most.

I would like to pause here and share my thanks to all members of this House, who unanimously supported the Canada grocery benefit and the immediate $2-billion health transfer, which will help provinces and territories deliver the health services that Canadians deserve. Despite partisan differences, which too often make the highlight reel on the Internet or in the media, I am still encouraged and heartened by the fact that we can find ways to come together in this place and support Canadians when they need it the most.

Having said that, I would like to highlight measures in the budget implementation act that would make life more affordable for Canadians.

In Canada, inflation is coming down. It has actually declined for nine months in a row. It is currently at 4.3%, and the Bank of Canada predicts it will drop to 2.5% by the end of the year. While it is lower than inflation seen in the United States, Europe and other parts of the world, we all know that it is still too high, and it is still making it difficult for many Canadians to make ends meet and put food on the table. That is why budget 2023 announced new, targeted inflation relief for the most vulnerable Canadians, to help support them with the cost of living.

The grocery rebate will help and provide support to 11 million Canadians and families, and it will also provide hundreds of dollars to over 50% of Canadian seniors.

In addition, we are helping the nearly 500,000 students who withdraw funds from their RESP by increasing withdrawal limits from $5,000 to $8,000 for full-time students.

We are helping workers by ensuring that tradespeople get the equipment they need, by doubling the allowable employment deduction for tools. These individuals are critical for building Canada's clean economy and supporting our plan to double the number of new homes built in Canada by 2032.

We are cracking down on predatory lending by proposing to lower the criminal interest rate from 47% to 35%, and we are imposing a cap on charges for payday loans.

Workers will also benefit from automatic advance payments of the Canada workers benefit. This will provide up to an additional $2,461 for a family to help cope with the rising cost of living.

In addition, we are increasing the amount Canadians can earn before paying a penny of federal income taxes to $15,000. Since we have formed government, that is $3,673 more that people can earn tax-free.

Combined with our previous programs, such as child care, the Canada child benefit, student grants and increased investments in retirement security, we are making sure Canadians have the resources they need to cope with global inflation.

We are also committed to helping the provinces and territories achieve better health outcomes for Canadians. The $2-billion Canada health transfer, which was delivered this week, will help deliver the high-quality, timely health care services that Canadians deserve. This funding will reduce backlogs and wait times for surgeries and will improve service levels in emergency rooms and pediatric hospitals. This funding builds on the $6.5-billion one-time Canada health transfer top-ups that the Government of Canada has provided throughout the pandemic, as well as the $196 billion we have committed over the next 10 years. This includes a guaranteed increase to the Canada health transfer of at least 5% for the next five years. With improved data and transparency and more financial resources, we are confident that premiers will have the tools they need to deliver the health care services that Canadians expect.

The other major investment that Canadians expect is in Canada's plan to grow our clean economy while creating high-paying and sustainable jobs. Budget 2023 builds on over $100 billion of investments in the environment and fighting climate change to position Canada as a global leader. We are well positioned to meet our emissions targets while creating the net-zero technologies the world will demand. We are doing this through the Canada growth fund, through the Canada innovation corporation, and by incentivizing investment in Canada's net-zero economy. These investments will create thousands of high-paying, sustainable jobs from coast to coast to coast while protecting our environment and fighting climate change at the same time.

We also need to fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities. We are proposing to expand the mandate of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to include oversight of federally regulated financial institutions to determine if adequate policies and procedures are in place to protect them from threats to their integrity and security, including from foreign interference. This will include new compliance and intervention tools available to the superintendent and to the Minister of Finance, underpinned by strong safeguards. The bill would also improve the sharing of compliance information between FINTRAC, OSFI and the Minister of Finance. Collectively, these measures will provide oversight to the financial sector and support a healthy and stable Canadian economy.

Speaking of stability, this is probably an appropriate time to outline how budget 2023 would also continue to support the people of Ukraine as they fight for their sovereignty, their democracy and democracy right around the world. This includes a $2.4-billion loan to the Government of Ukraine to support essential services, which brings Canada's commitment to over $8 billion to date.

The BIA would amend the customs tariff to extend the withdrawal of the most favoured nation preferential tariff from Russia and Belarus indefinitely. This means that the 35% general tariff will apply, placing them in the same category as North Korea. In addition, the budget implementation act would strengthen Canada's ability to pursue the assets of those who have enabled Russia's illegal war, and help to finance Ukrainian reconstruction.

Budget 2023 is our government's plan to build a stronger, more sustainable and more secure Canadian economy that works for everyone. The budget implementation act is a foundational piece of this plan, from delivering new, targeted inflation relief for Canadians to helping with higher prices at the checkout counter, building our clean economy and creating good jobs. At a challenging time, in a challenging world, these are important investments to secure a bright future for Canadians and ensure that there remains no better place to be in the world than in Canada.

I implore all hon. members and all Canadians watching this at home to support the speedy passage of this bill so that we can get it working for Canadians as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary, with whom I have the pleasure and privilege of working on the Standing Committee on Finance.

The Bloc Québécois was very concerned about one aspect of the most recent budget, and that is the employment insurance fund. We saw that the government was choosing to make contributors, workers and unemployed workers pay off the pandemic-related deficits. We are talking about $15 billion, in addition to $2 billion from last year.

We can see from the budget implementation bill introduced yesterday that the government is electing not to do anything about that and to make workers and unemployed workers pay by taking a total of $17 billion out of their pockets for an insurance plan that does not work.

How does my hon. colleague justify that decision?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, and I also appreciate my colleague opposite. I would like to tell his constituents that we had a very elongated technical briefing on the BIA and he was the most active member in making sure he understood the over 400 pages that are involved in the act.

When it comes to employment insurance, I think it is really important that all of us support this institution, which was so helpful over the course of the pandemic and continues to be helpful. We have taken care to make sure we are addressing some of the concerns with respect to EI in the BIA, in this document, but I would note that we have also extended employment insurance and some of the benefits that we had during the course of the pandemic through to 2024. At the same time, we are providing better services at a lower rate than when the Leader of the Opposition was in charge of the file.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows, as a former municipal councillor himself, just as I am a former municipal councillor for Tofino, that municipalities shoulder a large majority of services and costs. However, they only collect 8% of the overall tax revenue.

The government just made a retroactive agreement with the RCMP to ensure that they get paid more. We know that our frontline law enforcement deserves to be paid more, and they deserve better training, especially de-escalation training. We also need to ensure they get supports when they are injured, especially with PTSD.

However, the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities just met in the member's former hometown of Nanaimo. They were unanimous that the federal government needs to support local governments after the downloading of this retroactive funding. Unlike federal and provincial governments, which can run deficits, municipal governments have to run a balanced budget.

Will the federal government get back to the table with FCM and local governments to make sure they are not eating the costs of a deal they negotiated without consulting local governments?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, I have been to his riding, and I am originally from Vancouver Island. When I was elected to city council, it was on Vancouver Island.

I have had a couple of opportunities to interact with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. I was recently at a housing summit, just a number of weeks ago. In fact, this week, on Monday, I was at an announcement with the president of the UBCM, which announced $103 million of new federal infrastructure money, which is going to over 45 different communities throughout the province.

The message is that the federal government is here to support municipal governments. In fact, looking at our investments since 2015, we have made historic and unprecedented investments that have directly benefited our municipalities.

Obviously the policing arrangements that the member opposite is referring to are negotiated by the federal government, and the cost is burdened by municipalities. I have had an opportunity to meet with police officers, both in my riding of Burnaby, as well as the District of North Vancouver. We always take their concerns very seriously.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the budget implementation act. This is a challenging time in a challenging world. With every challenge comes an opportunity. It is in this context that I speak to this budget implementation act.

There are two main things in this budget for me. The first is that we would ensure that Canadians can continue to count on us to be there with our continued support to all vulnerable Canadians. The second is that we would also meet the challenges of today and tomorrow while building a Canada that is more secure and more sustainable, and ensuring that the prosperity we enjoy today will be available to future generations too.

Let us start with the challenging times. We all know that the pandemic hit not only Canada but also all the countries across the world. With the co-operation of Canadians, we managed to contain the pandemic to the best extent possible. We are one of the best countries in the world to have managed the pandemic this well.

The economy got hit, and 8.9 million working Canadians lost their jobs. We came out in support of them. We also supported more than half a million small businesses through the wage subsidy scheme and the small business account. As well, we managed through the pandemic with relatively fewer deaths compared to many other countries in the world.

Then came the war, the illegal invasion of Russia on Ukraine. This created a problem in the energy crisis across the world. It also gave rise to the rising crisis of food grains. We also had the problem of the supply chain issue due to the pandemic. There are a lot of shortages because the supply chains were disrupted across the world. We also realized the importance of self-reliance in that time, when critical goods were not being produced and were not available at the right time to all those who needed them.

Due to all of this, we faced inflation, which peaked to 8.1% in September 2022. However, during the last nine months, we have seen the inflation rate going down. Currently, it stands at around 4.3%. With all of this, we can still say that Canada has done relatively well. In fact, among G7 countries, we have the best economic growth. We have recovered 865,000 jobs more than there were before the pandemic.

These challenging times are also in globalization. Globalization, as we knew it for several decades, is on the way down. The multilateral agencies, such as WTO, on which international order-based trade depends, are also facing their own problems. With all the vacancies at the appellate body at WTO, it cannot even operate today due to non-cooperation by some key member states.

We are seeing that, the more bilateral free trade agreements taking place, free trade agreements among certain blocks taking place and the concept of friendshoring is coming in. While these are challenges, they also provide opportunities for Canada. I will come to that a bit later.

We also had the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States, our biggest trading partner, which was a game-changer. This Inflation Reduction Act, combined with the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act, is close to one trillion dollars in legislation. They have rewritten the rules of industrial policy and industrial development in the United States.

The Inflation Reduction Act did affect many of the trading partners of the United States, but Canada was able to manage the bulk of it through effort brought by different levels of the government and the industrial bodies. Before the IRA became legislation, we were able to ensure that all North American manufactured vehicles are included in the incentives and subsidies proposed in that IRA.

At the international trade committee, when we were discussing the effects of the IRA on Canada, one trade union leader very aptly said that we cannot respond with every dollar to dollar to IRA, but we can respond smartly. That is what Canada has done, and that is what Canada would also be doing with this budget.

Canada is prosperous, and has been prosperous for a long time, due to our natural resources, such as oil, gas, minerals, metals and forestry products, and due to the hard work of several generations of Canadians, but the world is changing. The world is moving more toward a knowledge-based economy.

This knowledge-based economy makes a flat world out there. Canadians, especially the younger generation of Canadians, today face competition from all across the world, whether from Sydney, Australia; Tokyo, Japan; Shanghai, China; Mumbai, India; Frankfurt, Germany; or any other place. We all are facing the same competition in this digital world.

Even in this digital economy, we have invested. In last year's budget we came out with an investment of over $1.2 billion in artificial intelligence, quantum computing and other advanced technologies. In this budget, we have committed $1.2 billion for space technology. If possible, I will touch on that a little later.

The other key thing is that the world is moving toward a clean economy. Between now and 2050, it is projected that about $100 trillion of private capital will be invested across the world in building the global clean economy, and that is where the opportunity lies for Canada. We have the opportunity to be a supplier of critical minerals and the entire supply chain. In the transition toward electrical vehicle industries, Canada can play a major role.

We are already seeing investments announced by major auto manufacturers in Canada. I believe even today there is going to be a very major announcement on battery manufacturing in Canada. We have seen the battery recycling plants coming up in Canada, and already Canada is projected to be one of the leaders for the supply of critical minerals required for this entire ecosystem. We need to see the processing of critical minerals also take place in Canada today.

We have a lot of opportunities on that front. However, we have a small issue with the new mines coming up to mine the critical minerals. There is a long regulatory process that is involved in that. For that, the federal government has come out with agreements with various provinces. For example, we have signed an agreement with the Province of Ontario where we can work together to align ourselves on the timelines, on the resources and on the regulatory approval process so we can deliver quicker, faster approvals, which are required to get the minerals from the ground for battery manufacturing.

As I mentioned, we would invest $1.9 billion in Canada's space agencies. This funding would support the development of new technologies and capabilities, including space robotics and exploration missions, as well as support for Canadian companies involved in the space industry.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what does the hon. member have to say to his constituents who, like mine, are struggling with high interest rates and mortgage rates?

Those who are renewing their five-year mortgages, or those who are on variable mortgages, are very much feeling the gut punch of the interest rate increases, which are the result of inflationary spending and the deficits of his government. These would not be abated in any way by the budget. This is ravaging household budgets, and when the mortgage costs and rents have doubled, that is having a huge impact on household budgets.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, inflation is the result of many things that are outside the control of government and indeed Canada. The pandemic, the illegal Russian war on Ukraine, the supply shortages, the pent-up demand, and the governments across the world investing, including Canada investing in Canadians, all resulted in inflation. It was quite high. It affected my constituents, and indeed all Canadians.

Inflation rose to 8.1% in September 2022, but during the last nine months, it has trended downwards. It is now at 4.3%. The interest rates introduced by the Bank of Canada to combat inflation have already started taking effect, and the Bank of Canada expects the inflation rate to go down to 3% soon. Hopefully, this will happen in the next 12 to 24 months; this would provide relief to all Canadians, including the hon. member's constituents and my own.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the budget implementation bill. The fiscal measures announced in the budget are implemented in part in this massive bill, Bill C-47.

Towards the end of this budget bill, they go completely off topic and decide to refer to Charles III as the King of Canada. Division 31 states the following:

The Parliament of Canada assents to the issue by His Majesty of His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles: Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

Does my colleague think it makes sense to include this in a budget implementation bill? Should we not vote on it separately instead?

For that matter, do we even need this kind of thing in 2023?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a budget implementation act covers many things that are required immediately. Some of the things that the hon. member mentioned need to be considered and voted upon in the current budget implementation act.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I just came from Kinngait, a small community of about 1,000 people. That community just suffered a rash of four suicides in a very short amount of time. At the same time, the budget proposes almost $1 billion to persuade indigenous peoples to engage in environmental assessment processes, which the member spoke briefly about.

Indigenous peoples are not getting the benefits they deserve for the resources from their lands that are being exploited. Is the Liberal government saying that it will continue to suppress and oppress indigenous peoples and continue to profit from their lands off indigenous peoples' backs?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to hear about the number of suicides in this small community.

The track record of our government during the last seven and a half years shows how closely we work with the indigenous community. We have involved, consulted and worked with them for the benefit of the entire indigenous community. We have worked to provide them with all the assistance that is required to not only improve their health but also tackle the economic development that is very badly needed.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House, I will be splitting my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing the intervention of the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

My comments today lead off the comments of His Majesty's loyal opposition on Bill C-47. That is the Liberals' budget implementation bill. The question before us is whether anything in this budget bill will actually be true when we look at the promises of the Liberals compared with the results.

I want to put the record spending in this budget plan into some historical context. I know the Liberals are a little challenged on math sometimes, so please bear with me. I hope they can follow it.

In the federal election of 1968, Pierre Trudeau reassured Canadians that a Liberal government would not raise taxes or increase spending. During the election, he said that the government was not Santa Claus. How did that work out? When Pierre Trudeau became prime minister, real government spending increased from 17% of the GDP to 24.3%. In other words, the federal government's share of the economy rose 42% under Pierre Trudeau. Every single area of federal government spending increased, except defence spending, where Pierre Trudeau cut spending in half as a percentage of the budget. When Pierre Trudeau took office, we spent more on national defence than we did on servicing the country's debt. When he left office in 1984, for every dollar the government spent on defence, we spent $3 on paying the interest on his national debt.

Let us look at this another way. The deficit Pierre Trudeau ran in his last year of office was 8.3% of the GDP. Based on Canada's GDP in 2022, Pierre Trudeau's 8.3% of GDP deficit would be like an annual deficit of $157 billion today. His record was to drive Canada's debt from $262 billion when he became prime minister to $700 billion when he left office. Pierre Trudeau added $438 billion to Canada's debt, almost tripling it. This was from a Liberal leader who said he would not run deficits when he was first elected in 1968 and that the government was no Santa Claus.

I raise this because, as the adage goes, like father like son. By the time Pierre Trudeau left office in 1984, 38¢ of every dollar that the federal government spent was to pay interest on the debt that he had built up. His policies of massive spending led to a rapid rise in interest rates to try to reduce inflation. All that government spending simply made it worse. Interest rates rose to 21%.

Like his father, the current Liberal leader promised Canadians in his first election in 2015 that, even though Canada was running a robust growing economy and had a balanced budget left by the Harper government, he would run modest stimulus deficits. However, in 2019, it would be balanced. The platform that the Liberals all stood on in 2015 said: “We will run modest deficits for three years so that we can invest in growth for the middle class and credibly offer a plan to balance the budget in 2019” and “we will...reduce the federal debt-to-GDP ratio to 27 percent”.

Did he have a balanced budget in 2019, as he promised and as his father also promised in his first term? No, he did not: like father like son. The Liberals produced a $20-billion deficit in 2019. Promises were made, and promises were broken.

Did the Liberals reduce their first fiscal anchor of 27% of the GDP? No, they did not. It was 31% in 2019, so another promise was made and broken.

In the new Liberal budget after 2019, there was no longer talk of a balanced budget. The debt-to-GDP ratio was the new fiscal anchor. It would remain the same during the four years of that fiscal plan, even though that meant they would be spending more. We know that at least the promise to spend more and not to balance the budget was true.

We then had an early and unnecessary election in 2021. What did the Liberal platform say then about promises for the country's finances? There was no talk of balanced budgets until perhaps 2050, but the Liberals did promise to drop the debt-to-GDP ratio from 48.5% in 2021-22. We should remember that in 2019, their campaign promise said that, in 2022, the debt-to-GDP ratio would be 31%, not 48%.

What does the bill project for this year? The budget set the cumulative spending for the next five years at a record $3.1 trillion. We should remember that, in the fall, they promised that the budget would be balanced. However, if these numbers are to be believed, and if they did not add more spending in the rest of their term, they would add another $130 billion to the national debt. The national debt would rise to a record $1.3 trillion. The Liberals project that interest on the national debt would rise from $44 billion a year to $50 billion a year in five years. This is if we can believe the interest rate projections in this budget. That $50 billion in interest is $10 billion more than we spend on national defence.

The budget includes $84 billion in new tax credits for businesses over the next five years. The Liberals project that inflation will be 3.5% in 2023 and roughly 2.1% thereafter. For this to happen, inflation would need to drop from 5.5% now to 2% in July and stay there for the next five years. This is not likely. The $3.1 trillion in spending, with massive deficits, would pour gasoline on the inflation fire. Therefore, these projected inflation rates are ridiculous.

In the last year of the Conservative government, federal government spending was $280 billion, with a $1.9-billion surplus. This year, the budget projects $456 billion in spending. That is up $176 billion, or 63%, since the Liberals took office. The fiscal framework projects the government spending to be $543 billion. This is if there is no further spending in the rest of their term. That is $263 billion more than in 2015, representing a 94% increase in spending. The increase alone is almost as much as the entire 2015 budget. Taxes have risen by $282 billion since 2015. We know it is not a revenue problem, because revenue has gone up by 92%.

At the end of the bill's plan, Pierre Trudeau and the son, the current Liberal leader, will have contributed $1.1 trillion to Canada's national debt. Pierre Trudeau always spent more than he promised. After eight years of the Liberals, the son has done the same. Promises were made, and promises were broken. Canadians simply cannot afford any more Trudeaus.

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

Mr. Speaker, history is an interesting teacher for us.

I want to point out to the hon. member that when Brian Mulroney took over as prime minister, the national debt was $200 billion. By the time he left, it was $514 billion, and that was without a pandemic. That was without an invasion of Ukraine. It seems that the Conservatives are following the same pattern of loving money more than people, looking at the price of everything but the value of nothing.

Where is the factoring in of the pandemic? Our inflation rate is coming down to pretty low levels compared with the rest of the world. However, where is the factoring in of the difficulties with supply chains and the external influences on our inflation rate?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Mulroney government produced an operating surplus by the second year of its mandate and an operating surplus every year after that. Every prime minister since Pierre Trudeau ran an operating surplus, except for the current Prime Minister.

In terms of pandemics, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that over half the spending done in the pandemic had absolutely nothing to do with the pandemic itself. That is the fiscal irresponsibility of Liberals.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a mammoth bill. It is over 400 pages long, amends 59 statutes, in addition to amending the Income Tax Regulations, and contains 39 divisions. When he was elected in 2015, the Prime Minister pledged that he would not allow this kind of thing to happen. Almost eight years later, he is doing it again for the umpteenth time. What does my hon. colleague think of this?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is another promise made and broken. The Liberals were never going to do omnibus bills, but every single budget bill they have had has amended acts of Parliament that had nothing to do with the budget. They have done it yet again. Canadians have come to expect they cannot trust anything the Liberal government says, whether it is on the finances or how it is going to operate Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that I appreciate working alongside the member on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I thank him for speaking about campaign promises. I was reflecting, as a fellow member on the fisheries committee, about the campaign promises of the Conservatives, and I am wondering if the member could clarify something.

The Conservatives campaigned on getting open-net fish farms out of the water, yet I am hearing very different discussions happening today. I am wondering if the member can clarify what the Conservative stance is currently on the importance of getting open-net fish farms out of the water. Furthermore, what are his thoughts on the fact that the current budget does not have a commitment to support all those impacted through this very necessary transition?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy sitting on the fisheries committee with the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, as well as her thoughtful interventions during the fisheries committee work we do together.

From our perspective, what we do is respect provincial responsibility first of all. Open net-pen farms or aquaculture in Atlantic Canada is a provincial responsibility in licensing. In British Columbia, it is a federal responsibility. The government has lost several cases in the B.C. courts over its handling of it. It committed to consulting with the industry, which it did not do. The fisheries minister previous to this one, whom I happen to have defeated, also promised, when she made the decision to remove the Discovery Islands fisheries, that there would be transition programs for the industry and the employees, and now the current government, of course, is silent on those promises.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you a secret that I am sure you will keep to yourself. I went into politics because I care about keeping the public finances in respectable shape. I am a member of the opposition and, to put it mildly, I have had my work cut out for me when it comes to opposing the government's management of public funds, which has been anything but sound.

I will give a few examples. The debt-to-GDP ratio was already very high at 42.4%. Because of this government's inflationary measures, which are costing all Canadians dearly, the debt-to-GDP ratio, which was 42.4% last year, has now reached 43.5%. The Liberals will surely say that that is not a lot and that it is normal, but we need to be careful. Let us remember what the Minister of Finance herself said in her budget statement in the House in November, just six short months ago. I would remind members that the debt-to-GDP ratio increased from 42.4% to 43.5% this year.

Nevertheless, just six months ago, the finance minister said, and I quote, “let me be very clear. We are absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline and our deficits must continue to be reduced.” I will talk about that shortly.

She also said, “The pandemic debt we incurred to keep Canadians safe must [and will] be paid down. This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we will not cross. It will ensure that our finances remain sustainable.”

Her words are almost lyrical. They are words that I, for one, would have spoken with honour and dignity. However, the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, who is second in command in this government and a contender for the top job, as everyone knows, said one thing and did exactly the opposite when the budget was tabled two weeks ago. That is what we are seeing with every number and every word in this omnibus bill that we are debating today.

The promise on the debt-to-GDP ratio has not been kept, and the debt-to-GDP ratio has gone up. The finance minister was so proud about a balanced budget at the economic update. She boasted that the budget would be balanced in five years and that there would even be a $4.5‑billion surplus. That is hogwash, because exactly the opposite is happening. This year, the deficit is more than $40 billion, which is completely unacceptable.

I would remind the House that those folks over there got elected in 2015, eight years ago, on what was admittedly a bold promise. They promised a shift to the left, and they have definitely delivered on that. They promised that if a Liberal government was elected, it would run small, strategic deficits for three years and return to a balanced budget in the fourth year. What happened was the exact opposite. The Liberals have run huge deficits over and over again, and the budget is far from balanced.

Balanced budgets are important. We cannot spend our lives, as individuals and families, perpetually living on credit. Sooner or later, we have to pay off our debts. If we do not pay now, we will have to pay eventually, or our children will be left to pay the price. A deficit leads to a debt, which leads to a bill that we pass on to our children and grandchildren, who will have to pay the price because we are living beyond our means today. Canada's debt is now $1,220,000,000,000. That is a lot of zeros. That is fitting, since there are a lot of zeros on that side of the House. Seriously though, Canada's debt is $1.220 trillion, which works out to $81,000 per family.

Every family now has $80,000 in debt that will be passed on to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, who have not even been born yet but who will have to pay it off. Today, we are spending $43.9 billion to service the debt compared to last year, when it was half that, $24.5 billion. That is a huge amount. It is double the budget of the Department of National Defence. I will repeat, this is money being sent to banking institutions to pay for past spending, not for any direct services to Canadians.

It is irresponsible to live beyond our means. Is it any surprise that this is happening, when we know that the leader of this government once said that deficits balance themselves? As far as I can tell, he is the only person on the planet in a position of authority who has made such a silly comment. Deficits do not in fact balance themselves.

The government's money does not grow on trees. The government has no money. The government gets its money from Canadian workers. That is something we must never forget.

Now, about taxes, we know that the carbon tax is going up. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed, this directly affects all families. It costs them more than they get back from the government. The PBO says it could cost the average family between $402 and $847 more.

The Prime Minister and the minister boasted that they had listened to the Liberal caucus, that they had listened to members speaking out on behalf of their constituents. Guess why? They wanted to make sure that the tax hike on alcohol would not be too high. I am not going to judge them for not wanting to raise taxes on alcohol too much. They are within their rights. I just wish these members would show the same concern over the debt, the deficits and the bills we are leaving to our children and great-grandchildren.

We also see this government announcing income tax hikes. The increase amounts to $305 for workers earning an average of $66,000. The Canada pension plan will cost them an additional $255. Employment insurance will cost them another $50.

When we look at the key elements affecting all Canadian families, be it taxes, the deficits or the debt, and we look at the overall numbers, such as the debt-to-GDP ratio, we see that this government has failed to do its duty to ensure responsible government. These people have never had a balanced budget. They have never paid attention to public spending. On the contrary, they continued to spend recklessly.

I want to share an anecdote. There is a section on Facebook called “Memories”. We can open it to see our memories. Facebook then shows us what we did last week or in previous years. This is the time of the year we debate the budget, so, every day, Facebook reminds me of the speeches I made or the questions I asked. The hallmark of this government is that it has no control over spending, it has no idea when it will return to a balanced budget and it always spends without restraint. However, when the Liberals were elected in 2015, they said that they would balance the budget by 2019. They did not do that. Six months ago, the minister projected a return to a balanced budget in five years. That is not happening.

Earlier, my colleague gave a history lesson about the 15th Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau, father of the current Prime Minister. I want to talk about what happened next. In 1972, the Liberals won a minority government under Pierre Trudeau. The Liberals struck a deal with the NDP to keep them afloat for a while. This arrangement lasted until 1974. All of a sudden, a measure was rejected, leading to an election. When the election was triggered, the Liberals said they would not introduce price and wage controls to bring down inflation. After being elected on July 8, 1974, however, they did just that a year later. As my colleague said earlier, like father, like son. They say one thing and do another.

In closing, I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C‑47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, since the bill fails to end inflationary deficits, high taxes, and the war on work, measures that would allow Canadians to bring home powerful paycheques, lower prices, and affordable homes.”.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The amendment is in order.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, I have a great deal of respect for him.

Last month, here in the House, he said, “Our party's objective is not to take money away from the CBC”. However, his leader was quite clear about his contempt for our public broadcaster, even going so far as to beg Elon Musk to ridicule CBC/Radio-Canada.

Will the member opposite from Quebec, who was a Radio-Canada journalist himself, continue to support his leader, who wants to cut funding to CBC/Radio-Canada?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we have heard many contradictory statements that are not true. Let us remember that our plan calls for budget cuts to CBC but not to Radio-Canada.

The member's intervention gives me the opportunity to clarify the misinformation floating around in the last few days. The Conservative Party's goal is not to cut funding to Radio-Canada, which provides French programming across the country, but rather to take a completely different approach with CBC, which has a 4% audience share, whereas Radio-Canada has 25%.

That is not new. Need I remind members that the father of the Prime Minister wanted to literally shut down both CBC and Radio-Canada? Let us remember that, 20 years ago, Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien orchestrated the biggest budget cuts in the history of Radio-Canada, to the tune of $600 million. That is the Liberal Party's signature.

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

Mr. Speaker, my regards to my hon. colleague for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent. I thank him for his speech. We might not always share the same values, but he always has something interesting to say during our debates in the House.

I want to ask him about something that is unclear to me, to see if he feels the same way. In her budget, the Minister of Finance announced funding of $80 billion for the economic transition, as it is called. A lot of upcoming tax credits are absent from the bill. No money for investments, subsidies or support is directly announced, but the infrastructure development is there. From the way things are presented, it appears as though the money earmarked for this will not be part of the budget framework and will be managed separately, outside government accounts. That means there will no longer be accountability to the House.

What does my hon. colleague think of that?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to echo my colleague's remarks about me, I could say exactly the same thing about him and all of his hard work in the House of Commons.

On the substance of the issue, specifically, the Liberal approach and the fact that the $80-billion investment in tax credits for new measures will be without any parliamentary oversight, that is unacceptable.

I would remind members that our leader has always said that to have a green economy, we need to give the green light to green projects and encourage them by focusing on positive tax measures rather than making Canada a place where, unfortunately, when people invest, they face a lot of cuts. This is especially true when it comes to setting wages. Canadians pay too much in taxes, and this discourages investment.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the great concerns my constituents have right now is the growing concern of what is happening in our climate. They are seeing changes in their region that they have never seen before. They have been very clear that, when we step forward to address climate change, they want local responses, and they want to make sure good jobs are attached to that.

Of course, the NDP forced the government to make sure that, in its clean energy economy tax credits, there would actually be a tie to companies that pay better wages and have better working conditions. I am just wondering if the member is against this, as well as the other things that are in the budget.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, responding to environmental challenges is important to us. Climate change is a reality. That is why we are committed to giving the green light to green projects, precisely to accelerate access to green energy for Canadians and to cut red tape when it comes to developing lithium mines, for example. Lithium is needed for the electrification of transportation.

We know that there is lithium in Quebec and in several regions of Canada, but unfortunately, it takes a long time to make these investments. We want to give the green light to green projects to ensure that more Canadians have access to green energy.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C‑47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C‑47, the 2023 budget implementation bill.

This Wednesday, the House unanimously passed Bill C‑46, which does two things. It doubles the amount of the July GST cheque, called the grocery rebate, even if there is no GST on groceries, and it unconditionally transfers $2 billion to the provinces for health.

When the government introduced Bill C‑46, my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I wondered why the government was doing that. The GST credit is issued in July. Introducing the bill on Wednesday and quickly passing it will not speed anything up. The same is true for the health transfers. We know that Ottawa is not providing sufficient funding for health care. The bill included $2 billion, and it was fast-tracked. That is fine, but we did not understand why the government did that. We figured that it was probably trying to set a trap for the Conservative Party.

However, on seeing Bill C‑47, I was thrilled. We were thrilled. We understood why the government presented Bill C‑46 on Wednesday, with its $2 billion for health and $2 billion for the special GST credit payment. Essentially, Bill C‑47 duplicated this. The government tabled Bill C‑46 and we passed it, thinking that the government would delete the corresponding amounts from Bill C‑47, the budget implementation act, but it did not.

This approach is unprecedented and historic. When it tabled the bill, the government announced it had good news. It told us it wanted to do a little extra for health. It announced $2 billion on Wednesday, and then $2 billion in Bill C‑47, given that it did not remove the clause that had been passed in Bill C‑46. The same thing goes for the GST credit, a payment totalling $2.5 billion. Bill C‑47 contains another payment totalling $2.5 billion.

I was therefore extremely surprised and pleased to see that those measures are back in Bill C-47, which is before us today. The government did not remove them from the omnibus bill, despite the fact that Bill C-46 was passed earlier this week. With Bill C-47, the provinces will therefore receive $4 billion rather than the announced $2 billion and the less fortunate will receive a second cheque, ostensibly for groceries.

We are taking this on good faith. We are assuming that the government did not make a mistake here, that it is really saying that the less fortunate should receive a second cheque to help them deal with inflation and that the $2 billion for health care is to be doubled because so little funding has been provided for that. I commend the government's approach on that. I cannot presume that this is a mistake, even if it is completely unprecedented. There was no press release or communication from the government to announce this good news. It was really after we had passed Bill C-46 that we saw the text of Bill C-47 and realized that the government had doubled these two support measures. We are really delighted about that.

Of course, given the needs in health care, the government is not doing enough. The $2 billion is not enough. The agreements reached with the provinces do not meet the needs. In early 2015, the federal government was funding 24% of health care spending even though it should have been funding 50%. We have learned that the government will still be funding 24% of health care spending 10 years from now. That is not enough.

This speaks to the question of the fiscal imbalance. While the federal government continues failing to carry out its role, despite the additional $2 billion, it is buying up jurisdictions. I would remind members that dental care is a health care issue, which is a provincial jurisdiction. As I was saying, this speaks to the fiscal imbalance. Why is the government not adequately funding provincial health care systems and buying up areas of jurisdiction by creating a new health care program?

That is unacceptable, and we will continue to demand that the government carry out its role in health care and that it respect jurisdictions.

As everyone here knows, the political system that was adopted in 1867 was a federation. Although Sir John A. McDonald wanted a legislative union with an all-powerful Ottawa, the compromise was a federation where each level of government would be equally sovereign, with its own areas of jurisdiction. With this government, which is underfunding health care and always trying to buy jurisdictions, we are left with a legislative union. This is not the spirit of the federation. Instead, it is predatory federalism, as a former Liberal health minister in the Quebec government once said.

Let us talk about the dental care program. We expected to see the new dental care program that had been announced in the budget in Bill C-47. Instead, the program that was announced last fall is being retained, but union members are being told that they will not have access to it. Bill C-47, which is before us today, issues directives concerning dental care. People who have group insurance are being told that, because they are unionized, they will never have access to this coverage, that they are not eligible for the program. This sends a clear message to unions and union members. That is what is new about dental insurance in Bill C-47.

This is a mammoth bill of over 400 pages, and it amends 59 statutes in addition to the Income Tax Regulations. It is huge and affects so many different sectors. I will come back to that shortly.

Normally, a budget implementation bill is supposed to implement the budget so as to put in place measures that were announced. However, something quite surprising was hidden near the end of the bill, and it is not a budgetary measure. I am referring to division 31, on royal titles. I will read an excerpt. Here is what it is written in the budget implementation bill:

The Parliament of Canada assents to the issue by His Majesty of His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Styles and Titles:

Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

What does that have to do with the budget? This is not the right place to do that. What does that kind of language have to do with democracy in 2023? I wonder. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois does not share that approach. Why hide it at the end of a budget implementation bill?

The Speaker often reminds us never to disrespect His Royal Majesty, by the grace of God. Is slipping this clause in at the end of the budget implementation bill not tantamount to disrespecting His Royal Majesty, Charles III? I am just wondering. Obviously, in light of past decisions and the procedures of the House, I understand that I cannot ask the Speaker to remove this clause. The request would have to come from the government, and obviously, I implore the government to make it.

I have more to say about the monarchy. Right now, as soon as the government makes an appointment by order in council, which it certainly seems to be doing here, parliamentarians can call the appointee to appear before a parliamentary committee in order to examine that person's qualifications. Given that Bill C‑47 proclaims “Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth”, what could be more appropriate than to call him to appear so we can examine his qualifications before finalizing his appointment?

That is a question that needs to be asked, and I am asking it here. In my opinion, division 31 on the monarchy does not belong in this budget implementation bill.

In the budget, there is an important division on the allocation of $80 billion in funding over 10 years for the green economy. We expected to see details on how the tax credits, the refundable credits, would work, but there is nothing in there about that. It is our understanding that this should involve negotiations with the interested parties. However, Bill C-47 gives us an idea of how the government intends to manage those amounts, and it is very worrisome. Through a legislative amendment, the government is creating two institutions that will be responsible for administering the amounts it plans to invest. This money will be removed from parliamentary oversight. Unelected officials will be responsible for selecting the projects that receive support but will not be accountable to anyone. There are no clear criteria.

Is that a good approach? Is it a good idea to give billions of dollars in taxpayers' money to people who are not accountable to anyone? Does that not just open the door to the arbitrary granting of subsidies based on ties with these anonymous decision-makers and the political stripes of the proponent?

Those are questions that I have.

Parliament wants accountability. Members are here to represent the people. When the government decides to use the resources it collects from the people, even if it is to invest in the transition, there needs to be accountability. That accountability is owed to the House and to the committees that report to the House. The approach set out in Bill C-47 will not provide for that accountability. There will be no accountability, and we find that very concerning.

For years, we have been asking that the government stop subsidizing oil companies. Will this money make that happen? That worries us. Think of all the subsidies that go to the nuclear industry. Is Canada's nuclear industry an example of green energy? I think not. Is that what the small modular nuclear reactors are going to do? There is also carbon capture, and so on. These are the questions we have, and we have not gotten any answers. In committee, I questioned the Department of Finance and they said they would tell us how the money would be spent. After two or three reminders, we are still waiting for answers. It is very worrisome.

Today is Earth Day. Bill C‑47 contains very little on environmental protection. It includes an amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that will encourage oil companies to take their time tackling climate change. At present, the carbon tax paid by major emitters is available to fund green projects in the province where it was collected. If oil companies do not propose any green projects, they lose this money at the end of the year. This approach encourages them to move quickly.

However, Bill C‑47 encourages them to take their time. If the bill passes, the money will be set aside for future use. The government is ensuring that oil companies will not lose any money if they do nothing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. We know that municipalities lose their infrastructure funds if they do not complete their projects by the end of the year. However, oil companies lose nothing if they do nothing. Is this double standard acceptable? I obviously believe it is not. The answer here is clear.

Still on the subject of transition funding, today we learned that Volkswagen is going to get $13 billion to build a plant in Ontario. The Conservatives were right to ask how much each job created would cost. We know that a transition is needed, but we are wondering why the green economy and batteries are going to Ontario. We thought Quebec was at the forefront given the subsidies and the entire ecosystem we have in place. Why did this project not go to Quebec? Why is Quebec not getting its share? We have questions for this government.

The infrastructure put in place does not allow for accountability, and that is unacceptable. Another unacceptable aspect has to do with EI. As we know, the Employment Insurance Act requires that the EI fund not run a surplus or deficit on average over seven years. Since it ran a huge deficit during the pandemic, it must run a huge surplus every year in the years to come.

Last year, the government grabbed nearly $2 billion that belonged to employers and workers. We are talking about unionized workers. The same thing happened again this year, and the budget calls for another $13 billion to be taken away by 2030. Barring an amendment to the Employment Insurance Act to shift the pandemic deficit to the consolidated fund, we are talking about $17 billion that the government intends to take from the pockets of EI fund contributors. This means that it will be impossible to reform the system to make it more accessible. There is nothing in Bill C-47 to prevent this tragedy. It is unacceptable.

The government has been announcing employment insurance reform since 2015. The announcement is understandable. Six out of 10 workers who lose their job do not have access to EI. The system is broken. Bill Morneau told us, at the beginning of the pandemic, that EI would not help people to keep buying groceries, that the system was no longer working and that it needed to be replaced. They brought in CERB, which was flawed and more expensive. They are still trying to recover some the money owed to them and so on. This story is not over. We need a new system and fast. The government has been talking about this since 2015, but there is still nothing. There is nothing for eliminating the pandemic deficit, either. Increases are going to keep climbing and the system will continue to work poorly.

Let us talk about other aspects of employment insurance. EI should be able to rely on a real appeal mechanism. What we understand from Bill C‑47 is that the appeal board is the same as the one in Bill C‑37. We will look at the details, but we want to reiterate that we need a real appeal mechanism. This extends by one year the measures for the targeted areas during the spring gap, but 60% of people who lose their job still do not have access to it.

We are talking about a 400-page document that amends 59 statutes and the Income Tax Regulations. It has 39 divisions. The Prime Minister promised not to do that anymore. When we get this, we are given a tight deadline in which we have to go through it all, try to understand the legislative language, which is really difficult, consult with all of the stakeholders in Quebec who might be affected to see what they think, and analyze it all. That is a lot. It is very difficult. The government promised in 2015 not do to this anymore. Once again, it is going back to its old ways. We are going to continue looking into this further to see what else might be hidden in there.

Let us look at some examples. The bill enables the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to increase the deposit insurance coverage limit by $100,000, an amount decreed by regulation by this government, but only for one year. In April 2024, he will no longer have that power. Why? Do the Liberals want to introduce another bill? What is this about? We need to look into it. Is the paper version that was given to us as parliamentarians the right version?

Last year, I worked with the paper version only to realize in the end that several dozen pages were missing. I asked the Speaker about it and he told me that the digital version takes precedence over any other. Why bother printing it then, if it is not the right version? That is worrisome.

We are obviously concerned about regional flights, which are very expensive. The increase in fuel prices has pushed the price of flights even higher in the past few years. Instead of proposing measures to make regional flights more affordable, Bill C‑47 would considerably increase the airport security tax. The cost of both international and regional flights will increase. We think this is wrong.

Despite all the pages, measures and laws, there is nothing for seniors or for housing even though the current situation requires that we provide support for seniors and housing. There are many things missing in this bill.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my hon. colleague cover a wide range of issues in his speech. I did hear him ask why the Volkswagen plant that was announced today is not in Quebec and why it is in Ontario. As a member of Parliament from the province of Ontario, I am quite happy that the plant is located in Ontario, but as a Canadian, I would equally support it if the plant were located in Quebec or Alberta or any other province. Is the member not aware that the decision as to where the plant will be located is made by the company in question after consultations and discussions with the relevant province?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois wants to make sure that Quebec gets its fair share. When Ottawa decided to save the auto industry with $10 billion in 2008, we noted that Quebec did not receive the equivalent. When Ottawa decided to save Muskrat Falls with $10 billion, we noted that Quebec did not get the equivalent. When the Liberals chose to buy the pipeline in western Canada for tens of billions of dollars, we noted that Quebec did not get its share. We want to make sure that Quebec gets its share.

Quebec specializes in green energy and the green economy, that is, the economy of the future. Quebec had all the expertise it needed to have a successful battery plant, but that was not how it played out. To add insult to injury, it was the minister from Shawinigan who made this announcement with great fanfare in Montreal to say that the plant would not be in Montreal or the surrounding region, but in St. Thomas, Ontario. Good for them.

Could Quebec get some of these structural investments to develop its economy? The proof remains to be seen, unfortunately.

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

Mr. Speaker, the budget is full of failures; however, the most important issue for my riding is affordable housing. There are $5.5 billion in the budget, but there is only a plan to build fewer than 200,000 homes.

What does the member think of these government measures?

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

Mr. Speaker, we spent one day in camera studying the budget. We wondered whether there really was an inflationary crisis, a housing crisis and a seniors' purchasing power crisis. It seemed to be a budget created in a vacuum, without any context. One could almost believe that it was generated by ChatGPT based on the last 30 or 40 years. This budget came out of nowhere.

We see that in Bill C‑47, too. What is there for social housing or housing? There are 430 pages, and 59 statutes are affected, but there is nothing at all for housing. That is unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague from Joliette, with whom I have worked for many years now on tax fairness, trying to make sure that those who are not paying their fair share do pay their fair share.

I want to talk about mental health fairness, especially for first responders and military veterans in our country.

I got a message from Blair Meadows, who is a veteran and a strong volunteer and committed citizen at the Qualicum Beach Legion, in my riding. He talked about the important costs associated with PTSD service dogs for military police and first responders and that they need to be fully covered by the federal government, including training, maintenance and aftercare. As Mr. Meadows has pointed out, “These dogs are part of our medical care and well-being. Personally, my service dog saved my life and you can't put a price on that.” Others have said similar things. These dogs save lives. When it comes to the people who put their lives on the line for our freedom and democracy, who put the sacrifice on, the government has a duty to ensure that the costs associated with these dogs are covered. It actually saves our health care system money.

I know this is an issue for my good colleague from North Island—Powell River, which hopefully should be North Island—qathet if she gets her way with the electoral boundary commission, which she should, in the future. I would like to say to my colleague that this was not in the budget.

We saw the Conservatives cut a third of Veterans Affairs when it was under their watch.

The government has failed to deliver the critical services that Blair Meadows and many other veterans and first responders need. Does my colleague agree that this should be covered and that it actually saves money when it comes to the mental health care system in our country?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his moving speech on what are certainly very important topics.

Obviously, the issue in question is not covered in Bill C‑47 and I am not really familiar with it, even though I think it is of the utmost importance.

The Bloc Québécois wants Ottawa to ensure that health care services, including mental health services, will be fully funded. Ottawa's plan for supporting the health care plans of the provinces is inadequate and unacceptable, despite the extra $2 billion provided through Bill C‑46, which was passed on Wednesday. We are far from a done deal.

Ottawa offers direct services, including in health, for veterans and certain sectors. What is being done seems plainly insufficient. Of course, anything Ottawa does costs two and a half times more than the same service provided by Quebec.

If the federal government were responsible for delivering health care services, a public health care system would be completely out of reach.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He is always smart and sensible.

I would like to come back to the issue of employment insurance. The government is extending a pilot project that is not working at all and does not cover everyone.

How much does my colleague think it would cost the government to provide this help to people working in the seasonal industry so that there is no longer a spring gap? I am having a hard time understanding this lack of political will.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Manicouagan, and I commend her for all the work she does for the people she represents, including on the issue of employment insurance. Many people throughout Quebec and Canada, including her region, have seasonal jobs. The workers are not seasonal, the jobs are.

Do we collectively want to make use of the land? Do we want people to be able to live and work in their region and flourish there? If so, then we have an EI system that is truly dysfunctional right now. It has not been reformed, and the government has been pushing back the reform every year since 2015.

On top of all the problems, there is the issue of the spring gap. There are not enough weeks of benefits for a person living off seasonal employment to have income all year round. A pilot project was rolled out, but once again there is insecurity. This is being put off for another year.

Will it be enough? Will it be as usual? This is the government's way of doing things. We are a little relieved that this initiative has been extended for a year, because the alternative would have been terrible for our regions, even though the problem is far from being resolved. How much would it cost to reform an insurance system that is broken? It will be a major investment for everyone, especially with a possible recession looming.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, when answering a question, my colleague stated that he was there, in Montreal, when the Liberal federal government announced the investment in a Volkswagen plant in Ontario. The announcement was made in Montreal. I was there.

I can tell my colleagues that many people looked confused. They wondered if St. Thomas was in Quebec, but in fact, it is in Ontario. It took several very long weeks to get the details, but the story finally appeared on the front page of the National Post this morning. I will come back to that.

My colleague and I were both elected in 2015, when this government came to power by promising small deficits for three years and a balanced budget in 2019. It obviously ignored that promise.

My question for my colleague is the following. Does he believe that $1.220 trillion in debt is a good thing? That works out to $81,000 per family. Does he believe that a constant increase in taxes is a good thing? What does he think of the deficit, which continues to increase and is being ignored by the government, which said that it would balance the budget in five years? What does he think of this government's management of public funds?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is deeply concerning. Is the government doing a good job of managing public finances? The answer is no. The government is not paying attention to the cost of the services that it is providing.

I will give some examples. Issuing a passport costs four times more than issuing a driver's licence when Quebec does it. Processing an EI claim costs two and a half times more than processing an application for social assistance in Quebec City. Resources are badly managed. Nonetheless, the Parliamentary Budget Officer identified what is indirectly a fiscal imbalance by pointing out that the flexibility is here in Ottawa. Instead of funding, say, health care in the provinces, the government is increasing the number of programs and interfering in jurisdictions. That is unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to talk about what the NDP can add to the budget. As we know, the Liberals have been in power for years. They are doing the same thing that the former Conservative government did. They refuse to take action to help people.

This time, the NDP leader, the member for Burnaby South, and the entire NDP caucus, including the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, were able to work to ensure that we do not have to settle for the same budgets we have seen in the past, budgets that do nothing for ordinary Canadians, but instead give a big boost to the banks and big corporations, just as the Conservatives did. We can see in this budget and in Bill C‑47, which the NDP supports, that dental care has finally been added to the health care system for people across the country. We are talking about $13 billion over five years.

The reality is that, in every riding, no matter where it is located in the country, there are some 30,000 people without access to dental care. Thanks to pressure from the NDP, in a minority Parliament, we were able to ensure that in every riding, those 30,000 people—families, seniors, people with disabilities and young people—can have access to dental care. This is extremely important, and we are quite pleased. Canadians who understand the changes the NDP has made to the budget are also quite pleased because they will finally have the opportunity to have dental care.

That is not all. We exerted pressure on the government to double the GST credit. That is extremely important. Like the member for Burnaby South, I know that people are struggling right now and that they need help. The fact that 11 million families across the country will be able to receive double the GST credit to pay for groceries is going to help a lot because people are having a really hard time.

The NDP is also calling on the government to change our economy and to work harder to have a clean economy, particularly in light of all the challenges posed by climate change. Things clearly need to change. The NDP once again exerted pressure in a minority Parliament to invest in clean energy and for those investments to go toward unionized jobs that come with a pension plan and social benefits. That way, the government will help the whole community by investing in clean energy. The NDP believes that, when it comes time to invest, the investments must help the community. Unfortunately, that is not what we are seeing with the Liberal approach or what we saw with the approach of the former Harper government, as I mentioned earlier.

We also need, and this is important, to change the situation that exists in first nations communities across the country. The member for Nunavut has spoken about this at length. It is important to make investments there immediately. Last year, we were able to force the government to make these investments, but now we need to build this housing as soon as possible. The government tends to announce programs and then do nothing afterward. This is urgent. The member for Nunavut has told us this several times. We need to take action to bring in these investments and build housing as soon as possible.

There is another thing that I find disappointing, despite the fact that the government is finally closing a tax loophole that cost $600 million a year.

This is something the NDP has been calling for from day one. We obliged the government, forced them to do it. Nonetheless, as I said earlier, most of the loopholes remain in place for the ultra-rich, the wealthy, but also the corporations that benefit from these loopholes. I will come back to that.

The NDP has made a difference in this budget, there is no doubt. I have to speak of somebody I will call Joanne. After I was elected as a member of Parliament, she came to me. She works in the service industry for minimum wage. Her teeth were literally rotting out of her mouth. She was in tremendous pain.

There were no programs I could point to to help her, as is the case with so many Canadians, millions of Canadians across the country, who do not have access to basic dental care. When we look at the average, there are about 30,000 Canadians in each and every riding right across the country.

This constituent, one of my bosses, Joanne, simply had nowhere to turn. She was in great pain. As we know, so many Canadians have to go to emergency wards across the country. The estimated cost in Ontario alone is $1 billion for Canadians going to emergency wards for dental emergencies that they cannot receive treatment for.

The reality of having a dental care program in place, which children and their families, youth, people with disabilities and seniors could all access, in a few months' time would be an extraordinary improvement to our health care system. Tommy Douglas always said that the health care system needs to cover people from the top of their heads to the soles of their feet. The member for Burnaby South, the national leader of the NDP, also believes this. That is why he has been pushing so hard for the dental care program to be put into place.

How could any member of Parliament vote against a dental care program that would help 30,000 of their constituents? I cannot understand where they are coming from, that they would choose partisanship and ideology over the important primary role we have as members of Parliament, in the House, to work to help the people we represent.

That is just one of a number of things that the NDP forced the Liberal government, in a minority Parliament, to deliver to Canadians. We have also forced a doubling of the GST rebate, the grocery rebate, to help Canadians who are struggling to put food on the table at this difficult time.

We pushed the government to invest in a clean energy economy that would create good, well-paying union jobs. The ability to organize makes a big difference, as we know. Whether we are talking about the private sector or the public sector, workers who are organized generally have a higher return, better benefits and normally, as well, access to pensions. That makes a difference not only in their lives, but also in their communities, as unions make a difference in communities across the country.

When members of Parliament stand in the House to say that they do not believe in unionized, organized labour, they are saying to their communities that they do not believe in money staying within the community. Unionized workers have better pay and benefits, and a right to a pension, which means more benefits circulating in the local economy. There are some members of Parliament who would say that they want money to instead go to wealthy corporations offshore, and that they want that money to go to high-priced consultants who would take that money offshore.

New Democrats understand that a local economy is built from the ground up. It starts with good wages. It starts with jobs that actually make a difference in the community. Those people who live in the community shop in the community and spend in the community. That benefits everybody in the community. That is a fundamental difference between us and some of the other parties in the House.

The final point I want to make before I start to talk about the elephant in the room is the issue of housing, particularly in indigenous communities. The member for Nunavut has been a strong and powerful voice in this regard, as have the member for Winnipeg Centre and the member for Edmonton Griesbach. The first nations, Métis and Inuit in Canada have been deprived of the right to housing, the right to have that roof over their head.

The government is moving far too slowly to provide the affordable housing that is fundamentally important for the future of our country. We push, and we add our voices to the voices of the members of Parliament for Nunavut, Winnipeg Centre and Edmonton Griesbach to say that we need to build that housing now.

The money that was pledged last year has not rolled out, and it needs to roll out now. The money that the government is promising in a couple of years needs to be moved up, and it needs to be treated with the sense of emergency that is certainly felt in indigenous communities right across this country.

I am now going to come to the elephant in the room, which is the similarity between Liberals and Conservatives. They have a brand coalition of wanting to conserve a privilege that deprives so many Canadians of the investments that are critical for their future. The Parliamentary Budget Officer told us, just before the COVID pandemic hit, that over $30 billion a year goes to overseas tax havens from profitable corporations and the ultrarich. Members will recall that the Harper regime put that secret network in place to really ensure that as much money as possible could be taken offshore, and it is $30 billion a year, which the PBO said was a conservative estimate.

Now, at $30 billion, it means that over the last decade, $300 billion of tax money was taken offshore. This was put in place by the Harper regime and has been maintained by the current government. This is a coalition of the financially irresponsible, who are depriving Canadians of so many things.

That elephant in the room is something that needs to be dealt with. We have a Liberal government, and a Conservative government before it, refusing to ensure that every Canadian pay their fair share, including Canada's wealthiest corporations and Canada's richest citizens. They should pay their fair share of income tax. It is as simple as that.

A fair share of taxes should go throughout the spectrum and ensure that every Canadian pays their fair share. This would allow us the wherewithal to fund a whole range of things that are not funded now, whether we talk about the dental care plan, which the NDP has brought forward, or pharmacare, which we know would save $4 billion a year for Canadians generally.

The reality is that pharmacare, like our universal health care system and like dental care, makes a difference not only for the individuals and the families involved, their quality of life and their bottom line, but also for Canadian businesses. Our universal health care system has a competitive advantage of about $3,000 per employee for a Canadian business compared to an American business hiring that same employee, because in the United States, if they want to keep that employee, they are going to have to invest in a health care plan. In Canada, those businesses do not have to pay for health care, which is so important for their employees. Dental care makes a difference of hundreds of dollars. Pharmacare would be a difference of about $600 per person. Making that investment in pharmacare is not just smart for the families involved.

We hear the horrific stories from across the country, and the Canadian Nurses Association is telling us that hundreds of Canadians die every year because they do not have the wherewithal to pay for the medication that will keep them alive. I have a constituent family who is paying $1,000 a month in heart medication. We cannot tell them that universal pharmacare would not make a big difference in their lives. They are having that tough choice every month of whether they are going to keep a roof over their heads or pay for their medication, and that is the case for hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country. Universal pharmacare would make a difference.

How do we ensure that the federal government can do that? Well, we have to start ensuring that we close the massive loopholes that lead to $30 billion every—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We clearly do not have quorum.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Let us do a count.

And the count having been taken:

We have quorum.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge for getting government members to hear this. They need to hear from Canadians that they cannot keep sending $30 billion to overseas tax havens every year. Instead, they need to invest that money in health care and education, ensure that we have universal pharmacare, ensure that there is access to public education and ensure that every Canadian has a roof over their head at night and can put food on the table. They also need to transition to a clean energy economy. Liberals can do that if they close the loopholes, 30 billion dollars' worth a year. I thank my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge for telling the Liberals to come into the House.

I want to talk a bit about the dismal record of the Harper regime, because the member for Carleton, who is the new leader of the Conservative Party, basically seems to have a motto of “Elect me and I'll do even worse than Harper did.” I looked at what the Harper regime did over the course of that dismal decade. The overseas tax havens I talked about are largely the creation of the Harper regime. It put them into place, 30 billion dollars' worth, and now the Conservatives are saying they do not take responsibility for that.

What else did the Conservatives do? They forced people, manual labourers, to work longer. They basically deprived them of their pension. They ripped apart the environmental framework of this country; there is no doubt. They also ripped local offices away for veterans.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not a laughing matter when a veteran who is disabled has to travel hundreds of miles to get to a veterans office because the local offices have been closed. That is not something Conservatives should be laughing about at all.

That is what the record of the Harper government was: dismal and appalling. It put in place many of the cuts that we have seen, devastating the health care sector.

We reproach, of course, the Liberals for not closing all the loopholes so that we have the money to reinvest in health care. They are starting to do that slowly and grudgingly, but far short of what is actually required.

When we look at the Harper regime and the member for Carleton's pretension that he will do even worse than Stephen Harper, I think Canadians have reason to be worried by his attacks on Radio Canada.

I have no idea why no Conservative member from Quebec has condemned these attacks on Radio-Canada.

CBC and Radio-Canada share sites and facilities across the country. It is absurd to say that they will dismantle the CBC but Radio-Canada will be protected. It is ridiculous, because these two organizations share their resources. If the CBC is abolished or dismantled, Radio-Canada will be dismantled.

Not one member of the Quebec Conservative caucus rose to say that they were against it. Why be elected as a francophone MP and serve in the Conservative caucus if they are not even capable of telling their leader that he is wrong, that he must stop this foolishness with CBC/Radio-Canada and he must stop threatening to crush CBC/Radio-Canada?

I hope that others will speak out, as did the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, who clearly understood how the extremism of the member for Carleton had to be called out. I certainly hope that at least one member of the Quebec Conservative caucus will rise.

That is what the member for Carleton is promising. He would do worse than Harper. He would cut more than Harper did. He would keep in place the privileges that billionaires get in this country and the massive transfer of wealth and tax dollars, more than $30 billion a year sent overseas, rather than investing in Canadians.

Of course, colleagues know what an NDP government would do. They have seen some signs of that with 25 members of Parliament under the leadership of the member for Burnaby South. What it would mean is investments in health care, investments in housing, investments in education and investments in our economy, as well as transitioning to a clean energy economy and cutting the privileges that, for far too long, the wealthy and Canada's most profitable corporations have enjoyed.

We would end those massive tax loopholes. We would end the gouging that Canadians are seeing in the telecom sector and the banking sector. We would make sure investments happen at the local level, and we would build a local green economy. Right across the country, we would build a Canada where everybody matters and where nobody is left behind.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide further thoughts in regard to the issue of health care and how important it was that we achieved the agreement to ensure we can provide ongoing support over the next decade to provincial and territorial jurisdictions. When I think of health care, I think of the core identity that Canadians hold very dear to their hearts. The expansion to include seniors, people with disabilities and now children up to the age of 18 is one of the ways we can deal with the issue of inflation, along with the grocery rebate that is being proposed.

Can he provide his thoughts, as he has to a certain degree already, on those two issues and the NDP's contribution to them?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, it is not an NDP “contribution”; we forced the government to do it. The government would not have done dental care without the member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus pushing, in a minority Parliament, to make sure it happened. It would not have happened, and we know this.

I want to address the issue of dental care making a difference for people. The member for Winnipeg North is absolutely right, but what would make an even greater difference for people is pharmacare. The government has pledged, as a result of the NDP forcing it to, to put in place the infrastructure for universal public pharmacare. This is vitally important, but the government has to also come up with the resources to make that a reality.

The difference for Canadians from coast to coast to coast would be absolutely enormous, and what it would do, as members well know, is take pressure off the health care system. We have universal health care, where we are sending people who cannot afford to pay for their medication back to universal health care because their medication is not being covered. What is it about that picture that the Liberals do not understand?

Yes, we forced the Liberals to do dental care, but we are going to be pressing equally hard on pharmacare, not only because it is equally essential to ensuring the quality of life for Canadians and a better competitive situation for our businesses, but also because it is just a basic question of the fundamental human right to health care in this country. It is about time Liberals listened and put that into place.

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

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP is on the public record having said that, if he did not receive a firm commitment from the Liberal government on pharmacare by December, he would end the supply arrangement they have. Clearly, there is not a single word about pharmacare in the budget, and in addition to that, on the second thing the NDP wanted, dental care, there are vague promises with no plan from a government that has shown over and over again it is incompetent to execute anything.

Will the member and his party quit supporting the government in raising the cost of gas, groceries and home heating, or will he end the supply agreement, because the government has not kept up its end?

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

Mr. Speaker, I like the member and I enjoy working with her on Canadian heritage, but this is the complete emptiness of the Conservative dialogue. The Conservatives have offered one single idea in the past year, to buy Bitcoin, and we saw Bitcoin tank. If any Canadians had followed their advice, they would be ruined financially. That is the only idea Conservatives have brought forward, so I want to correct the record.

First, in terms of dental care, yes, there is a plan, and it is thanks to the member for Vancouver Kingsway, the NDP health critic, that there is a plan for rollout to ensure that people with disabilities, seniors and youth in that member's riding, about 30,000 strong, would have access to dental care by the end of the year. On pharmacare, the government has to deliver the legislation that both Liberals and Conservatives voted against two years ago, including the hon. member. Shame on all of them who voted against the Canada pharmacare act that I presented in the House.

That legislation would be only a first step, and that is why our warning is to say to Liberals that, if they really want to heed the quality of life for Canadians, the right to basic health care and the competitiveness of our businesses, it is time to start ensuring that the next steps after the adoption of the universal pharmacare bill would be done to put in place the financing criteria so that we can roll that out in the coming years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby for his interesting speech and for all the work he does in the House.

On Wednesday, the House unanimously passed Bill C-46, which does two things. First, it doubles the GST credit cheque next July and, second, it transfers $2 billion to the provinces for health care with no strings attached.

I was extremely surprised and pleased to see that these two measures also appear in Bill C-47, which is before the House today. The government did not take them out of the omnibus bill, despite the passage of Bill C‑46 earlier this week. This means $4 billion instead of $2 billion to the provinces for health care, and a second grocery rebate cheque for people with low incomes.

Can the leader of the NDP assure the House that if the government ever realized its mistake and sought to remove that from Bill C‑47, the NDP would oppose that amendment, so the government could not make cuts to health care funding and the grocery rebate cheques?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague, whom I was pleased to work with on the Standing Committee on Finance. I also appreciated his speech earlier.

I will start off by mentioning that I am not the NDP leader. I am the NDP House leader. I just had to make a slight correction there.

The NDP always makes sure that the benefits that Canadians count on continue to be there. That is why the member for Burnaby South worked to ensure that the GST credit was doubled a few months ago and has done so again with respect to this bill.

Certainly we will continue to keep watch, because we want Canadians across Canada, including in Joliette, to have the ability to pay for groceries.

Dental care is also very important in a riding like Joliette and across the country. We will continue to exert pressure for that to be implemented.

In my speech, I mentioned my constituent Joanne, who was experiencing a lot of tooth pain. By the end of the year, she will have access to dental care for the first time in her life as a senior. That is what we are bringing to the House when it comes to accountability.

The NPD continues to exert pressure for people like Joanne and millions of others who have been abandoned by the old parties.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, for his real championing of so many things that give Canadians a better life. One of the things he has been championing is the green new deal, the idea that we have to have a transition to a cleaner future and leave no workers behind. Because of the NDP pressure on the government, we have significant funding for clean tech in this budget that is tied to good union wages so people can have a respectable life in this new future.

I wonder if my colleague could provide further comments on that and on whether this should be standard operating procedure for future government infrastructure funding.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay has had a very strong voice in the House of Commons, speaking up for good jobs in the community. Whether he is talking about the South Okanagan, the West Kootenay or anywhere in Canada, he has been one of the foremost advocates of actually ensuring that government investments are put to work to ensure that people have good jobs. The member is right to point out that we have learned the lesson from other jurisdictions where subsidies to green energy had tended to be soaked up by CEOs. We certainly continue to see this with the oil and gas sector, where billions of dollars go and are largely taken by CEOs and do not go to actually providing benefits to workers.

This is the same principle we have brought in when it comes to the issue of the just transition to ensure we can put in place all the elements for clean energy to make sure that Canada is keeping up with the developments in the rest of the world. Those investments have to go to people who have good union jobs. That makes a difference in the community. It means more money stays in the community and it helps to create indirect jobs as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to address the Bloc member's concern regarding the issue of Bill C-47 versus Bill C-46. The member is quite right. We need to recognize that it has been a priority of this government to provide inflation relief in the form of a grocery rebate. That is why it was incorporated into Bill C-46. It is also the government's priority to try to get hundreds of millions of dollars to the provinces with respect to health care. That was also incorporated into Bill C-46.

As the member pointed out, it is also in the budget implementation bill. This is because we could not get agreement for the quick passage of Bill C-46 through the House. We only recently got the agreement to pass it. Following this logic, the member will recall how long it can take to get a budget implementation bill through the House from the last time we had one.

As a good example of that, today, there has already been an amendment to the budget implementation bill moved by the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party is going to hold up the budget implementation bill. Recognizing the importance of getting that grocery rebate to Canadians and getting the transfers of hundreds of millions of dollars to the provinces for our health care system, the government had to come up with Bill C-46 after we got agreement that we could get it passed in the House. That is the reason for this.

I know the member appreciates the explanation. I would even encourage the member to move the amendment so we can rectify the situation once we get to the committee stage. If I could, I would be the seconder.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Joliette on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you and the members of the House that Bill C-46 passed all stages on Wednesday and that Bill C-47 was introduced in the House on Thursday. Therefore, there is no need to introduce amendments.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I think that intervention is more of an interesting point of debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has six minutes left.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one would like to think that things could happen relatively quickly. One would be surprised, in terms of the degree to which we finally got the consensus to get it through the House, in order to be able to support Canadians.

I would point out something that is really obvious. This emphasizes the contrast between the government and the Prime Minister versus the Conservative Party and the leader of the Conservative Party. Today, we had a good-news announcement. The federal government is investing in the future, through Volkswagen, by bringing in a megafactory. This will likely be the largest factory in the country. It is estimated that we are talking about literally the size of not dozens but hundreds of football fields. It is a gigantic factory.

I can say that not only is the federal government at the table with this, but so is Doug Ford. He is investing both cash and future infrastructure to support it. There is a reason for that. It is the idea that this is an investment in workers, as well as an investment in the future.

I would like to quote something that the leader of the Conservative Party quoted in a tweet. This is his mindset on the issue: “there are no lithium mines, no lithium processing facilities and no lithium ion battery makers in Canada.” We are in essence, the quote says, “a minnow compared to the United States, Australia and especially China.”

Well, that is the mentality of the Conservative Party. It does not understand that this does not have to be the destination. Canada can be a world leader, and that is what this investment is going to do.

It is so short-sighted. Again, it is not that all members of the Conservative Party would think the same way as the leader of the party. Progressive Conservatives may not think the same way, and as I said, we have Doug Ford 100% onside and investing in it.

This is an opportunity for Canada to enter into that green world in a very real and tangible way. We can look at seeing future lithium mines. We can look into a future with many more areas of development. It is estimated that, within a decade, the federal and provincial investments will be returned more than tenfold.

The Conservatives have a tough time thinking of the future or realizing the benefits of an investment of this nature. We can think in terms of the direct, positive impact that this is going to have on the automobile industry in the province of Ontario or in Canada as a whole.

Yesterday, in the chamber, we were talking about the aerospace industry. Members from the Bloc, myself and others were talking about how the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba have benefited. We talked about how important it was and is today that we support our aerospace industry, as we continue to do.

It is also important to support our automobile industry. We can think in terms of the future and the positive impact that this is going to have. I would hope that sometime between now and the next federal election, the Conservatives will have a flip-flop on their position on this issue. The net gains far outweigh the costs of what is being proposed by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Ontario today.

We need to start thinking about the bigger picture. We need to think of the quality middle-class jobs that will be there as we expand in an industry that is healthy for our province and create opportunities from coast to coast to coast. These opportunities may be in mining or parts distribution. All sorts of opportunities will be there going forward because of this investment. We will be working with the private sector, particularly Volkswagen, in building a state-of-the-art factory, potentially the single largest factory in Canada. We need to look at the tens of thousands of direct jobs, let alone the multiplying factor of indirect jobs.

I will continue the next time the bill comes up for debate.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I believe the hon. member for North Island—Powell River has a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise today and speak about the budget implementation bill.

Today is a very special day in Parliament. Parliament is actually celebrating Vaisakhi on the Hill, so I would like to wish everyone a very happy Vaisakhi.

Vaisakhi is a very important part of the month of April, and here in Canada we celebrate Sikh heritage in the month of April. It does not matter where one goes in Canada; it is important to take a look at the importance of Canada's diversity and Sikh heritage and the contributions they have made to our communities over the years.

Last summer, I had the opportunity to travel to Abbotsford, where we have the first gurdwara, which is still standing. It is a Canadian heritage site. Whether it is in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal or out on the east coast, Sikh Heritage Month is a very important month of the year for people of Sikh faith and others who get engaged in recognizing and celebrating Sikh Heritage Month.

Earlier this month, the city hall of Winnipeg recognized Sikh heritage. Just last week, the Manitoba legislature had Turban Day inside the Manitoba legislature, and today here on Parliament Hill, as I indicated, we are celebrating Sikh Heritage Month and requesting people to put on a turban. It is with great pleasure that I put on a turban today.

I think of the importance of the khalsa and the minister providing the service. He posed a question: “What is Vaisakhi to you?”. Vaisakhi to me is very meaningful. It is about equality. It is about the khalsa. Back in 1999, I had the honour and privilege to introduce into the Manitoba legislature a recognition of the khalsa to recognize the importance of it, and just in February, I had the opportunity to travel to India. It is a beautiful country. I went to a few places, like Anandpur Sahib, where the khalsa was born, and the Golden Temple in Amritsar. I must say that at 1:30 in the morning, it is very surreal. When I was there, I could feel a spiritual presence.

The point is that, for me personally, it is all about faith and it is all about equality. It speaks volumes about Canada's diversity. When I think of Canada's diversity, I would suggest it is our diversity that is one of the greatest assets we have in society.

When we talk about the budget and think in terms of where the growth is within our budgetary measures, I believe we will find that Canada, as a trading nation, is very much dependent on world trade. When I think of world trade, I cannot help but think of some of our partners from the past and today, such as the United States, and the amount of trade that goes between our borders. I also think of the number of trade agreements we have been able to accomplish over the last seven years. I believe that as a government, we have signed off on more trade agreements with other countries than any government before us.

India is a vast, beautiful country. Many, including me, would argue it will be an economic superpower in the future. The greatest asset we have here in Canada is indeed our diversity and people, in this case of Indian heritage, being able to look at ways we can enhance trade opportunities. That applies to many other communities. When we talk about diversity, today is Sikh Heritage Month, but we have Portuguese Heritage Month and Filipino Heritage Month, which is coming up in June.

We recognize Canada's diversity, and that diversity shines through in many different ways. It is more than just heritage clothing, if I can put it that way, or traditional wares. It is very much about opportunities, and Canada is laden with opportunities, going into the future, based on trade.

Now here we are with the budget implementation bill, and one would think I would be talking a lot about the grocery rebate. I know the grocery rebate is very important. It is actually incorporated into this legislation. It is one of the ways the Government of Canada is going to be assisting Canadians through a very difficult time.

We talk about inflation, and I have made the comparison in that past when we have talked about inflation in Canada that we are doing relatively well compared to other countries in the world, whether it is the U.S.A., many of the European Union countries or those in the G20. We are actually doing quite well. However, the government recognizes that we could do better to assist the population. One of the ways we would be able to accomplish that is the grocery rebate. That would put money in pockets. The budget implementation bill is there to ensure that we are able to administer the grocery rebate.

The good news is that, as we did not know how long it would take to get through the budget debate, we were able to build a consensus to pass Bill C-46, which would ultimately put in place the grocery rebate. Canadians can look forward to seeing not only that particular piece of legislation pass but the money being sent out.

On Friday, when I talked about one of the more recent announcements, the VW announcement, I talked about a difference, a contrast, between what the Conservatives in opposition believe and what the Government of Canada believes. Over the last number of years, we have put a great deal of effort into building the Canadian economy and supporting Canada's middle class. We have done that in a number of different monetary measures, through budgets, and legislative measures.

Let me give a good example of this that I started to talk about just last Friday. We had the announcement of what will be Canada's single largest factory, where we will be producing and manufacturing electric batteries. It is very much a thing of the future that will provide literally thousands and thousands of jobs. It will provide the opportunity for Canada to become a significant player in the manufacturing of electric batteries for automobiles.

When we look at how the Conservatives here in Ottawa are responding, we see it has not been very positive, even though Premier Doug Ford has also contributed to the plant, not only from a financial point of view but also by building part of the infrastructure that will be necessary. This factory, land-wise, will be hundreds of times the size of a football field. It is going to be gigantic in terms of its footprint in St. Thomas, Ontario. All of us will benefit from it.

The leader of the Conservative Party tweeted not that long ago and said that we do not have lithium mines and do not have batteries being developed. That seems to be the attitude of the Conservative Party, and it does not have to be the reality. The reality is changing because we have a government that has recognized the potential of the industry and the important role that the Province of Ontario in particular has played in the automobile industry. That was no doubt a huge attraction for Volkswagen. We will now see more lithium mining taking place in Canada. We now have an industry that will be able to grow, expand and provide both direct and indirect jobs in the future.

On the other hand, the contrast is that we do nothing. Had we done nothing, we would never have been able to land the Volkswagen deal, and that industry would continue to be dominated by countries like the U.S.A. and China. However, as a result of the Government of Canada recognizing that we can and should be a player, we are now going to see and reap the benefits.

Sure, there is a cost to this. However, that cost will be paid back tenfold in the next 10 years. It is worth the cost. This is an industry that will do exceptionally well, much like the aerospace industry, which we talked about last week. As I made reference to last Friday, all of us, like those in Quebec and my home province of Manitoba, benefit when a province is able to do well.

I am excited about the future because this budget implementation bill is there to support workers, to support our environment and to support consumers. It is there in a very real and tangible way. I would encourage all members to rethink their positioning and look at it as a way forward for Canada that will create middle-class jobs, the good jobs we want in our economy, and that will create opportunities and entrepreneurs well into the future.

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

Madam Speaker, as usual, my colleague's delight over his government's budget is patently obvious.

However, on one topic he was silent, and I know why. Of the budget's 250 pages, only one page addresses the housing crisis. That in itself is completely unacceptable.

In the week after the budget was tabled, the National Housing Council, the body created by the federal government to oversee its grand national housing strategy, brought up a very interesting point. Between 2011 and 2021, Canada lost 550,000 affordable housing units. Not only has the government failed to create new housing, but we lost 550,000 units in the span of 10 years.

The National Housing Council has suggested a highly practical solution, which is to create an acquisition fund to enable non-profit housing organizations to purchase private housing stock, take it off the private market and make it permanently affordable. It is a solution that everyone is talking about. Does my colleague think it is a good solution?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think we need to put housing in the proper perspective. If we take a look at the early nineties, what we will find is that every political party inside this chamber, whether it was the Bloc, the Conservatives, the NDP or even the Liberals at the time, believed there was no role for Ottawa in national housing.

When we take a look at the nineties and see where we are today, this particular Prime Minister has made a commitment to housing second to no other in the last 60 or 70 years here in Canada, with a national housing strategy and literally hundreds of millions going into billions of dollars supporting a number of new housing start-ups, supporting groups like Habitat for Humanity and supporting and encouraging the development of housing co-ops. The national government has demonstrated very clearly that it does have a role to play in housing. It is exercising that role and is looking for stakeholders to come onside and support where they can to enhance and complement our housing stock and increase the size of it. I believe the federal government will continue to work in those efforts.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend from Winnipeg on his sartorial selections today. They look very good on him.

I have a question about the budget itself. The budget projects that this year, over $40 billion will go to interest on the debt, to wealthy bankers and bondholders. That is almost as much as the $50 billion being spent on the Canada health transfer.

How does the member justify the Liberals giving almost exactly the same amount to wealthy banks and bondholders as they are to Canadians for health care?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are times when the government does need to be able to borrow. The best example of that was during the worldwide pandemic, when the government made the decision to be there to save jobs by providing things such as the wage subsidy program and loans for small businesses. It was there for Canadians in terms of CERB payments. When Canadians were not able to work because of the pandemic, the government stepped up and provided literally billions and billions of dollars of support. Yes, there was a cost to that, but the cost would have been far greater had the government chosen to do nothing.

With regard to the opening comments, I always appreciate the opportunity to showcase a turban because, for me, it is all about the equality of people. It is all about strength of faith. In many ways, since 1988, I have had the opportunity to get a better understanding of the importance of Sikhism.

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

Madam Speaker, the federal Liberals created the investing in Canada infrastructure program. My concern is around the allocation for British Columbia. It was not even close to enough. In fact, that money has been allocated already and it needs a new cost-sharing agreement.

This makes me think about the recreation facilities in my riding. Echo pool in Port Alberni was built in 1967, like many facilities across Canada. That facility needs to be replaced. In Parksville, there are aspirations to build a facility. On the west coast, the five central region nations and Tofino and Ucluelet are looking at building a facility.

We know how important recreation facilities are, not just for physical health but also for mental health and bringing communities together. I go to Echo pool and I often see a lot of people who have been injured at their workplace. They use it for rehabilitation. Seniors use it to maintain their health and stay active.

Will my colleague commit to replenishing that fund and advancing recreation facilities here in Canada?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, no government in the history of Canada has invested more money in infrastructure than this government has. The member raises a valid point in terms of community services that we do need to support wherever we can. That is one of the reasons we have seen members of Parliament within the Liberal caucus advocate for and be very successful at ensuring that we continue to invest in infrastructure, not just directly but also indirectly. Whether through the Canada Infrastructure Bank or the direct support where Ottawa has a stakeholder, partner, province or municipality in order to expand upon infrastructure, we recognize the importance of it.

From a personal point of view, I think the city of Winnipeg needs a first-class basketball facility, and I support the basketball association and people like Manny Aranez who are trying to make that happen.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I also would like to compliment my friend on his sartorial splendour today. I take particular notice of his mention of his recent visit to India. I understand there are unique challenges with trade with India and particular states within India. Can the hon. member comment on how we can address those challenges and how that will affect our economy going forward?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I chair the Canada-India Parliamentary Friendship Group, and we have representatives from the Conservatives, Liberals, the Bloc and the New Democratic Party. We need to build the relationship between India and Canada, and enhance it. The Government of Canada has had ministerial visits. I think the Minister of International Trade was there in 2022.

There are so many opportunities between Canada and India. India is, as I pointed out, a superpower economically today and going into the future. Canada, unlike other countries around the world, is in a great position because of its diversity. Let us take hold, be proud and use our diversity to our strategic advantage. One of the ways the future of Canada can be bright is if we are able to enhance that relationship between Canada and India.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question from our hon. colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. It is no surprise that housing is barely mentioned in Bill C-47. It was barely mentioned in the budget also. In fact, it was the opposite. The federal housing advocate said, “The newly unveiled Federal Budget is a sorry disappointment. It completely misses the mark on addressing the most pressing housing crisis this country has ever seen.”

In this bill, the federal government could have gotten serious about, for example, addressing the loophole for real estate investment trusts. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has now estimated we could direct $285 million over the next five years to build the affordable housing we need if we were simply to eliminate the tax breaks for REITs.

Can the member for Winnipeg North speak about whether he is going to put pressure on the government to bring about this change?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is a series of actions that the government has taken over the last number of years, from implementing the first-ever national housing strategy, to the issue of expanding housing co-ops, and everything in between. No government in recent history has given as much attention to the issue of housing as this government has.

However, the issue of resolving the housing crisis in Canada today goes far beyond Ottawa demonstrating leadership; it incorporates the importance of municipalities, provinces and the different stakeholders. They, too, have to step up to the plate. It can be done through zoning and the cost of doing paperwork. There are all sorts of issues.

What Canadians need to know and understand is that Ottawa is here. It is ready, it is investing and it understands the importance of housing. We are prepared to work the best way we can with the different partners in order to ensure that we can enhance the numbers and the quality of our housing stock.

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

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise to speak today. I will start with a quote from former president Ronald Reagan, who said, “Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.”

Budget 2023 was a direct attack on Canadians, their hard work and the paycheques they try to bring home. What budget 2023 would do is not only tell Canadians how to live their lives, which this government is known for, but also, in some cases, ruin a lot of livelihoods as well.

This was a budget that was supposed to have fiscal restraint. The Liberals blew right through that, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who said that they added an extra $69.7 billion in new gross expenditures. Those new expenditures are going to cost each and every struggling household an extra $4,200. This is a government that said it wanted to make sure it did not cross the line of debt-to-GDP ratio. Well, it blew right through that line, so far past it that the government cannot even see that line anymore.

This is a government that said it would be responsible and that it understood the pain of Canadians. Then, it turned around and jacked up its job-killing carbon tax to pile-drive Canadians with even more taxes, five to be exact, just this year. This is the government that said it is here to help people. I think this is as ridiculous as thinking that the NDP is still an opposition party.

Before I move on, Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with a great man, who we call the great boss from the great riding of Beauce.

When my family moved to Canada, there used to be a pretty good deal between Canada and its citizens. Today, after eight years of the Prime Minister and the Liberal-NDP government, that deal feels broken and so does Canada. One in five newcomers to our great country want to pack up and leave.

The number one reason for that is the high cost of living that has been caused by the Liberal-NDP government. It borrowed and spent more money than every single government before it combined. It made interest rates go up and that made the cost of living crisis even worse. The government is the architect of this inflationary fire, and the budget has thrown a $69.7-billion jerry can on top of the inflationary fire, which has made things even worse for Canadians.

My family moved here when I was young because we wanted to live the “Canadian dream”. My parents wanted us to have a safer future and a better education. They wanted us to be raised in a country where we could feel safe and where we could raise kids to feel the same way. However, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, that Canadian dream is nothing but a nightmare and a broken dream today.

Newcomers should want to flock to Canada, but Canada is not seen as a country where people can survive. It is not seen as a country that is even open for business. When we look at the budget, productivity is not going to grow because the government has done nothing to help support businesses and create an environment that would have more investment coming to it.

In fact, the number one complaint that we hear is that the regulatory burdens and the economic uncertainty that the government has created does not let good investment and good jobs come to Canada. The government would rather stand under its make-believe ideology on things like the job-killing carbon tax, which is driving people away. It is driving costs up. It is making everything more expensive, and Canadians are suffering for that.

Canada is one of the last destinations people want to come to today. That is clear when we hear that one out of five newcomers want to pack up and leave.

We can look at some of the disastrous policies that have caused so much pain on Canadians today.

Let us look at housing. When we moved to Canada, it was reasonable to find a house. Someone could get a job and put in the hard work. That was the deal Canada used to have. If people worked hard, they would see the fruits of their labour. That deal is broken today. Nine out of 10 young people say that affording a home is just a pipe dream now because of the rising cost of living.

Who can save for a down payment? Down payments have doubled. People have to spend double just to for a down payment on a house now. Rents and mortgages have doubled under the Prime Minister, after eight years of failed housing policies. It is impossible for young people to move out of their parents' basements today because of eight years of failed housing policies.

How does a government spend $89 billion on housing and the outcome is that rents and mortgages have doubled, and nine out of 10 young people say they will never be able to afford a home? How does a government spend so much to accomplish so little? It is on par for that government. It shows its incompetence every day. It does not stand with the common person. It does not want to make the lives of people easier. If it did, it would not have jacked up the cost of the failed carbon tax. It has accomplished so little on that as well.

We finally have an environment minister who admitted that the government misled Canadians all along about the failed carbon tax scam. For years, the government said that it was going to make the lives of people better. For years, it said that Canadians would get more back from this carbon tax scam in so-called carbon pricing rebates than what they would pay into it. We now have the Liberal environment minister admitting that this was misleading all along.

We requested a report from the PBO report and that report confirmed that more Canadians would pay more out of pocket in this scam than what they would get back in these phoney rebates. It is time for the Liberal-NDP government to stop causing Canadians, farmers and producers pain. It needs to scrap this scam, axe the carbon tax and let Canadians survive.

If we look at the price of groceries today, we see how the carbon tax has impacted how expensive they are getting. The government has done nothing to help with the inflation it has caused. It not only has caused this inflation, but it keeps adding more fuel to the fire, and the carbon tax is a clear example of that when we look at the price of groceries.

When me and my family, and many other newcomers, came to this country, we could not have imagined that in a single month 1.5 million Canadians would be visiting a food bank, a third of whom are children. One-in-five Canadians are skipping meals. One-in-five Canadians are saying that they are completely out of money. This is not the Canada that me and my family envisioned when we moved here.

However, hope is on the horizon. We have a new Conservative leader who will turn this hurt that the Liberal-NDP government caused Canadians into hope. We are going to do many things, the first of which is to get rid of the Liberal-NDP government. We are going to ensure that we bring home powerful Canadian paycheques. We are going to bring home lower prices for Canadians. We are going to get rid of this job-killing, failed carbon tax scam. Most important, we are going to bring in more homes that our young people and many others can afford. We are going to get the gatekeepers out of the way. We are going to ensure that Canadians keep more of their hard-earned paycheques in their pockets so they can make their own decisions and bring back the freedom our country so much deserves.

The Conservatives will restore safety to our streets, so people do not feel they are going to be attacked randomly. We keep seeing violent crime on the increase after eight years of the government. We need to bring home common-sense solutions for the common people. We need to return Canada to a place where we have elected officials who work for the people, who understand their pain and do not cause more pain. That is exactly what the Conservatives will do when our new Conservative leader, the member for Carleton, becomes the Prime Minister of Canada. We will return Canada to being the freest nation in the world.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke a lot about the carbon tax. I did some research in my riding in my home province of New Brunswick to see where this money went. We know that 90% is given back to those who pay into the carbon tax. We have 10% that will be reinvested into community projects and first nations communities. I think about the $300,000 that were given to a first nation in my province to do energy retrofits and ensure it did what it could to reach its environmental goals as well. I wonder if the member would not support projects like that.

When can we expect to see an environmental plan from the Conservative Party?

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

Madam Speaker, first, we are still looking for an environmental plan from that side of the House. All we received was a tax plan that made gas, groceries and home heating more expensive. The Liberals sold this carbon tax scam to Canadians, saying that they would get more in their pockets than these phoney rebates. The Parliamentary Budget Officer proved that wrong.

Therefore, if I were that member, I would update the talking points to say that a majority of Canadians will pay more into this scam than what they will get back. The Liberals sold this scam saying they would meet the targets they set for themselves, and they failed to do that. Emissions went up.

Therefore, I would ask the member this. Let us see a plan from the Liberals first instead of this tax scam they have created to take more from Canadians.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could talk about the callousness of this budget.

This budget contains little or nothing for housing, at a time when Quebec and Canada are in crisis, when there is virtually nothing for seniors and when health transfers are meagre. Meanwhile, it does contain a provision to modernize or amend the Royal Style and Titles Act to confirm that the King of England is indeed the Canadian sovereign.

I find that somewhat surprising. In my view, it is even a bit insensitive, and it is offensive to many of my constituents. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member when he says that this offended many people. This budget definitely offended a lot of people. The government, which said it would be fiscally restrained and would try to be fiscally responsible, blew right through that and added $4,200 of cost on each and every Canadian household. This is a slap in the face to Canadians, who work so hard but are falling behind because of increased taxes put on by the Liberal-NDP government, which does not respect Canadians anymore. This budget is a slap in the face to them and a direct attack on their paycheques.

Conservatives would bring back common sense for the common people and make sure more Canadians can keep more in their pocket.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member speaks about common sense, but he has not shared any today. In fact, what he has done is list all the economic violence of capitalism and the impacts it has on everyday Canadians.

When the member talks about the housing market, he never talks about the insatiable greed of the real estate investment trusts, of the speculators, of the big corporate gatekeepers who are crushing our housing market. In fact, housing prices will not come down until the government acts to curtail inflationary investor activity in the residential market.

Just like the leader of the Conservative Party, this budget refuses to take on greedy private sector gatekeepers who are driving up the price of housing for their own corporate greed. Why are the Conservatives focusing only on municipal permitting when there are so many greedy, capitalist, private sector gatekeepers responsible for the current housing crisis?

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

Madam Speaker, the problem is with the party that keeps supporting this inept, corrupt government and always props it up and makes things more expensive.

As the member likes to talk about socialism all the time, I would like to read him a quote from Margaret Thatcher, who said, “either you believe in capitalism, or you believe in socialism. Capitalism, as we know, creates wealth. Socialism, as we also know, creates poverty.” The clear example is today in Canada, when one in five Canadians is skipping meals and 1.5 million Canadians are visiting a food bank because of failed NDP-Liberal policies. When the two parties get together, they are doing nothing but causing more and more pain to Canadians and sending more of them to food banks.

We are going to turn these failed policies around when our leader becomes the Prime Minister of Canada.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-47, which is part of the government's 2023 budget implementation. I am honoured today to follow my colleague, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn, who is our party's official finance critic.

After much anticipation and hope that the expensive coalition would exercise some fiscal prudence, Canadians were once again presented with a budget that will spend more and deliver less.

My colleague went over numerous statistics in his speech about this legislation, but I think the most alarming one is the fact that this expensive coalition will tack on nearly $4,200 in additional costs to every household across Canada with its lackluster budget.

Canadians are tired of being bought by this Liberal government with one-time cheques and slogans every time a budget is presented. This is the case with the grocery rebate, for example.

Let us be honest with Canadians: This one-time cheque will do nothing to reduce the price of groceries for families. It is simply a doubling of the GST credit, presented as something it is not. We need to tackle the real source of the problem.

Take, for example, the way the government is increasing grocery prices with policies like the carbon tax, the tariff on fertilizer and other harmful policies. These policies are driving up the cost of food production and transportation across the country.

Bill C-47 also includes the health care transfers to the provinces, which are well below what the provinces and territories requested to provide the care that our fellow citizens and their families need.

My Liberal and NDP colleagues will say that I am not helping my constituents get dental care because I will not support this budget. However, that could not be further from the truth. I would like to remind my colleagues opposite that Quebec has not only had a day care program for many years, but it also already has a dental care program for our young children. It seems as though the current government is always lagging behind on these programs. It has been clear from the start that this government does not trust the provincial and territorial governments to implement the programs themselves and that the “Ottawa knows best” approach is the only way to manage these projects. If only the government had more faith in the provinces and, especially, more respect for their jurisdictions, it might be surprised to see what can be done without Ottawa getting involved.

I will now take a moment to talk about what I would have liked to see in this budget. First, there is nothing in the budget to help SMEs attract labour. The word “labour” is hardly used at all in this budget, which is hundreds of pages long.

In my riding of Beauce, the unemployment rate is currently below 1.9%. Our businesses are struggling to attract and retain workers. It is one of the biggest issues in my riding. A vast majority of businesses in my riding rely heavily on temporary foreign workers to fill gaps in their workforce. However, there was nothing in the budget to improve the program. The government must reduce the paperwork and red tape associated with all these programs.

What is worse, the government has allowed more than 150,000 public servants to go on strike, which means that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada will have an even larger backlog and businesses will continue to close their doors because of the Prime Minister's inaction. It is as though this government does not understand just how time sensitive these jobs are. Many farmers and landscape companies in my riding, for example, will not have workers at the most important time of the year.

These businesses spend thousands of dollars recruiting foreign workers months before they are to arrive, but the government does not care. It has done nothing to reduce immigration delays.

That leads me to my next point. Where is the funding for Canadian agriculture in this budget?

After I took a close look at the budget with my staff, I discovered that our agriculture and agri-food sector was getting approximately 0.1% of the funds allocated in the budget. What a sad situation in which our country finds itself, when our government forgets where the food feeding our families and others around the whole world comes from.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food was pleased to speak in the House to tell us that she had increased the limit for loans available to farmers. Does she not understand that farmers are already in debt up to their necks? They need programs that reflect the current reality so they can remain solvent and competitive on the international market.

Two weeks ago, in my riding, we heard the sad news that Olymel will permanently close its Vallée‑Jonction pork processing plant in December. In a municipality of approximately 2,000 people, Olymel employs 1,000 workers. This is devastating, and the entire region will be hit hard. The closure is the result of, among other things, a labour shortage that began several years ago. It will have a serious impact on the pork industry in Ontario and Quebec, as well as on a number of other industries.

A growing number of farmers and farms are struggling to survive in Canada. This government has abandoned this sector for far too long. Our country needs to take measures to support the agriculture and agri-food industry before it is too late. A Conservative government will be there for farmers and plant workers. We are prepared to make this sector the economic driver it should have been in this country a long time ago.

Finally, I would like to touch on something that was not mentioned whatsoever in the budget. The words “cellular connectivity” are not mentioned at all in this budget when we search the words. Since first being elected, I have been rising in the House to speak out about this problem. In the 40 municipalities in my riding alone, at least one sector in each town is poorly served by the cellular networks.

I would remind the government that people in the regions are not second class citizens. They pay just as many taxes as anyone else. These people who live in the regions, who contribute to the economy, are held back by the inability to get 21st century technology. How are we supposed to automate industries to make up for the labour shortage when a business owner has to go to the top of a hill to get one bar of service on his phone?

I therefore invite the government to have a look at the reporting done on this subject in March by many local journalists, including Éric Gourde at L'Éclaireur Progrès and Philippe Grenier at Radio-Canada.

It is unbelievable that people come close to dying because they cannot call 911. When people do manage to get into an ambulance, sometimes the paramedics cannot connect to the nearest local hospital because there is no cell signal.

Having an adequate cellular network in the regions is not a matter of equity; it is a matter of public safety. The government needs to make investments to address this issue and force the CRTC to compel the big telecom companies to develop their cellular networks throughout the regions—unless the government is still waiting for the provincial governments to get involved.

In closing, it is time for change in Canada. It is time to put Canadians first, not only in major urban centres, but also in the rural heartlands. That is why I will continue to rise in the House and be the voice of the residents of Beauce, to convey their message. A Conservative government will put Canadians first and prioritize common sense.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the Conservative leader and his caucus have committed to supporting our $2-billion investment to save our health care system.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on the Conservatives' recently announced policy on cuts to the CBC/Radio-Canada. My colleague quoted a Radio-Canada reporter in his speech, so I imagine that he has a great deal of respect for Radio-Canada. What does he think of his leader's proposal to make cuts to the CBC/Radio-Canada?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a very simple concept to grasp for my colleague across the aisle.

Our leader's comments were very specific on the issue of protecting Radio-Canada. I think that Radio-Canada and the CBC are very different. Perhaps some management changes may be required.

However, I think we really need to face the facts. If we analyze my leader's thinking carefully, it is clear that preserving Radio-Canada in Quebec is not at all an issue, because it is intended to serve the francophone community throughout Canada.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Beauce, who raised a lot of issues that have a direct impact on Laurentides—Labelle.

I am taking time to talk about agriculture and agri-food. After all these years and all the challenges related to maintaining supply management and keeping the industry as it is, one in 10 farmers are being forced to shut down. That is happening in my colleague's riding of Beauce just as it is in Laurentides—Labelle.

My question is this. Are my colleague and his party willing to support, in both the House of Commons and in committee, any assistance measure to save our agriculture and agri-food industry?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question. She is obviously preaching to the choir in asking me that question, because I was a farmer for over 45 years. I was a fourth-generation farmer and, today, a fifth generation has taken over our family business.

The current government must clearly indicate that it upholds and supports our agricultural industry. It is true that many farms are finding it increasingly difficult to find people to take over, and the economic context is unique.

My colleague mentioned supply management. In my speech, I talked about the closure of a pork processing plan. The pork industry is not supply managed. Some export markets closed, and so perhaps we need to support our farmers and processors in developing and conquering new markets.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague and many of his Conservative colleagues have been talking about housing. I think one thing we all agree on in the House is that there is a crisis of unbelievable proportions related to housing in this country.

I live in Vancouver and have been there for close to four decades. The rise in house prices began in the mid-eighties, particularly after Expo, and then continued with the repatriation of Hong Kong back to China in the late 1990s and the Olympics in 2010. With each of these things, it became obvious that there was an inflow of foreign capital, from both corporate and foreign investment, that destabilized house prices in the Lower Mainland. It is at the point now where, for people who live and work there, the price of detached or even non-detached houses is completely divorced from what people actually make.

What specifically does my hon. colleague say a Conservative government would do to help provide real affordable housing for people in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia? I would like to hear specifically what policy his government would advance.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I am a former municipal councillor and I think that our leader, the member for Carleton, makes an important point when he talks about cutting red tape to ensure that municipalities can issue building permits faster. I live in Beauce, and our reality may not be identical, but housing is still a major concern.

I think that there should be less red tape. I have been here for four years, and I have been saying the same thing for four years. I hope that we will see some signals in that regard over the coming months.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants.

I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C‑47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, which will help build a clean economy.

Today, the world's largest economies are making incredible strides not only in fighting the climate crisis, but also in restructuring, seizing the opportunities that this industrial shift represents for them and building clean industries. For that reason, budget 2023 includes innovative and substantial investments in building that economy right here in Canada.

Fighting the climate crisis is clearly the main objective of all major economies. However, by building a strong and inclusive economy by seizing these opportunities and using Canada's incredible resources to achieve great success in the economy of tomorrow, we are also investing in Canadian businesses, Canadian talent and Canadian workers.

Our Canadian plan uses a variety of useful measures to invest in this new clean economy. We have already spoken at length about certain clear and predictable investment tax credits. We are also providing strategic financing in sectors such as critical minerals and clean energy. By investing in these sectors, Canada will truly build its economy and increase opportunities for all Canadian workers. We are also investing in some more targeted sectors and projects of national and international significance, as we saw with the wonderful announcements about Volkswagen.

By making such significant investments for Canada, we are ensuring that we are not left behind. Currently, while all the other major global economies are investing massively in these sectors, the worst thing that could happen would be for Canada not to seize these opportunities and never have the chance to re-enter the race ever again. We must invest in transforming our economy, but also in these opportunities.

Budget 2023 truly ensures that a green Canadian economy is also a source of prosperity and jobs for the middle class, but also for more dynamic communities across the country. We cannot do it alone, however. This is going to require investment at the government level and beyond. I would like to take this discussion to the Canada growth fund. We know there are trillions of dollars in private capital waiting for these opportunities, waiting to be spent on building the clean global economy. Canada does have some rivals. We are all trying to attract the best capital from the private sector.

The recent enactment of the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act posed a major challenge for our budget. To be competitive within the North American economy, we really have to invest in our industries, since they will drive the clean economy. To succeed, we had to meet two challenges. The first was to encourage companies to take risks and invest in clean technologies, advanced technologies, here in Canada. The second was to keep up with the growing list of nations that are also using public funds to attract private capital, including the United States and the European Union. As we saw, the list does not stop there. Australia was also in the race, along with many other countries.

In budget 2022, we announced the government's plans to create the Canada growth fund, a $15‑billion arm's-length public investment vehicle that will help attract private capital to build Canada's clean economy.

The thought behind that was to use investment instruments that absorb certain risks. This is all about attracting and encouraging private investment in some of the riskier projects, in new technologies, in companies, but also in low-carbon supply chains.

The 2022 economic statement announced more details on how the Canada growth fund would work, and this new investment vehicle was created in December.

The legislation introduced last week introduces amendments to the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to allow the board, also known as PSP Investments, to provide investment management services for the Canada growth fund. As a significant part of the government's plan to decarbonize the economy, the Canada growth fund requires an experienced, professional, independent investment team to make important investments. That is why we are pooling those services.

PSP Investments is already established as a federal Crown corporation, and it already has $225 billion in assets under management. It will be able to add assets for investments in the clean economy of tomorrow. Canada growth fund assets will be managed by PSP Investments, a separate and independent corporation. We like it that way.

The Canada growth fund will make investments that will catalyze substantial private sector investment in businesses and projects in Canada to help bring about that transformation I was talking about earlier, to grow the economy and to compete in the global net-zero energy market. Canada growth fund investments will help Canada achieve its national economic and climate strategy goals.

I see that time is running out. I talked about the Canada growth fund, which will be very important and strategic for both meeting our targets and capitalizing on these opportunities. However, I also wanted to talk about a problem we have in Canada. Canadian companies are not investing enough in R and D, and not at the same level as their peers. To meet this challenge, the budget proposes a new approach and creates the Canada innovation corporation. This was announced in budget 2022, but now several sectors are being brought together and the Canada innovation corporation's mandate is being expanded.

I do not have time to talk about it in detail, but the modernization of the National Research Council is very important too. It is another tool in the tool box that will help us achieve those objectives, which are to seize those opportunities and to join the global march toward a greener economy and a healthier planet.

Clearly, we have made smart investments that are good for Canadian workers, for businesses, for the Canadian economy and for our planet. I hope that all members in the House will join me in supporting the passage of this crucial piece of legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, prior to being elected to this chamber I served with the Canadian Foodgrains Bank. I had the opportunity to work in Pontiac with that organization, and I got to know some of the excellent farmers and rural folks in the member's riding.

I am curious what reaction to the budget the member is seeing from her own agricultural constituents, as 6.8% of Canada's GDP comes from the ag sector. I noticed that she voted against Bill C-234, the carbon tax exemption for farmers, as did most, but not all, of her colleagues, which I want to acknowledge.

There is almost nothing in this budget for agriculture. What reaction is she getting in her riding from her agricultural constituents?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, my answer is very simple: Carbon pricing does not apply to Quebec. I would also add that farmers in my riding are ahead when it comes to many green technologies. They are ahead of the government because farmers live off the land and they see climate change every day. They are concerned and they need new technologies, because the seasons are much more challenging. There are some real concerns in light of extreme climate change.

These farmers are ahead and they are not worried about federal carbon pricing, because it does not apply to them. Quebec has its own carbon pricing, which is quite good and accepted.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

She spoke a lot about climate change. It is true that the government is making a lot of direct and indirect investments in the budget to help oil companies greenwash their record. The government is giving them money for carbon capture, a technology that is very controversial in the field. As we have said, there is almost nothing for housing, but the government is giving oil companies money.

Let us talk about oil companies' profits in 2022. Exxon Mobil made $56 billion in profit, Shell made $40 billion, TotalEnergies made $36 billion, Chevron made $36 billion and BP made $27 billion. How can the government give money to these oil companies, which made a combined total of $200 billion in 2022, while completely forgetting about the housing crisis?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned housing. Last year's budget earmarked a huge amount of money for housing. That funding is currently being allocated to various programs. Many citizens, committed individuals and leaders in housing are looking at how those amounts can be allocated effectively to create more housing units across Canada.

Amounts were earmarked in last year's budget, and they are being allocated to various programs. It is really a matter of ensuring that those amounts benefit all Canadians.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for Pontiac for focusing on climate change and what the government will do to combat climate change.

I would like to ask her about the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link project, which is mentioned in the budget. Unfortunately, the budget does not say how much it will invest in that project, and I wonder if she could tell the House what kinds of investments it will make to ensure that this project does indeed go ahead so more communities can reduce their reliance on diesel.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, the budget makes significant investments in clean energy. That is really the main point of my speech. Investments are needed in strategic sectors to ensure we have a clean economy, which must also be inclusive and bring prosperity to communities across the country.

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

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a huge privilege to rise in the House to debate Bill C‑47 and discuss the implementation of the budget. I thank my hon. colleague from Pontiac for sharing her time with me this afternoon. I want to present the views of my constituents in Kings—Hants on the budget and speak about certain initiatives that are very important to my riding.

The budget essentially has three major pillars. The first is a focus on affordability. The second is a focus on health care supports for the provinces and territories to help improve health care across the country. The third is the green economy, our clean energy future, and indeed Canada's future prosperity here at home.

Affordability has become a top priority for Canadians across the country as a result of higher inflation following the pandemic. The good news is that inflation declined again this month and is now 4.3%, compared to 8.1% last summer.

I think it is important to recognize the context that this government is faced with. Given the fact the Bank of Canada, through its monetary policy, has been helping to try to bring down the cost of inflation, the government has to be responsible with how it is addressing the question of consumption spending.

When we look at the budget, there is a one-time doubling of the GST rebate, which is being framed by the government as a grocery rebate, and that would be eligible to 11 million Canadians. It has been means tested, which means it is based on income. I certainly support it because it is a targeted measure. It would not necessarily support all Canadians, but those who have lower incomes and could really use support right now, given some of the challenges around affordability. Therefore, it is targeted, focused, and will not necessarily drive inflation higher, given the work the Bank of Canada is doing.

I also want to talk about something that could be framed as a health benefit, but is also an affordability benefit, which is the Canadian dental plan. The government has introduced this, and it is going to help support uninsured Canadians who have a household income below $90,000 with a program to help support their dental costs. We know that, if people do not have access to private insurance, sometimes the costs associated with surgery or fixing one's teeth can be quite expensive, particularly for those who are struggling to get by. This is a measure that is going to make a difference across the country. Indeed, in my riding of Kings—Hants, I have already had calls from families who are in receipt of the benefit that we put out, as a government, for those who are under 12. The government's program is to expand this to seniors next year, and indeed to all households with an income of below $90,000 by 2025.

My riding is still disproportionately older than the rest of the country. We have a lot of good things happening in the riding, but we have a lot of seniors, so for lower-income seniors who do not have dental insurance, this would really make a difference for them.

Let me talk about health care. As a federal member of Parliament, and I would suspect it is probably the same for many of my colleagues, I get calls quite often about health care and the state of health care in this country. I remind my constituents that I do not directly control that, nor does the Government of Canada, but it is our responsibility to make sure that there are proper resources on the table. That is exactly what this budget does. Of course, we knew this was something that had been announced prior to the budget, but there is going to be $198 billion of new spending over the next decade toward health care, above and beyond where we are right now, $46 billion of which was announced as new spending tabled by the government in this budget.

Spending alone will not solve health care, but it was something we were hearing from the provinces and territories. I am proud of the way this government has stepped up to make sure there is consistent funding over the next decade and of the fact that we know it is in place and that the provinces can take that measure and plan accordingly.

In my home province of Nova Scotia, the provincial government has staked a lot of its credibility on “fixing health care”. It will certainly have no excuses from this government because we are making sure that those resources are there. It is now its turn to get focused on the ground at being able to deliver that. That is something I am proud of.

We will continue to make sure the provinces are using the funds reasonably and make sure they are going toward health care. As we have heard before, sometimes the Government of Canada will provide transfers to the provinces and they will use them for other priorities. This government is making sure the money is going to be spent exactly where it should be, which is on health care.

I also want to highlight that the budget talks about loan forgiveness for doctors and nurses. Something the government had in place previously was loan forgiveness for doctors who practise in rural areas. We know the importance of doctors, but we also know the importance of allied health professionals. This government is extending this to nurses who practise in rural Canada. Certainly in my area of Kings—Hants in Nova Scotia, this is going to be very welcome news.

This government is addressing the clean energy economy, the third pillar. We have talked about health, we have talked about affordability and next is about matching what the United States has done. A lot of members have talked about the Inflation Reduction Act. This is a significant amount of money that the United States put on the table to help drive spending in the clean energy economy.

The Prime Minister has been very clear that this government has had a number of measures on the table for years, but the size of the American investment, nearly $400 billion U.S., is significant. Frankly, it would have been irresponsible for this government not to have some measures to make sure we responded in a way that draws capital and investment to this country and does not allow investment to simply go south of the border.

A number of measures are important, and I want to highlight a few that I think are particularly important to Atlantic Canada. One is the 15% refundable tax credit for clean electricity. This will matter across the country, and I want to give credit to the Minister of Finance. As opposed to putting these types of incentives in government programs that entities have to apply for, we are setting the criteria, saying what people can expect. The money will flow much quicker and will allow businesses to have certainty to make investments. This will matter for entities across the country but particularly in my province, which needs to keep driving its electricity future in a renewable way.

I have talked a lot about nuclear in this House. Really important measures for nuclear are being included in these measures. This is something we have heard from all sides of the House, largely, and I want to compliment those who have raised these issues in the House, because this government, in this budget, is doing exactly that and making sure we have homegrown solutions that can make a difference.

On clean hydrogen, we have a world of opportunity in Atlantic Canada. Members should come visit us sometime. We would love to showcase the investments and that we have the ability to help fuel the world right from Atlantic Canada. It is going to be through clean hydrogen. This government is putting incentives on the table to make sure it happens in Atlantic Canada and not another part of the country.

I have talked at great length in this House over the last year about the importance of the Atlantic loop. There is again a mention of that in the budget. I know there is ongoing co-operation between the Government of Canada and various provincial entities. We need to keep driving that project forward.

In Kings—Hants, agriculture and forestry are predominant industries at the primary level. I was very pleased to see investments of $368 million to the Department of Natural Resources for forestry initiatives. We need to see at least some of that go toward mass timber. There is an opportunity in Atlantic Canada, and indeed in Kings—Hants, for a mass timber facility. The Atlantic region is the only region of the country that does not yet have that. This matters, and I really hope we can see those projects move in the days ahead.

On the agriculture side, the advance payments program, with the continuation of interest-free loans, is going to make a difference for my farmers. I was pleased to see the Minister of Agriculture help ensure that foot-and-mouth disease vaccines will be available in this country. We have available stock. There is also the dairy innovation and investment fund. Given that I have the largest number of supply-managed farms east of Quebec, this is going to matter to my farmers in the days ahead.

One thing that I think this government needs to address would simply be the importance of continuing to drive a mechanism around non-cost measures. It is important that we invest. The government is doing so, but it is also important that we look at regulatory reform measures that do not cost money and that can help drive industry success. I hope to see a formal mechanism as we head into the fall.

I see my time has unfortunately come to a close, but I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reviewed the budget and identified close to $800 million in what the government is calling non-announced spending. This would be in addition to the billions of dollars in non-announced spending announced last year.

I am wondering if the member could tell us what this spending would be for.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member would probably be best suited to ask that question of the Minister of Finance. Yes, I sit on this side of the House, but I am not a member of the King's Privy Council.

I will say that, as per normal, the government will outline expenditures in certain areas where it looks to take up programs. The budget is not a complete view of every single program the government will release over the next calendar year. Sometimes it is an outlay of money whereby the government will build a model and program that will help service Canadians in the days ahead. That might be some of what the member is talking about regarding the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

If he would like to have a conversation after our interaction, I would be happy to take on his concerns and do what I can to engage my colleagues on this side.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague across the way to tell us more about the Royal Style and Titles Act, which the budget plans to amend.

Over the weekend, a survey showed that over 60% of Canadians want to cut ties with the British monarchy. We also saw a news report informing us that the King of England is living in luxury off a tax-exempt fortune of over $3 billion.

Meanwhile, here at home, the budget has next to nothing for seniors or housing. Health transfers are practically non-existent, or are whittled down to the bare bones.

Can my colleague tell me how to explain to our constituents why the budget is focusing so much attention on the King of England while totally ignoring our problems at home?

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

Madam Speaker, let me first address some of the questions.

There is $46 billion in domestic spending for health care. There has been 70 billion dollars' worth of housing spending. Part of the reason why we did not see major expenditures is money is still getting out the door to help support Quebeckers and indeed those across the country.

I will address the member's question. He is framing this as about the King of England. It is about Canada's constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom, and that includes the indigenous people in this country. The treaties we have forged with indigenous people tie back to the British Crown. Our history as a country is rooted in the relationship we have with the British monarchy. It is ceremonial in nature. We certainly have the integrity to make our own decisions in this country.

I support the relationship we have, because the question becomes how we create a different system in the days ahead. That comes with its own Pandora's box of issues. The member opposite is a sovereigntist, and he would like to see Quebec removed from the federation. I want to see Canada united. I think there is a pathway where we can recognize everyone's distinct differences across the country while recognizing that Canada's shared history ties back to the British Crown.

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

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about specific aspects of the budget that tie back into helping rural and remote communities attract doctors and nurses by extending an offer to lessen debt for nurses. I appreciate that.

I come from a riding with communities like Port Hardy, which, an article just came out saying, is again going to have to shut down the emergency room during the day. Right now, the emergency room is open only during the day, not during the evening or the night. People have to leave their community and drive far away to get emergency services. It is the same on Cormorant Island.

Does the member think it would be important for the government to step up and make sure there are ties to small, rural communities struggling in this country in terms of health care, to get them a bit extra to get through this time? I know that, in B.C., the provincial government has stepped up, but it needs more resources to address this huge crisis.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the nature of the question. However, as it relates to whether a hospital emergency room is going to be open or not, it largely ties back to the decision of health authorities at a provincial level.

I appreciate that the member opposite said that requires more resources. I think it requires both more resources and an allocation of said resources in the province. We are doing our part, on the federal side, to make sure there is stable funding provided to the provinces. In fact, Premier Eby has recognized and endorsed the health deal the Government of Canada has put on the table.

As it relates to the member's rural communities, which I sympathize with, I hope she will take up with the provincial government what it is doing to make sure there are proper resources to service rural communities, because it is an important question.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today and speak to the implementation of the budget. It is an incredible honour for me, as well, to be splitting my time with the great member for Edmonton Manning, who is a very valuable colleague. I am really looking forward to hearing what he has to say later. However, before that, members have to endure 10 minutes of my speaking.

It might not come as any surprise, based on the debate we have had over the last couple of weeks, but Conservatives have not supported and will not be supporting the implementation of this budget, mainly for three reasons. We laid out key priorities that we wanted to see in this budget ahead of time and they really were not met.

This budget would add billions of dollars in debt, with no plan to get back to balance. The Prime Minister has already added more debt than all previous prime ministers combined in this country and there is no plan to get to balance. That is the part that really worries me. Not only would this spending add fuel to the inflationary fire and increase the cost of living, but it would also threaten the sustainability of our public services for future generations. Each dollar we have to spend servicing debt is a dollar we cannot be spending on other services. That is something we all have to keep in mind, moving forward, and the government should keep in mind that, when it racks up billions of dollars in debt, it is threatening our social services for future generations. This budget would also raise taxes. As I just alluded to, we know there is a cost of living crisis with inflation. The government has chosen, once again, to raise taxes for Canadians further and there is truly no plan to build homes and get affordable units built.

For those three main reasons, Conservatives voted against the budget, and I have every expectation that, moving forward, we will be voting against the implementation of this budget.

I want to take a step back and talk about another major issues that I feel is neglected in this budget. That is about community safety. We have seen concerns with community safety around the region in northwestern Ontario in communities like Kenora, Dryden and Sioux Lookout. Policing calls for services have been up, as have, of course, the costs that go with this, to the point where municipalities are struggling and trying to figure out how they are going to be able to deal with those costs. We have seen assaults, slashed tires, vehicle break-ins and things like needles being found around the community, all happening with greater frequency around the area.

As I mentioned, we are seeing this right across northwestern Ontario, but there has been a certain amount of media coverage specifically around the city of Kenora. It is the largest community in the riding, so a lot of the notes I will refer to will mention Kenora specifically, but I would like members to keep in mind that it is something that is not unique to the city of Kenora but is right across northwestern Ontario.

We have seen articles with headlines such as “Kenora assault leaves one with life threatening injuries”, from March. The Kenora OPP has recently released figures showing that property crime has actually increased 10% year over year. It is now at the point where local professionals and business owners are scared to go to work. When I go door knocking and talk to people around the community, many residents tell me they are afraid to go downtown and certainly would not go downtown in the evening or at night. That is incredibly sad on a number of levels. Kenora is one of the smallest cities in Ontario. It has 15,000 people. We did not even lock our doors when we were growing up. It is really one of those tight-knit, small-town communities and people are now scared to go downtown. Many businesses have been locking their doors during operating hours; people have to ring the doorbell in order to gain access.

It brings up the question of what is driving all of this. Why are we seeing this increase in crime, and why are people feeling less safe? There is certainly no single answer and there is no single solution, but one of the issues we are seeing in Kenora and in the other communities of our riding is that, unfortunately, there are many homeless residents. Many of these individuals are struggling with their mental health and with addiction challenges, and they do not have proper supports around them. There is great work being done by people like Dr. Jonny Grek, who has been going around providing treatment to homeless residents on the street. I had the opportunity very recently to join him for a walk to see what he does.

There are other organizations, like Ne-Chee Friendship Centre; the Makwa Patrol, also known as the Bear Clan Patrol in other areas of the country; and the Morningstar Detoxification Centre. These are all incredible organizations with great people doing great work to help those who are vulnerable and those who are struggling. However, it is an indisputable fact that the current systems just cannot deal with the magnitude of the issue before us right now. This is truly a crisis.

Coupled with the addiction concern, there has been an increase in HIV. In 2022, there were more HIV cases in Kenora than in the previous eight years combined. Overdose deaths have increased 82%, year over year, and northwestern Ontario now has the highest per capita overdose mortality rate in the province of Ontario.

On housing, and I mentioned that this issue is coupled with housing, the KDSB, the Kenora District Services Board, for those who do not know, estimates that there are 100 homeless residents in the small community of Kenora. There are more than 1,300 households on an affordable housing wait-list; that is an increase of nearly 1,000 households from just nine years ago, to paint the picture of the broader housing issue we are seeing across the region.

This budget does mention housing a bit. It does mention treatment and recovery, but on treatment and recovery specifically, it is light on details. Given the fact that this issue has been spiralling for the last eight years and that there have not been proper supports put in place, I know that a lot of people in the Kenora district and northwestern Ontario, myself included, really do not feel the government will step up to meet this challenge.

On the other hand, Conservatives support policies that get people into recovery instead of spending a night in a cell, only to be released and continue that cycle over and over again. I have seen that far too often. I have done a few ride-alongs and have been able to go around the community, not just in Kenora but also in Pickle Lake, Dryden and others. I have seen people who have asked to be arrested so that they have somewhere to stay. I have heard of people who have chosen to commit a crime so that, if they do not have proper supports around them, they know they will have a few nights of somewhere to stay where they will have a bed and a meal.

Conservatives support treatment and recovery options. That includes giving Correctional Services power to designate all or part of a penitentiary as a treatment facility. We also support greater consequences for repeat violent offenders and for the drug dealers who are preying on these vulnerable people with addictions. We want to see greater consequences for those individuals, but, unfortunately, violent crime was not mentioned even once in this budget. Overall, those solutions, addictions treatment and recovery, are what I feel is missing from this budget and it is what Conservatives will certainly be focusing on over the next number of months and into the term in which we form government.

As I mentioned, there is no silver-bullet solution to this, but it would certainly help to address the crisis that we are seeing on the streets of Kenora, of Dryden and of Sioux Lookout, to help ensure that everyone in our community is safe, from the vulnerable residents, the homeless population, to the business owners and professionals and the visitors. Kenora sits on the beautiful Lake of the Woods in northwestern Ontario and it is an incredibly popular tourist spot each summer. We want to make sure that everyone in our community is safe.

This budget does not get it done, but Conservatives will.

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

Madam Speaker, I have heard the hon. member repeat what I have heard a number of Conservatives repeat, which is, apparently, that they had three demands of things to be seen in the budget before they would agree to vote in favour of the budget. This member mentioned it. A number of Conservative members prior have mentioned it.

The only problem with that is that, the day before the budget was introduced, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Thornhill, during question period, said that Conservatives would not be supporting the budget. Nobody knew what was in the budget at that point. As a matter of fact, it is against the rules of the House for anybody to have known that, yet, somehow, the member for Thornhill, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, knew enough to know that those three items would not be in the budget.

This just leads me to assume that, really, Conservatives are just playing games with words here. They never intended to support the budget, regardless of their demands. I am wondering if the member can provide some insight into that.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have not heard from my colleague in a while in this chamber, so I appreciate his intervention.

The question gives me the opportunity to highlight the fact that the three demands we had were not met. We asked for a cap on government spending to help rein in inflation, and the government is adding billions of dollars in debt. We asked for taxes to be lowered on Canadians, and the government is raising taxes. We asked for a plan to get homes built by speeding up building permits and looking at ways to free up land and federal buildings for development, and that is not in this budget. That is why we are not supporting it.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked a little bit about housing, and I thank him for that, because it is a pretty important topic.

Unfortunately, when we listen to the Conservatives, it is not really clear what their solutions are and what they are going to do about it.

The Liberals are terrible, and they are getting nowhere. My colleague bragged earlier about $70 billion in investments over the last five years. In the last five years, 35,000 new social housing units have been built in Canada through this strategy. I have no idea where the billions of dollars went. According to studies by CIBC and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, Canada needs to build 3.5 million units in the next 10 years if we are going to address the twin issues of affordability and accessibility.

If we want to help those most in need in this country, the government needs to intervene and be more effective. What are the Conservative Party's solutions?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question gives me a chance to reiterate what I just said to the member for Kingston and the Islands around housing. What Conservatives are calling for, and what we will do when we form government, is to implement a plan to speed up building permits. We need to make sure it is possible to build things in this country again. We need to create those incentives so developers will be able to and will want to build the housing units we so desperately need. We also want to lean on the resources the federal government has, the land and the buildings that are being underutilized, so we can turn that into affordable housing units.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke in his speech about the overdose drug crisis in this country. In 2010, I was part of the public safety committee that toured this country and studied the provision of mental health and addiction services in Canada's federal prison system. At that time, we came out with a number of recommendations to the Harper government, which included a number of positive things, none of which were brought in by the Harper government. Instead, the Harper government closed the Kingston farms, closed industrial training programs for prisoners and did not implement a single harm reduction measure in Canada's federal prison system.

It appears the modern Conservative Party has had a conversion on the road to Damascus and is now talking about progressive policy. Does the member agree with the NDP that it is time we gave access to timely treatment for anybody who wants treatment for substance abuse or addiction through Canada's public health care system? Does he agree that addiction is a health issue and it warrants access to treatment through our public health care system, like every other disease and affliction?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am always amazed by the NPD's focus on a prime minister who has not been in office in eight years. The Harper government was elected and lost power from office before I was even able to vote, so it is incredible that the NDP is so focused on the past instead of holding the current government to account.

To the specific question, which is an important one, I do not have time to—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, economists are telling us that Canada is on the brink of a recession, and the response of the Liberal government is to offer us a grim budget. Not only is it grim in the dictionary sense of being depressing or worrying to consider, but it is also Grimm as if it were written by the Grimm brothers. In other words, the finance minister has offered us a complete fairy tale.

The minister thinks she is playing the role of Snow White, with her cabinet colleagues as the seven dwarfs. Of course, that would leave the Prime Minister the role of Prince Charming. However, the Disney version is not the original story. In the Grimm original version of “Snow White”, the one Canadians will experience with this budget, the Minister of Finance would be the evil queen, and her budget the poisoned apple. Only by removing the apple from Show White's throat can she be saved, and only by defeating this budget can Canada's economy be saved from this Liberal disaster.

Perhaps the finance minister has a starring role in another of the Grimm brothers' fairy tales: “Cinderella”. After all, she just bought some new glass slippers before presenting her budget. The minister wants Canadians to believe that she is the fairy godmother, handing out cheques from the government. Who could argue with the idea of free money, even if it causes more inflation? However, the money is not really free. Cinderella may spend, spend and spend, never worrying that the clock is about to strike midnight, but midnight is coming and she will have to face the reality. Her beautiful horses are really mice, and when the clock strikes 12, we will discover just how big a pumpkin she has stuck the Canadian people with.

This type of fairy tale is not a new thing for this government. After eight years, we should be used to the fantasies spun by the Liberal storytellers, by the Prime Minister and his cabinet. From the beginning, they have shown their inability to understand basic mathematics.

In 2015, the Liberal leader promised Canadians that if he formed government, he would balance the budget by 2019. Does anyone on the other side remember that promise? After eight years, he has not even come close to balancing the budget. Instead, he just piles on more and more debt with government spending that drives up the price of groceries and everything else. He thinks people should be grateful to him for breaking his promises, because his government, as he says, will always have Canadians' backs, which is easy for him to say since we have already had to give him the shirts off our backs to pay for his high prices and high taxes.

The Minister of Finance has learned from the Prime Minister. She has not promised us a balanced budget. Given the Liberal track record, I am not sure she knows what a balanced budget is. It may be because there was one thing missing from this budget, one small spending item that would have made a big difference if purchased and used: a dictionary. If the Liberals owned a dictionary, the finance minister might discover that the definition of “fiscal restraint” is not “spend the country into recession”. Fiscal restraint is not telling Canadians in the fall of 2022 that the government expects to run a $30-billion deficit, and then adding an addition $10 billion a few months later. Can the minister be so unaware of the true numbers, or was she intentionally misleading Canadians?

After eight years of this government, the deficits get higher, the national debt grows and our grandchildren will still be stuck with paying for Liberal extravagance. Rather than handing out cheques to Canadians struggling to feed their families due to high grocery prices, why does this government not actually do something about inflation, rather than making things worse? Is it because it does not have a clue how the economy works?

The government can be counted on to always say the right thing, but its actions speak louder than words. Simply put, it does not walk the talk.

A government that broke its promises about balancing the budget and that has steadily increased the deficit and national debt and fuelled record inflation should not be entrusted with the finances of the nation. Then again, the Liberals spent $6,000 a night on a hotel room for the Prime Minister, complete with butler service. Perhaps the Liberals do understand the financial challenges faced by ordinary Canadians and instead just do not care.

I am not the only one who has noticed that the budget presented to us by the finance minister is a fairy tale. According to The Globe and Mail, this budget “is all a fiscal fantasy: the Liberal budget is built on a cloud of sleight-of-hand projections and the hope that Canadians are suffering from collective amnesia.” If finance minister Cinderella really wants to help Canadians, and I believe she does, she needs to abandon this reckless spending program that she described as “fiscal restraint”. She needs to recognize that people are suffering and she can act to make things better.

First, she needs to lower taxes and scrap the carbon tax so that hard work will pay off again. The grocery tax rebate she is offering does not make up for the increases in payroll taxes and the carbon tax. Her policies are fuelling inflation and making people poorer, which is why one in five Canadians is skipping meals and food banks are seeing record demand. Second, she needs to get government spending under control. The Prime Minister has added more to our national debt than all prime ministers in our history.

The finance minister says that she will balance the budget in 2028, but she has no plan. Continued inflationary deficits are driving up the cost of the goods we buy and the interest we pay. The finance minister's plan to balance the budget is probably the same one her predecessor used: keep on spending with even greater deficits and pretend that the budget will somehow magically balance itself in a few years. After all, we are living in a Liberal fairy tale where such things can happen, except they do not happen. As the government has never managed to meet a self-imposed climate change target, so too has it continuously failed to show any signs of fiscal restraint or fiscal responsibility. It is as if the minister knows the government is doomed so she does not have to worry about it or about balancing the budget. Instead, eliminating the national debt will be someone else's problem.

When the Prime Minister was staying in that $6,000-a-night hotel suite, he went down to the hotel lobby one evening for a sing-along. Perhaps the Minister of Finance should take note of the words of the song he sang:

Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landside
No escape from reality

For the Canadian people, this is indeed real life, caught in a landslide of a fantasy budget. For them, there is indeed no escape from reality. I urge the Minister of Finance to learn from the fairy tales and drop her starring role in them. The fiscal clock is about to strike midnight, and it is time for Cinderella to face reality.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development]

Madam Speaker, speaking of fairy tales, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. The real fairy tale, however, is that it has been more than two weeks since we tabled our fine budget, which is a responsible budget for the economy, the future and our children.

I would ask my colleague what fairy tale he is referring to, since he has not asked a single question about the budget in two weeks. He is asking personal questions about the Prime Minister, but he has nothing to say about the budget.

If his party has concerns about the budget, would it not be appropriate to ask questions about it in question period?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was still on the definition issue with the government, and there is nothing in the budget to ask for. The budget is more spending, more inflation, no responsibility and no going back to balanced. What is there to ask for in the budget other than more bad news for Canadians? The government is looking for more and higher taxes, more spending and a more uncertain future.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been touring Quebec recently, travelling all over the place to talk about the housing crisis, because I think it is a very serious issue. I have heard from a lot of people.

In Joliette, for example, an adult living with an intellectual disability found himself on the street, homeless, in other words, and he ended up committing suicide. There was nothing in the budget to help someone like him. I heard about a woman in Trois-Rivières who is a victim of domestic violence and is now living in her car with her two children. There was nothing in the budget to help her. I heard about a family of 17 people in Longueuil living in a three-bedroom apartment. There was nothing in the budget to help those folks.

Does my colleague have any solutions for the issues I just raised and the people I just talked about?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, of course, the housing crisis is a devastating situation, and it is heartbreaking to see a lot of Canadians who cannot find houses. Furthermore, our young generations do not even dream of owning or buying a house in the future. The proposed budget would not address any of that. The government is dominated by the idea of spending so much and achieving so little, and that is the problem we are facing right now.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rather enjoy the hon. member for Edmonton Manning. I appreciate his wisdom. He often comes with some really insightful information for the House. He spoke today about a fantasyland. I feel like I am in a fantasyland because it seems that the Conservatives' only solution to housing is to supersede provincial jurisdiction and have the federal government, if I am getting this correctly, intervene in local planning decision-making.

In this new fantasyland from the party of Wexit, Alberta sovereignty and the Buffalo declaration, where does the federal government take over municipal decision-making and start eliminating the gatekeepers at local planning meetings?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is another fantasy world. It is the planet the NDP is living on right now. That is the bottom line. We are trying to remove gatekeepers and streamline the system. We are trying to help provinces by offering real help, not just a bunch of spending that would achieve nothing. That is the plan. It is a logical plan that makes sense.

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

Madam Speaker, the budget contains much inflationary pressure. There is $15 billion for an infrastructure bank that never built a project and another $15 billion for a slush fund in the Canada growth fund with no details on what that is about. Although there is such a crisis in affordable housing, as there is in my riding, the budget has $5.5 billion dollars to build only 4,500 spaces and remove barriers to building maybe another 100,000. That is a huge gap, and it is another inflationary pressure.

Could the member comment on that?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, that goes back to the same idea we noticed here. The government spends too much and achieves too little. If this continues to be the case, there is no hope that we will see any actual results.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development]

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

I am pleased to rise today to talk about our budget. As the member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Development, I am pleased to talk about its impact on rural Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

This budget is based on our plan to grow our economy, fight climate change and continue to make life more affordable for Canadians in every community. The previous Conservative government cut the rural secretariat; by contrast, our Liberal government appointed the first federal minister of rural economic development to ensure that federal programs are adapted to the unique realities and needs of rural communities and allow those communities to finally have a dedicated voice at the cabinet table.

Our government recognizes that rural communities are the cornerstone of our economy. When rural Canada succeeds, the rest of Canada is stronger for it. The Minister of Rural Economic Development and I have travelled across the country to remote and indigenous rural communities and they shared their priorities with us directly. They also talked about how we can work together to ensure that every community has what it needs to prosper.

From what we heard, the top priority of rural communities is to close the connectivity gap to ensure that every Canadian has access to reliable, affordable high-speed Internet no matter where they live. We are making this happen.

Since 2015, our government has made $7.6 billion available for expanding access to this essential service. The universal broadband fund, with its budget of more than $3.2 billion, is the largest federal investment in broadband in Canada's history. That is 10 times the investments of all the previous governments combined. We have consistently increased funding for the fund to ensure that we are on the right track to exceed our objective of connecting 98% of Canadians by 2026 and 100% of Canadians by 2030.

Last fall, we added $485 million to the fund to continue our work. I want to point out that the Conservative Party voted against those essential investments every chance it got. Those significant investments helped compensate for the previous Conservative government's 10 years of inaction. In 2014, only 79% of Canadians had access to high-speed Internet, while today 93.5% of them do. That is real progress.

Since the fund was launched, over $2.2 billion in funding has been announced for 260 projects and six federal-provincial funding arrangements. The money announced will make it possible for over 950,000 households, including over 29,000 indigenous households, to get affordable and reliable high-speed Internet access. The universal broadband fund has already helped provide high-speed Internet access to over 200,000 underserved households across the country, and 80,000 additional households should have improved access by the end of the year.

In Quebec, almost 100% of households are covered by projects that will get them connected to high-speed Internet. That would not have been possible without the investments that we made and our partnership with the provincial government. The fund makes it possible to offer access to reliable high-speed Internet at an affordable price. Affordability is an issue that is of concern to many Canadians living in rural areas.

Despite the progress made on connectivity and rebuilding our economy following the pandemic, global inflation means that many Canadians are still finding it hard to put food on the table. That is why the 2023 budget includes new targeted supports for the most vulnerable Canadians to help them with the cost of living while working to build the economy of tomorrow, an economy that benefits all Canadians and gives them the means to prosper.

I would like to focus on one of these affordability measures, the new grocery rebate. We know that staples are more expensive today, especially in rural areas where the cost of living is higher. These higher prices are a source of great stress for families. That is why we are proposing $2.5 billion to lessen the effects of inflation in a targeted manner for 11 million low-income families. On average, a couple with two children will qualify for up to $467 more, single Canadians without children will receive up to $234 and seniors will receive up to $225 more. We have shown that, as a government, we are there for Canadians when they need us, as is the case with the Canada child benefit. This measure will put more money in the pockets of Canadian families and seniors who need it most.

Investments in budget 2023 will strengthen Canada's health care system, allocating $198.3 billion for reducing backlogs, expanding access to family health services and ensuring that the provinces and territories can provide the top-quality health care that Canadians deserve. The budget also introduces a new Canadian dental care program that will benefit up to nine million Canadians. This program will guarantee that no Canadian family will have to choose between dental care and paying bills at the end of the month. These investments will bring real changes to the daily lives of Canadians in rural regions. Parents should not have to worry about the cost of their child's dental checkup. Seniors should be able to consult a doctor without having to worry about travelling too far because there are no doctors in their community.

The House resumed from April 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a privilege to rise in the House on behalf of my constituents in Vaudreuil—Soulanges to speak to budget 2023, “A Made-in-Canada Plan”, tabled by the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

This budget reflects the global challenges we are facing as Canadians. It is a prudent, responsible and considered budget.

We must invest in the future of this incredible country that we are fortunate to call home and in the well-being of individuals, workers and families. We must invest in the green transition and in the cleaner and more prosperous economy of the future.

For the members of my community of Vaudreuil—Soulanges and for individuals and families across Canada, this budget is the next step towards a better future in which more Canadians will be able to find meaningful employment and live in an environment with better protection that will be enjoyed by future generations.

It comes at a time when the strength, resilience and perseverance of Canadians are once again on full display, because even with the immense challenges we have experienced over recent years, business owners and entrepreneurs have created over 865,000 more jobs for Canadians. Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio remains the best of all G7 member countries, and the Bank of Canada has projected that Canada's inflation rate should drop below 3% by the end of the year. Even while the economy has grown, Canada's annual report on emissions shows an 8.4% reduction in emissions since 2005. This is proof that, by working together, we as Canadians can meet any challenge we face, and through smart policies implemented over the last seven years, the Government of Canada can be there to support Canadians along the way.

In my remarks today, I would like to speak to three main components of this budget that would continue to respond to the needs of Canadians and build a better, stronger Canada: first, the strengthening of Canada's national health care system and the expansion of the national dental care; second, a grocery rebate for Canadians when they need it most; and finally, the unprecedented investment toward building a greener economy.

First, budget 2023 would address one of the biggest challenges we face as a nation and one that has been highlighted by the pandemic: the need to strengthen and renew our universal public health care system. That is why budget 2023 would commit Canada to delivering $198.3 billion to reduce backlogs, expand access to family health services and ensure that provinces and territories can provide quality health care to Canadians while also ensuring greater transparency and accountability.

Budget 2023 would also provide the funding necessary to deliver on our promise to expand national dental care, an investment that would ensure that up to nine million Canadians who need it most will receive the dental care they need. In 2021, I had the honour of meeting several incredible volunteer dental hygienists in the city of Pincourt, in my community of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, where they were holding one of their mobile clinics offering free preventative oral care. They highlighted the necessity of greater access to dental care for Canadians and stressed that, by bolstering preventative oral care, Canada could reduce avoidable health care costs at our hospitals. This sentiment was one shared by members of my seniors committee, who spoke to their experiences and those of their loved ones who have had limited access to dental care due to budget constraints. It is also what I have heard time and again from struggling parents in my community who have no dental coverage through work, and whose children have had to wait years between visits to the dentist, if they have ever gone at all.

This budget would ensure that, by the end of 2023, dental care would be available for seniors, youth under the age of 18 and Canadians with disabilities with household incomes below $90,000. This budget says, loud and clear, that when a child smiles in my community or any community represented by any member of the House, it is no longer acceptable to be able to gauge the income of parents based on the smile of their child.

The new grocery rebate is another key component of the budget that will make food bills more affordable. Over the past year, food prices have skyrocketed around the world, and Canada is no exception.

As a result, families have no other choice but to spend more on groceries every week. To help them, and to help 11 million families across Canada, we will be giving eligible couples with two children up to $467 more, single Canadians with no children up to $234 more, and seniors up to $225 more, on average. This is a $2.5-billion investment in Canadians’ well-being that will be appreciated by seniors, parents and workers in my community, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, who need it the most.

The third component I would like to address is the ongoing commitment in the budget to build a green and prosperous Canadian economy for the future. In my community, we will support not only a prosperous economy, but also a healthy environment. In Vaudreuil—Soulanges, we are blessed with magnificent landscapes and the daily benefits of our environmental wealth. A great many collective memories in our community are forged in the nature that surrounds us, as we enjoy snowshoeing on the trails in Saint-Lazare, kayaking in Vaudreuil-Dorion Bay, hiking on Mont Rigaud, cycling on the Soulanges Canal, or even picnicking at Pointe-du-Moulin in Notre-Dame-de-l'Île-Perrot.

I am extremely proud of the work we have done to enhance our environmental protection measures and of our government’s ongoing efforts to fight climate change. The 2023 budget delivers on our promise to Canadians to build a greener Canada and makes great strides in the fight against climate change.

We are tackling climate change with a three-pronged approach: a prosperous energy sector, clean electricity and a clean economy. Overall, we allocated $88 billion in new investments between now and 2035. This means more money for greener electricity and associated infrastructure in order to create an affordable, sustainable and reliable Canada-wide electrical grid, increase battery manufacturing, reduce taxes for the manufacturing of zero-emission technologies, and provide more support for workers in the clean economy sector.

The results of these investments are already being felt. Recent reports show that Canada has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 8.4% over 2005.

Finally, I would like to speak to a specific component of this budget to help Canadians reduce waste and save money.

More electronic devices in our society means more chargers of all shapes and sizes piling up in our homes and our offices, burdening all Canadians with additional costs and contributing to thousands of tonnes of electronic waste every year. This January, I launched a campaign within my Liberal caucus to have Canada commit to joining the European Union in mandating USB-C universal charging by 2024. After productive discussions with the Minister of Finance and her team, securing the support of the Prime Minister and Liberal caucus members, I was truly happy to see that budget 2023 would commit Canada to working with partners and stakeholders to explore implementing a standard charging port in Canada for small electronic devices and laptops as well.

Adding to the success already realized through the government's ban on select single-use plastics, the implementation of universal chargers in Canada would be a practical way to not only reduce waste but also keep more money in the pockets of Canadians. I look forward to helping this move forward in the months and years ahead.

For these reasons and many more, and on behalf of the community of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, I fully support passing the 2023 budget in the House. I will be voting in favour of this budget, and I hope that my colleagues from all parties will also voice their support.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to learn who this budget was meant for. Now I understand that it was meant for the citizens of Vaudreuil—Soulanges. I am happy to have heard my colleague’s speech.

I invite the citizens of Vaudreuil—Soulanges to read the budget carefully and consider what the government means when it speaks of the environment, because the Liberals are still in favour of carbon capture and storage as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. With regard to dental care, I also invite my colleague’s constituents to note that there is already a dental program in Quebec.

The question I would like to ask my colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges concerns the Liberals’ commitment to make federal services more efficient. In 2022, money was set aside for this in the budget. This year, the Liberals committed to improving federal services and making them more efficient.

I would like to know how that is going so far.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to announce to the House and to my constituents in Vaudreuil—Soulanges that I will be giving them the opportunity to ask a few questions. I will be holding a town hall with my constituents in the coming weeks here in Ottawa, virtually and in my community.

I look forward to answering their questions in person and explaining how the 2023 budget will help them and their families in the years ahead.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite talked quite a bit about affordability and its importance in his speech, but the budget really does the opposite of addressing affordability. It adds billions of dollars of debt, which is going to drive up inflation. It adds new taxes, especially the carbon tax, which is going to make the costs of gas, groceries and home heating more expensive.

My question for the member opposite is simply this: If he is so concerned about affordability, why does the budget make life more unaffordable for Canadians?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, one thing I will say is that we differ on the definition of affordability. On this side of the House, we like to provide more support for Canadians when they need it the most. On that side of the House, they like to vote against all the measures we are putting in place, including the Canada child benefit and child care.

In the budget, we put money toward helping Canadians pay for grocery bills, which the Conservatives are voting against. We have money for dental care, which will put hundreds of dollars, if not thousands of dollars, back in the pockets of seniors, youth under the age of 18 and those with disabilities. The Conservatives are voting against it.

We have a different understanding of what affordability is, and it is a shame that the other party will be voting against all these measures.

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

Madam Speaker, the New Democrats have spent a lot of time working with energy workers and those who are trying to see a move toward a clean-tech economy. We have heard a lot of promises in the budget, but I cannot go back to workers in Windsor or Fort Mac without a legislative framework and tell them to trust the government. A legislative framework is needed.

They are talking about a sustainable job secretariat. Where is it? When they talk about a sustainable jobs partnership council, is this going to be legislated? I cannot go back to workers and say, “Hey, trust 'em. It's going to happen somehow. It's somewhere in the budget.”

Will the government commit to putting those key elements into legislation with rights for workers to guarantee that we move toward a clean-tech economy with well-paying union jobs?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know this is an issue that is extremely important to my colleague. It is one that is important to me. I spent 10 years in the environmental field prior to entering politics. For me, the proof is in the pudding.

We have been fighting for record investments in transitioning towards a green economy. This budget alone commits $88 billion to make that happen. It means more charging stations across the country. It means continuing to fund the subsidies, the incentives to buy electric vehicles. It means investments of $13 billion in bringing the factories that are going to produce the next-generation batteries for electric vehicles to Canada.

This is what we have been waiting for as environmentalists, as people who have been fighting for this for decades. It is finally here. It is paying off, and we are going to continue to invest in a transition towards a greener economy.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, respectfully, I would put forward that what we have been waiting for as environmentalists is to stop subsidizing fossil fuels. I respect what this member has done before being elected and while elected to work toward that. However, there are still four new subsidies in the midst of a climate crisis, totalling over $3.3 billion in this budget.

What is he going to do to put pressure to put an end to that?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his commitment and dedication to the environment even prior to entering politics.

I would say that this budget continues along our promise to reduce our subsidies to the fossil fuel sector by 2025. It is a commitment that we made. It is one that I will be pushing for continuously behind the scenes, with many members of our caucus, to ensure that we meet this promise. I too want to be able to look my constituents in the eye and say that we kept that promise.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend from Calgary Midnapore.

It is always an honour to rise in this place. Today, I speak in response to another Liberal budget failure. Budget 2023 and the budget implementation bill do not work for the people who do the work. More will be spent, but Canadians will actually get less. During a time when Canadians are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet, the finance minister and the Prime Minister just made things a lot worse. I will explain how that came about.

Conservatives had these three clear demands for the budget: lowering taxes on workers, including scrapping the carbon tax; ending the inflationary deficits and wasteful spending that is creating the cost of living crisis, plus driving up inflation; and building more affordable homes for Canadians. In other words, Canadians believe that Canada should work for the people who have done the work.

However, the budget meets none of our demands. Instead, what the finance minister and the Prime Minister presented were more Liberal tax hikes, more deficits and more inflationary spending. The budget includes billions of dollars of new inflationary debt and taxes.

I surveyed individuals, businesses and municipalities in my riding to better understand how the cost of living crisis has been impacting them financially. Seventy per cent of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner residents who participated in the survey do not believe that Canada's economic situation will improve in 2023. In fact, 70% of respondents expect that their personal financial situation will be the same as or worse than it was in 2022. Overall, they have no faith in the Liberal government's ability to offer hope for their financial stability or future prosperity.

Maybe this is why: In budget 2023, tax revenue has increased a whopping 92% from 2015 and now sits at $261 billion more than the last time Conservatives put forward a budget. It is no wonder taxes are so high. Spending is up to $456 billion from $280 billion in 2015. That is a 63% increase in just seven years. Low-income and working-class people will suffer the most because of the Liberal deficits and inflation. In fact, this budget will add about $4,200 per family in new government spending, with taxpayers left holding the bag.

While we are on the topic of bags Canadians cannot afford to be holding, we can talk about grocery bags. The wasteful spending of the Liberals has caused the cost of food and groceries to skyrocket. Their so-called grocery rebate is actually a GST rebate. It is really just lipstick on a pig. It will provide a meagre $234 for a single adult and $467 for a family. This does little to cover the rising cost of food that the Liberals' own inflationary deficits and wasteful spending have helped to create.

What is worse is that the Liberals think that they are helping, but as we all know, “Canada's Food Price Report 2023” predicts that a family of four will actually spend nearly $1,100 more on food this year alone. Anyone who has been to a grocery store lately will know that this is not even the worst of it. The small one-time Liberal payoff is lost in the inflation and ever-increasing carbon tax.

Speaking of taxes, the Liberals raised payroll taxes on workers and small businesses in January of this year. A worker making about $66,000 a year will be forced to pay an extra $255 to the mandatory Canada pension plan and an extra $50 for employment insurance tax. That is a $305 increase per worker, meaning that, in a family with two working parents, the parents will be required to spend over $600 in new taxes right off the top of their paycheques. There is also a cost per business. With so many new taxes and existing tax increases, 86% of the people in my riding believe this will make life much more difficult.

That leads me to the carbon tax. We know that the carbon tax, as has been shown, does nothing to protect the environment. Rather, it simply drains the pocketbooks of Canadians, who are just trying to heat their homes, get to work and drive their kids to events.

Of people polled in my riding, 78% supported the removal of the carbon tax. Of businesses that responded to my survey, 100% indicated that the carbon tax was having a negative impact on their business.

What did the Liberals do? They increased the carbon tax on April 1, making it even more expensive for Canadians who are already struggling with the rising cost of living. The Liberals and their NDP coalition are completely out of touch.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has indicated that the carbon tax will cost the average family as much as $847 more than the rebates they will receive in 2023. Canadians cannot afford that.

Speaking of things we cannot afford, the Prime Minister has spent more and added more national debt than all prime ministers in Canada's history combined. Even worse, he has no plan to balance the budget and control his inflationary deficits, which are driving up the costs of the food we buy, the goods we buy and the interest we pay. This is at a time when 50% of the municipalities in my riding are looking to the government to focus on reducing inflation.

Canada's federal debt for the 2023-24 fiscal year is projected to reach $1.22 trillion. That is nearly $81,000 per household. Moreover, in Canada's budget projections, there is neither a path to balance nor a plan to pay back the debt. This alone is a cause of the inflation and cost of living crisis that my constituents and all Canadians are facing.

The members opposite need to hear that 75% of the people in my constituency who responded to our survey said that the biggest issue they are facing is the cost of living. The second-largest issue is health care, and that was at 9%. That is the impact this cost of living issue is having on my riding.

There we have it. There is $43 billion in new debt, and nothing in the budget for working Canadians except new taxes.

It will not be the Prime Minister paying back the debt. He has no plans to do that any time in the foreseeable future. The Canadian taxpayers will be left holding the bag again.

Canadians need a government that will make life more affordable for them, and the Conservatives are the only ones willing or even able to do that. After the election, when the Conservatives win a majority, we will lower taxes on workers. We will scrap the carbon tax and end the inflationary deficits and wasteful spending that are driving up inflation. We will build more affordable homes for Canadians. We will fix the damage the Liberals and the costly NDP coalition have caused and get back to common-sense solutions that work for Canadians who do the work.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, this budget builds on the actions taken over the years to support vulnerable Canadians. It also builds on such actions as investing $1.2 billion into artificial intelligence, quantum computing, other advanced technologies and the critical minerals strategy, which was strengthened by the critical minerals infrastructure fund last year. In this budget, we have invested $1.2 billion into space technologies.

What is the hon. member's reaction or opinion on the investments the current budget is making into the technologies of tomorrow so that we can secure a place at the forefront of the advanced technologies in the world?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, of course, any government needs to be continuing to plan for our future, build infrastructure and plan for where technology is taking us. However, I look back to what my constituents have told me in a recent survey we finished in March, in anticipation of what the budget could be.

We asked what the government should focus on to support long-term economic growth and job creation. Here is what they told me: The number one thing my constituents said, at 21%, is that we need the natural resources and energy sector. Number two was agriculture, number three was small business, number four was manufacturing and number five was new technologies. There was then a three-way tie among tourism and hospitality, the service sector, and green technology and renewables. My constituents have made it very clear what they expect from the government.

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

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague pointed out that taxpayers will be paying about $50 more into the EI system.

Personally, I do not mind paying more to help others when it fulfills a need. However, I see two problems when people are paying more but the system does not work and has yet to be improved, despite the promises made. Even now, only 40% of people who lose their jobs qualify for EI.

Could my colleague talk about this sort of dichotomy that exists when contributions increase but services do not?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree that there is frustration in the workplace with increased taxes, but, like my friend, most Canadians do not mind paying for protection for if they lose their job. However, the fight we have as Conservatives, and what my constituents are really against, is that it is coming at a time when they are struggling. Businesses are closing in my riding. Business owners are saying they do not know whether they are going to make it through 2023. All these added costs for the workplace, employers and employees are, at this time, inappropriate.

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

Madam Speaker, I was really struck by my hon. colleague talking about taxpayers being left to hold the bag. Let us talk about the bag that taxpayers have to hold for the leader of the Conservative Party's digs.

It is a 19-room house at 9,500 square feet. He has a private chef and servants. Who is paying for that? It is not him. It is the taxpayers. There are two water meters at his house. One bill was $4,107 in April, and then there was a bill for $7,556 in June. What is this guy doing with all that water? There has been $1.4 million in repairs over 10 years, but then it costs $170,000 a year just to keep it clean for him. Let us not even talk about if someone gets invited to his summer parties.

Canadians cannot afford this guy, and he has the gall to tell senior citizens that they should not be able to get free dental care. I am not buying that.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I did not hear a question. It seems that the NDP coalition supports the government. I am sure Tommy Douglas and Jack Layton are turning in their graves.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the wonderful citizens of Calgary Midnapore.

On March 28 of this year, the Deputy Prime Minister said, “I have never been more optimistic about the future of our country than I am today.” She said, “Budget 2023 will deliver new, targeted inflation relief for the Canadians who need it most; stronger public health care, including dental care for millions of Canadians; and significant investments to build Canada’s clean economy. At a challenging time in a challenging world, there is no better place to be than Canada.

The budget is supposed to be about finance and numbers, yet something does not add up. If there is no better time to be in Canada than now, then why can Canadians not afford to eat? Justin Trudeau's inflationary spending has caused the—

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

The member knows that we cannot use the names of current members of the House. This is not a new rule.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister's inflationary spending has caused the cost of food and groceries to skyrocket. One in five Canadians are skipping meals. People are now going to food banks and asking for help to end their lives, not because they are sick, but because they cannot afford to eat.

This government's rebate will give $234 for a single adult to cover the rising cost of food, which its inflationary deficits helped to cause. Canada's Food Price Report 2023 predicts that a family of four will spend up to $1,065 more on food this year, which is $598 more than the $467 rebate they will receive. At a $305 increase, the Prime Minister's grocery rebate just gives money back to Canadians that the government had clawed away from them with its tax increases. It will not solve the cost of living crisis for many struggling Canadians who are already over the edge.

Finally, the Liberal government is still raising taxes on restaurants and breweries already struggling to survive by increasing the excise tax on alcohol by 2% of the expected 6.3%. This temporary cap in the increase of the excise tax on alcohol is only for one year, but I am sure we will see that it will continue.

If this is such a great time to be in Canada, then why is there a disincentive to work? Why is there a disincentive to start a small business? Why is that so? It is because, just this year, the Prime Minister raised payroll taxes on workers and small businesses, and now a worker making above $60,600 will be forced to pay an extra $255 through the mandatory Canada pension plan, according to the CTF. This worker will also have to pay an extra $50 through employment insurance tax, which is a $305 increase. The grocery rebate, once again, gives back to Canadians what has already been clawed away. In addition to being a difficult time for Canadians, it is also a difficult time for workers to be incentivized and for Canadians to want to start a business.

I come from a small business family. I recall my dad saying to me in our store, “Don't give that bag if you don't have to because it cost 10¢.” That is how concerned we were about money at the time, and there was tension around the dinner table. This government's legislation is not helping that, and certainly not this budget.

If this is a great time, and there is no better place to be than Canada, why are Canadians stressed about getting to work or getting their kids to school? Why are people who just want to be warm called polluters That is what is happening. The Prime Minister's carbon tax will increase to 14¢ per litre, which it did on April 1, making it more expensive for Canadians to heat their homes and get to work. As well, by 2030, the Prime Minister's two carbon taxes could add up to 50¢ per litre to the price of gasoline.

If there is no better place to be than Canada, then why do Canadians have to give so much back to the government to get so little back? The Parliamentary Budget Officer himself showed that the carbon tax will cost the average family between $402 and $847 in 2023, even after the rebates. How can the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance possibly say that there is no better plan to be than Canada?

If there is no better place to be than Canada, then why can Canadians not afford a home? The dream of home ownership has died for young and new Canadians under the Prime Minister. Nine out of 10 people who do not own home say that they never will. The down payment needed to buy a house has now doubled, and the minimum down payment on an average housing has gone from $22,000 to $45,000 across Canada.

Average mortgage and rent payments have nearly doubled since our recent Prime Minister took office. Then, the average monthly payment on a new house was $1,400, and today it has gone up to over $3,100. In 2015, the average rent in Canada for a one-bedroom apartment was $973, and today it is $1,760. The average rent in Canada for a two-bedroom apartment was $1,172, and today it is $2,153.

When the Prime Minister took office, people needed only 39% of an average paycheque to make monthly payments on the average house. That number has risen to 62%. By every objective measure, things are more expensive and Canadians are taking home less, but “there is no better place to be than Canada.”

In the weeks leading up to the release of budget 2023, the Liberal government signalled an intent to rein in its spending. In fact, the finance minister made this promise to Canadians. She said, “that is one of our primary goals in this year’s budget: not to pour fuel on the fire of inflation. So...we will exercise fiscal restraint.” The government has done anything but exercise fiscal restraint.

When I was young, I was told that a budget worked like this: We bring home this much money. We spend this much money. We have this much money left. We knew, and we know, budgets do not balance themselves. The Prime Minister, the finance minister and government have yet to learn that. In this budget we see that the Prime Minister has added more debt than all other prime ministers combined, and he has no plan to balance the budget and control his inflationary deficits, which are driving up the cost of the goods we buy and the interest we pay.

Canada's federal debt for the 2023-24 fiscal year is projected to be $1.22 trillion. That is nearly $81,000 per household in Canada. There is no path to balance the budget in the current government's projections. The deficit for 2022-23 is up to $43 billion, and in 2023-24, the deficit is projected to be $40.1 billion. The fall economic statement projected a $4.5-billion surplus in 2027-28, and budget 2023 now projects a $14-billion deficit in 2027-28, which is as far as the projections go.

I started this speech by saying that on March 28, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance said, “there is no better place to be than Canada”, but why can Canadians not afford to eat? Why is work disincentivized? Why is gas so expensive? Why must we pay such high taxes? Why can no one afford a home?

The government simply cannot manage the books. This does not add up.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canada's prosperity has been built on natural resources such oil, gas, minerals, metals, forestry products, and the hard work of several generations of Canadians, including current day seniors.

Another natural resource that is opening up for our future economic growth is the entire food chain of critical minerals, from mining and processing and conversion, to their use in the manufacture of batteries in electric vehicles and everything that is coming up.

I would like to ask the member about her comment on the tax credit that has been given in this budget to attract investments into clean electricity, clean hydrogen and clean manufacturing.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, while we always need to look forward to the future, I think it is very important that we also stay focused on the present and what Canadians and the world need. We have had other nations ask us for our oil and gas, and we have turned them away. It is always very important to think about the future, but I also think we need to focus on what we have and need now.

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

Madam Speaker, even though I do not entirely agree with my colleague's analysis, there is something I will agree with. I agree that workers are struggling at work and I also agree that in other regions of Canada and Quebec there are workers in situations where they lose their job and the EI program does not cover them or just leaves them behind. EI is being referred to as a payroll tax.

Does she not think that, as part of government spending, it would have been important to increase the minimum wage, enhance the employment insurance program and come up with good anti-scab legislation, which does not exist in Canada and denies workers' rights? Is that part of the programs your party is in favour of?

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

My party is not in favour of anything.

The hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois for its Bill C‑290, which is currently before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Of course we agree that workers' rights are important. I think that we can also agree that the government and the Prime Minister are to blame for the current strike.

Based on the questions I got, it is clear that we agree on a lot of things concerning workers' rights and the government's responsibility.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, we know, with housing, that we are not going to be able to deal with the housing crisis unless we start curtailing inflationary investor activity. The Conservatives are doing a lot of talk about giving money to developers, but we know that developers are not known for social enterprise or for helping out folks; in fact, they are for lining their pockets. Therefore, I wonder why the Conservatives are focusing on municipal permitting when there are so many private sector investors who are responsible for the current housing crisis.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have expressed continually, both in our platform and in our policy, that we are for supply at all levels of the spectrum and with all players of society. Certainly, while these non-governmental entities are important, we also need to work with developers as well.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

I am very happy to rise today to talk about Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, and other measures.

With our made-in Canada plan, the 2023 budget will put money in the pockets of Canadians, helping them meet the challenges of today and tomorrow while building a safer, more sustainable and affordable Canada for Canadians across the country.

The key measures of the budget implementation act include providing for automatic advance payments of the Canada workers benefit; doubling the tradespeople’s tools deduction; enhancing registered education savings plans; banning animal testing in the cosmetics industry; strengthening Canada’s supply chains and trade corridors; and, among other things, continuing our efforts to support Ukraine by taking action against Russia.

Once again, our government has introduced a responsible and inclusive budget. It is a budget that is responsive to the needs of all Canadians. It is a budget that takes into account the climate emergency and the need to take action today to guarantee the future of our children and grandchildren.

I am pleased to see that the budget will improve the lives of Canadians across the country. In particular, there is the new grocery rebate, which will put up to an extra $467 in the pockets of eligible families of four so that they can continue to eat properly. This new rebate will help 11 million Canadians who need it the most.

This measure is in addition to the relief we quickly put in place last year, including doubling the GST credit, which is highly appreciated; introducing a new quarterly benefit for Canadian workers of up to $2,400 for low-income families and families earning minimum wage; providing a $500 top-up to the Canada housing benefit for low-income renters; reducing child care costs across the country; providing the Canada child benefit, which amounts up to $7,000 this year; and introducing a climate action incentive to be paid into the bank accounts of eligible Canadians. These are examples of real measures aimed at supporting Canadian families.

What can I say about dental care costs? Thanks to our new program, we will have a direct impact on the health of Canadians of all ages. Although some here in the House still underestimate the importance of good dental health, we are aware of the positive impact it has on people’s lives. Good teeth help build self-esteem. A nice smile is always the best calling card.

Oral medicine tells us that some dental and periodontal diseases can have broader consequences such as cardiovascular and lung problems, digestive disorders, and pregnancy- and diabetes-related complications, among others. This program shows that we can do a lot for Canadians when we decide to work together toward a common goal.

Back home in Châteauguay—Lacolle, more than 330 children under the age of 12 have already benefited from the expansion of the program in Quebec. We also want to work with the Quebec government to improve access to dental care for other vulnerable populations.

The 2023 budget proposes other important measures to help Canadians financially. In particular, it cracks down on junk fees, including unexpected, hidden and additional fees, to continue to ensure that businesses are transparent with prices and to make life more affordable for Canadians. The budget also proposes automatic tax filing for low-income Canadians so that more people can have access to all the benefits and support to which they are entitled.

Let us talk about two measures in Bill C-47 that are extremely relevant for citizens in my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle. The first is the doubling of the tradespeople’s tools deduction. This increase in the maximum deduction for tradespeople’s tools from $500 to $1,000 is very important as a support to tradespeople. We need to encourage our contractors and subcontractors so that they can build and renovate houses and commercial buildings. This deduction offsets the increase in the cost of tools and represents our recognition of the importance of tradespeople’s work.

The second measure is the automatic advance payment of the Canada workers benefit. We propose automatic advance payments of the Canada workers benefit for workers who were entitled to the payment the previous year, starting in July 2023 for the 2023 tax year. It is very important to help workers with their current cash flow before next year’s tax season. Workers will receive a minimum entitlement for the year through advance payments based on the income reported in their tax return for the previous year, and any additional entitlement for the year will be paid when they file their tax return for the current year. This measure will provide, in three advance payments, up to $714 in total for a single worker and up to $1,231 in total for a family.

The 2023 budget invests in the future of Canadians, but it is also aimed at ensuring the future of the planet. Our made-in-Canada plan will make it possible to develop a clean economy, fight climate change and create quality jobs and careers for today and for future generations.

If I had the time, I could talk about the new tax credits for clean investments that will support Canadian companies that manufacture clean technologies, such as electric vehicles, or that process the critical minerals key to the manufacture of solar panels.

However, I will conclude by mentioning another very important measure in the budget implementation bill for Canadians, who are very concerned about animal welfare. I am talking about the measure prohibiting animal testing for cosmetics. This measure will amend the Food and Drugs Act to prohibit the testing of cosmetics on animals in Canada. It will also prohibit the sale of cosmetics relying on data derived from animal testing to establish the safety of the product, subject to certain exceptions. Lastly, it will prohibit deceptive or misleading labelling concerning animal testing for cosmetics.

Budget 2023 is a prudent and realistic budget. Bill C-47 will help ensure that we continue to make progress on things that matter to Canadians, namely, building a clean, healthy economy that can bring prosperity, middle-class jobs and greater vibrancy to communities across the country. By focusing on a green, healthy and clean economy, the budget responds to the concerns of many Canadians, especially those in Châteauguay—Lacolle.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, whose riding neighbours my own. We share the services of Anna-Laberge hospital, which is currently under expansion. This hospital is often cited in the news for its occupancy rates that are making life very difficult for both patients and staff. Most of the professionals who work there are really overloaded and need help.

The question I have for my colleague is very simple. Does she believe that what the provinces are being given for health and social services will really lighten the workload of professionals at Anna-Laberge hospital and reduce occupancy rates? Does she really think that the amount given by her government will improve the situation at Anna-Laberge hospital?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, with more than $46 billion in health transfers, the provinces will be getting new money. I truly believe in the separate jurisdictions of the various levels of government. The province will be taking steps. The expansion of Anna-Laberge hospital is an example of how the Quebec health ministry takes the concerns of Quebeckers into account.

We will continue to work with all the provinces, but more directly with Quebec, to ensure that the public has all the care it needs and to meet the needs of the workers who supported it in difficult times.

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

Madam Speaker, we have heard from veterans about the gold-digger clause, which was implemented after World War I to prevent women from marrying veterans for their pensions and benefits. The Liberals promised to fix this. For eight years they have been in government. I know my colleague heard about this from veterans in her riding.

Blair Meadows, a veteran from Qualicum Beach in my riding, cited, “If I marry after the age of 60 and pass away before my spouse, she won't receive any of my benefits.” This 100-year-old law needs to be abolished. It is an archaic regulation that really needs to be fixed.

Does the member not agree that this is discriminatory against veterans, people who put their lives on the line, and leaves spouses in poverty? This is unacceptable. Does my colleague agree that this needs to be fixed by her government?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the question has to do with pension and pension regulation. I did dabble in this in my previous life. I agree that there are many pension agreements. As the hon. member no doubt knows, these pension agreements were made over time and they reflected the mores and norms at the time they were developed. Is it time to look at them again and modernize them? There are many pension agreements. I could go into more detail about the incompatibility of many pension agreements, but I will not go there. Definitely, it is valid concern and one that needs to be looked at.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, someone was stabbed yesterday in my riding. Although it is too early to confirm whether mental illness was a factor, I wonder if my colleague could talk about how our integrated approach to improving mental health care, particularly with an investment totalling nearly $200 billion, will help people who need mental health support.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is actually my colleague who is really the expert in this area, but I can confirm that my constituents certainly appreciate the investments that the federal government is making in mental health supports. Canadians really appreciate the additional resources.

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

Madam Speaker, I always find it such an incredible honour to rise on behalf of my constituents in London—Fanshawe and to be the voice for them in the House. I want to thank them for that opportunity, as always.

I also want to thank my constituency staff. They have been working so hard, helping thousands of people in London. We are in the middle of another successful tax clinic, which ensures that people have the free help they need to file their taxes. We are contacting folks to ensure they know about the additional money we secured for them in the housing benefit and the GST rebate.

We are helping people reunite with their families or to immigrate to our country, so they can contribute to the social and economic wealth that we have here. We are helping people to get their passports, or figure out their EI claims or their pensions, and so much more. I really want to thank them for all the work they do.

My constituents are doing what they can to navigate through the housing crisis, the labour shortage, inflation, the health care crisis and climate change. It is getting so much harder for people.

Now we have to throw on top of that the fact that the government has failed to negotiate a fair contract with public servants for two years. I am so worried about how my office will continue to help people, help my constituents, because the government has failed to ensure that those workers get a fair collective agreement.

I want to take a minute so the House can hear some of the voices of those folks in London who are on strike right now.

One said, “We really don't want to strike, but we have to because we're fighting for all workers' rights. Right now, with the cost of living and inflation, we're really falling behind.”

This is not a cushy job. Our average employee makes $35,000 to $65,000 a year. Many union members are single income earners. They have second jobs. One of their federal colleagues works in pizza delivery.

Mandy talked about the fact that so many of her colleagues had to use the food bank. They cannot afford to feed their families. They cannot afford child care. They cannot afford a roof over the head. Inflation is taking its toll. The strike is a last resort for them. She said, “None of us want to be on strike. We're here because we need to. We tried to raise our concerns, and they're not being heard.”

Chris, who has worked in the federal public service since 1985, said, “We don't get any respect. I just want to go home and cry at night because I've worked so long and so hard, given my whole life to working as a servant to the government. And when we want a raise, and they won't even talk about it.”

I am so proud of the work that my office does for constituents of London—Fanshawe. I am often frustrated by the things we cannot do. For all the successes we do get, we could not do it without those PSAC workers.

When I ran in 2019 and 2021, I promised my constituents, on their doorsteps, that I would fight for fairness and real solutions. Like those on strike with the PSAC, people in my riding just want fairness. They want a government that makes decisions with their best interests at heart and a government that does what it can, instead of having this incredible opportunity that it wastes. It makes decisions that keep itself in power or it helps those who already have so much power and wealth. It gives that power to them, not to everyone else.

My idea of a successful government is one that takes power that has been given to it in good faith by all people and redistributes it fairly to all people, that creates long-term solutions, that builds programs and that expands on supports.

When my caucus colleagues and I were elected, we were determined to deliver just that for people. Not being the government party is challenging, especially when I know that so much more could be accomplished. When we entered into the agreement with the current governing party to not cause an election in exchange for progress on a number of key policy areas, we did so because we needed to build something.

We have not gotten everything we need, and I reference this in terms of the budget. It is not an NDP budget. However, this budget includes initiatives that we think are really important, things that would not be there if New Democrats were not there.

First and foremost, of course, is dental care. This is a really important initiative that will allow millions of Canadians, who up until now have not been able to get their teeth fixed, that opportunity. We worked hard to ensure that by the end of this year, all children under the age of 18, all seniors and all people living with disabilities would finally get access to dental care. That has real consequences. It affects their ability to get and keep a job. It affects their sense of self-confidence in socializing with others. It affects the way that other people look at them. It prevents them from enduring constant pain and other long-term health problems.

A few weeks ago I was at the Wright Clinic in my riding of London—Fanshawe. The Wright Clinic is run by Dr. Ken Wright and a number of incredible people. They provide dental services at a low cost, or at no cost, because they know what that means to people in our community.

I met a woman who spoke to me about the fact that for over 10 years she had been screaming into her pillow because she could not deal with the pain. She could not study, she could not work and she could not focus. That pain took over her entire life. She found relief because of folks at the Wright Clinic, who do this incredible work. She found a new future.

A fellow who was also there talked about the fact that he could not keep a job because of the way he looked. He was able to get a brand new life because he had a brand new set of teeth. That is just incredible. Those are the things for which the New Democrats are fighting. The creation of this dental program has long-lasting benefits. That is the role of the government. It equalizes, it pulls people out of pain, it saves them money. Dental care is just one victory.

There are a lot of other victories that the NDP was able to get in this budget. I would love to talk about them, but I am sure you will cut me off, Madam Speaker.

I want to move on to discuss the biggest thing I see that is missing from this budget. Of course, that is housing. We all know that the housing market is out of control. In fact, housing has been made a commodity when it should be a human right.

In 2015, a house that sold for $150,000 in my neighbourhood in Pond Mills now sells for $400,000 today. In my neighbourhood, rents have soared by more than 25% over the past year. In March, rent for a one-bedroom unit was over $1,700, while rent for a two-bedroom unit was the average price of about $2,100. That is an increase of 27.3% or 24.3% from the year previous, respectively.

Sadly, we see very little in this budget around housing and solving that crisis. To be perfectly honest, I think that past governments, consecutive Liberal and Conservative, do not really want to address it. They do not see it as a problem they need to solve because they see the housing market as just that, a market. Except housing is actually a human right and requires government to invest in it. The trouble is that government has not invested in it directly. No government has directly built housing for over 30 years.

We now have the revamped national housing strategy introduced by the Liberal government, but that has a lot of problems, with a haphazard approach to the way we deal with affordable housing. It has placed a lot of hardships on the not-for-profit organizations that actually want to do that work.

In November 2022, the Office of the Auditor General released a report exposing all the major issues with the national housing strategy. Programs have not created the targeted number of units that are required and many of those are not what is deemed to be affordable. That is unacceptable.

This crisis needs a solution. We need to preserve affordable homes and we need to build them faster. The NDP has a plan for that, of course, and the government can take that great idea as it has taken so many.

The first steps we have to take are to preserve affordable housing and prevent renoviction. We need to create an affordable housing acquisition fund to allow not-for-profit housing providers to purchase affordable housing when they come on the market and to keep it permanently affordable and out of the hands of for-profit housing profiteers. We have to put a moratorium in place on the acquisition of affordable homes by housing profiteers, so not-for-profit housing providers do not have to compete with them.

Jack Layton was an inspiration for so many, and for me as well. I think of him as a parliamentarian. He always said that we needed to not just be an opposition party; we had to be a party of proposition. We need those good ideas that we know work for people and put them in the hands of people. We have to ensure that those solutions go forward. Dental care and our housing plan are just two solid examples.

People are scared. London—Fanshawe folks talk to me all the time. They do not know how they are going to survive. Before the pandemic people were just getting by. They just had their heads above water; they were treading water. Now it feels like they are sinking further and further below that surface. People are lined up at food banks in record lineups. We have a generation that has given up on the dream of owning a home. People see the consequences of that.

There is a lot to be angry about, but at this time when there is so much division in our politics and everyday conversations, we need to find a way to work together. That is what we are trying to do here with the government. The New Democrats are working together and we are working to find that leadership and really good solutions for folks.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned her constituents in London and their concerns about health care. I agree. Health care is in crisis. All that Canadians should need for health care is their health card, not a credit card.

The budget will invest $198.3 billion in funding for the provinces and territories, including $46 billion more in additional funding. We want the provinces to use this funding to help access to family doctors, to reduce the backlogs, to support health care workers and to improve the mental health system.

I would like to know from the hon. member what she thinks about this additional new funding the federal government is providing to provinces and how best it can be used.

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

Madam Speaker, additional money is good. It is fine. It is a step. However, the money he talked about, the majority of it, was actually already calculated. The $46 billion extra has to be shared over 10 years over all the provinces and territories, so that is actually a drop in the bucket of what is required.

One of the things the New Democrats brought forward in an opposition day motion was to eliminate loopholes on privatization of health care, and that is one of the huge issues that is taking money away from people who need it within our health care sector. The government voted no.

Those are the major problems I see and the major problems we need to fix. We need action, not words.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke about housing attainability and affordability. Other than the actual affordability of groceries, homes and all that, young people are despondent right now. They are not angry or upset. They feel like they have been lied to or let down by the government as it relates to their lives being better vis-à-vis housing affordability and attainability.

I am wondering what the hon. member would say to those young people, who are doing everything right. They have university educations and are getting good jobs. They cannot afford down payments or mortgage payments. Even if they had been able to, now with interest rates increasing, that affordability crisis has become even greater. I wonder what she would say to young people about what is going on right now.

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

Madam Speaker, I hear it too. Young folks in London—Fanshawe do not know where to turn, and there is a hopelessness around that. It is unfortunate. It used to be the federal government and provincial governments hand in hand would directly build housing, and since 1995 we are short about 15,000 to 20,000 affordable units built every year by governments. That consistent decision by federal and provincial governments not to build housing has created this crisis. We need to be able to directly and quickly build co-ops and not-for-profit housing centres, and have rent geared to income so we have that balance. We need to focus a lot less on developers and people who are making a ton of money off rental income for their benefit and are not being appropriately taxed. We need to put that back into the housing stock.

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

Madam Speaker, I, too, believe that social equity must be factored into a budget. What bothers me a little is that they are introducing programs that fall under Quebec's jurisdiction. That was also the case in the last budget.

Dental health is very important. It is part of a holistic approach to health. Consequently, in Quebec, children have preventative care because that is where it has the most impact.

Now, the government has decided to invest $13 billion in a program that the federal government is incapable of managing. It is not investing in federal social programs, such a those for seniors and the unemployed.

What does my colleague think of the issue of weakening social programs that—

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

I must give the hon. member for London—Fanshawe about 20 seconds to answer the question.

The hon. member has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, it is important we recognize a lot of the good things that have been done across provinces, but it is not just children who need support with dental care. Everybody needs that support. Certainly, seniors in her riding I am sure need that support as well.

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

The interpretation does not seem to be working. Could the hon. member repeat her reply?

She now has 15 seconds left.

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

Madam Speaker, it is incredible some provinces are doing some of that work to support children with dental care, but I know a lot of seniors, and I am sure in her riding as well, need that support, as well as people living with disabilities. In fact, everybody needs it.

One of the key things the federal government needs to do is put forward those social programs to equalize and make—

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

I must resume debate.

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my dear colleague, the member for Thérèse-De Blainville.

What is a budget implementation act? What are we doing right now? The government tabled a budget. In a budget, a government lays out the measures that it intends to take. To implement the measures set out in the budget, legislation must be tabled to execute what is stated in the budget.

I feel I ought to remind all those watching that the budget, which is very lengthy, held many disappointments for the Bloc Québécois. I would like to point them out because I care deeply about seniors, and there is nothing in the budget about them. Every time I organize events in my riding, seniors remind me that they feel like they have been forgotten by this government.

As well, there have been symposia, conferences and studies on the housing crisis. It is well documented that we are in the middle of a housing crisis, yet there are no specific measures in the budget to address that crisis.

Clearly, we are also a long way from the EI reform that the Liberal government has been promising since 2015. There is nothing in the budget on that.

There is also a major disappointment in terms of the environment. This budget still talks about carbon capture and storage, when we have known for many years that this technology is no good, that it is not ready and that it does not get the job done. In a way, the government is using this to ease its conscience with regard to the environment, but in reality, these are just backdoor subsidies for oil companies. Pretty much everyone knows it. By saying that it will fund research into carbon capture and storage, the government is trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes and ease its own conscience.

The funny thing is that, in 2008, when I was the Bloc Québécois critic for natural resources, I participated in a study on carbon capture and storage that reached the same conclusions as are being reached today. The same committee is still conducting studies, still documenting the issue of carbon capture and storage, and still reaching the same conclusions, namely that it is not really the best technology for reducing greenhouse gases. However, it allows the government to assuage its conscience, and in particular, it allows oil companies to feel like they are doing something for the environment.

However, I would like to talk about certain promises and principles that were in the budget but not in the budget implementation act.

I want to talk about the promise that the government made in the budget about anti-scab legislation. I believe that promise to pass anti-scab legislation is even part of the agreement between the Liberal Party and the NDP. I am talking about this because I know that my father René is watching right now. He is sort of the reason I am talking about anti-scab legislation, which is so important but which is absent from the budget implementation act. My father was a tradesman for much of his life. He was a union activist who unionized his workplace and always said that it was important to stand up for labourers' working conditions.

Today, there is nothing in the budget implementation act about anti-scab legislation, even though it would have been easy to include it. The budget implementation act is 430 pages long and amends 57 acts, in addition to the Income Tax Act. This lengthy bill also grants royal titles to Charles III. It is a really dense bill, but there is no mention anywhere of the possibility of us passing anti-scab legislation together. It would be very easy to do that, because the Bloc Québécois and the NDP agree. I would imagine the Liberals also agree, since it was mentioned in their budget. I do not understand why the government did not take advantage of its omnibus bill to include a bill that would certainly be supported by three parties in the House.

Quebec has had anti-scab legislation since 1977. I think this is long overdue. We are behind the times in not having that legislation at the federal level, because it is so important for governing the work of our union members.

I raised this issue because my father is watching. He must be proud to hear me defending an issue that he himself defended when he was a union member in his company. He was a sheet metal worker, so he was right on the shop floor. He realized that there were problems with working conditions, so he rallied the workers. He created a union and negotiated for all the workers. It is for his sake that I raised this issue today, and it is also for his sake that I am raising the issue of EI.

The minister's mandate letter mentions EI reform. For years, and even recently, the minister has been telling us that she was holding consultations. However, the consultations have ended. She said she was consulting, but the consultations are over. She will not stop consulting, but everything is documented. There is a consensus that the Employment Insurance Act must be reformed. This is an old act that is not modern, that is not suited to the labour market for either employers or employees.

It is hard to understand why the minister does not see it as a priority. In a way, I both understand and do not understand why. I think she may have good intentions, but it is cabinet, the executive, that does not want to move ahead for the simple reason that the government is using the surplus in the EI fund to pay for the surplus EI claims that it received during the pandemic. Basically, the fund is spending $24 billion to pay for what happened during the pandemic. I will note that people had to leave their jobs not because they wanted to, but because their workplace shut down. They were forced to apply for EI. It is only natural that claims would go up.

The EI fund took out $24 billion to cover all those costs. Now things are a bit better, and it has seven years to balance out. That is the minister's magic excuse, namely that until the account is balanced again, sometime in the next seven years, she cannot move ahead on reform or propose anything else that would improve the Employment Insurance Act. That is bad.

All the spending incurred during the pandemic was covered by the government, but now employer and employee contributions are being used to pay for all the jobs lost during the pandemic. It was not by choice. I think the government could have covered part of the cost and left the money for workers and employers alone, so that everything that is needed to reform the Employment Insurance Act could be done.

It is frankly laughable how every new minister's mandate letter or list of priorities states that this is a priority. It is not really a genuine priority. Every excuse or event gives the minister a reason to put off the reform.

I am very serious about this. The government must stop beating around the bush and reform EI once and for all so that Quebec and Canada can have modern legislation to govern the new reality of the labour market.

The Bloc Québécois will always be there to defend unemployed workers, employers and businesses that are struggling with replacement workers as we speak, such as the Port of Quebec and Océan remorquage in Sorel-Tracy.

It is very clear which side the Bloc Québécois is on. It is on the right side, the side of the people.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. She spoke a lot about workers. However, she did not mention official languages at all. Budget 2023 provides for more than $1 billion for official languages, on top of the roughly $2 billion already allocated under the action plan.

I have no doubt that, like me, my colleague thinks it is important to protect French in Quebec and Canada and to protect anglophone minorities in Quebec. I would therefore like her to share her thoughts on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. However, I really wish she had asked me the same question that she asked the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle about the $200 million for mental health care. She can come back to that later.

I would have liked to answer her that I really wonder what that $200 million will do for people who are suicidal or in distress. The fact is that all of the mental health resources in Quebec are funded by Quebec, and direct assistance is administered by professionals in Quebec. Since she did not ask me that question, I will not get into detail about it.

With regard to official languages, I would say that we are very pleased that the francophone communities outside Quebec will now have more means of defending their language, because they really are in the minority. As for Quebec, my answer would be so long that the Speaker would have to cut me off. I will just say that the bill is clearly a compromise and that the Bloc Québécois finds it to be unsatisfactory.

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberal member did not ask the question about mental health, but I will, so that my colleague can answer it.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague very much. As everyone knows, I am a social worker, a member of my professional association and a manager of a Quebec CISSS. I use the term “CISSS” because I know Quebeckers will understand what I mean. One thing I can say for certain about mental health is that no professional who delivers mental health services directly to residents in my riding, or in the riding of the member for Sherbrooke, receives any federal funds.

Federal funds pay for help lines and websites. I am not saying that this is wrong. However, when someone is in distress or experiencing a crisis and thinking of committing suicide, they call their local community service centre's crisis line. I am looking forward to seeing what percentage of this $200 million will find its way to the Suroît area's local community service centre.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I looked at the budget and was really disappointed to see, once again, a lack of investment in ending the current crisis of gender-based violence. We know that rates of violence have increased since the pandemic, yet the amount that has been allocated in this federal budget is beyond disappointing. It is like women in this place are always a second thought, like we are the last thought in any budget. I am wondering if my hon. colleague can provide her thoughts on that.

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

Madam Speaker, first, I want to remind my colleague that her party supported the budget. It needs to be said. Second, I fully agree that, when it comes to intimate partner violence or gender-based violence, more money is essential.

In Quebec, we have a comprehensive network of shelters for abused women or men facing challenging circumstances. There are even support groups for abusive men. In Quebec, there is a network of community organizations throughout Quebec that provide assistance in that area. Yes, it is true that more funding is needed. However, it is not really the federal government's job to fund the resources dedicated to this problem, since it falls squarely under provincial jurisdiction.

Now, I think that the secret here is that, if Ottawa and the NDP had listened to what the provinces were asking for, which was a greater increase in health transfers, the provinces would have had the option to invest more or less money in certain social or health issues as needed.

The dental care program is being imposed on the provinces through a centralizing objective. I am not saying that teeth are not important, but I think that we are facing other problems that are just as important and they were equally deserving of more funding.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-47.

First, I would like to salute my constituents in Thérèse‑De Blainville. I have not done that in a while. I salute them because when I am not here in the House, it is always a pleasure to meet up with them back home to talk about the challenges they face and see all the work they are doing every day for the community. It is wonderful.

Among other things, these days, I make a point of visiting seniors in their homes to talk about their concerns in the current economic context. This relates to the budget, of course. Seniors are as worried as everyone else about inflation.

They are also worried about being able to afford housing, which is very important. Seniors may have gained a nest egg by selling their home, but now that they are living in a residence, they are exhausting the little bit of money they have left. Some of them are worried, while others are even thinking of moving and are anxious about finding affordable housing.

Seniors are also concerned about their health. They asked me what is going on with the Canada health transfers. All that is to say that their concerns are real.

I would remind the House that the Bloc Québécois voted against the budget. We explained to seniors why we voted against it. Bill C‑47 is a translation of the budget. As my colleague was saying, this omnibus bill is more than 400 pages long and fixes 59 pieces of legislation. It is so complex, it makes my head spin. The government promised it would no longer introduce huge bills like this one that make us lose focus.

What is more, Bill C‑47 paves the way to recognizing King Charles III, which is rather mind-boggling. What a circus. I did not need to tell everyone I meet about this, because it is significant. This is what the government is focusing on when there are bigger fish to fry.

The Bloc Québécois has always said that it is here to stand up for and promote the interests of Quebeckers. We will vote in favour of what is good for them, and we will vote against what is not good for them. If that happens to be good for all Canadians, then that is good as well.

My approach to analyzing the budget is based on the definition of social safety net. A government that has a vision, that claims to be democratic, progressive and supportive of workers, should have made sure to correct certain inequities in its budget.

What is the social safety net? I am not going to give an introductory course on the subject. I am sure that people know that the social safety net is a set of social programs and public services that offer support to citizens. Two of those social programs fall exclusively under the federal government's jurisdiction. They are old age security for seniors and the employment insurance system for workers.

There is nothing in this budget about old age security. It simply maintains the discrimination that was created in the previous budget by increasing old age security only for those over the age of 75. What is the difference between a 73-year-old senior and a 75-year-old senior? There is no justification for it.

Rather than investing in jurisdictions that are in no way its responsibility, the federal government should spend money to strengthen its social programs.

With regard to seniors, Canada ranks near the bottom of all OECD countries in terms of income protection for seniors. This social safety net needs to be strengthened, and yet no mercy is being shown.

This is all to say nothing of the broken promises regarding the EI system. We have lost count of them. There is no excuse for the government's failure to state its intention in the budget to reform employment insurance once and for all. It needs to be modernized in line with the current labour market. It needs to be brought up to date and out of the last century. An employment insurance system acts as an economic stabilizer. It needs to guarantee workers who lose their jobs a minimum income that allows them to weather the storm.

The government claimed many times during the pandemic that it would take too long to reform employment insurance, saying that the EI system had too many flaws, that it was full of holes. There are a number of players involved. The government promised, virtually hand on heart, to reform EI. We are not asking for this just for the fun of it. We are asking for it because it is necessary. What does the government not understand about that?

I have said it before and I will say it again. Will the government have the courage to reform the employment insurance program, given that it knows exactly what needs to be done, or will it shamefully abandon all of the workers who pay into the EI fund?

Only 40% of workers manage to qualify for EI because the eligibility criteria are discriminatory, particularly against women and young people, most of whom hold non-standard jobs.

The EI system does not cover self-employed workers. We saw that during the pandemic in the arts, entertainment and cultural sectors, which depends heavily on those workers. The government promised to correct those shortcomings. The Prime Minister even promised to do so last summer. What is stopping the government from taking action? Is it going to use the economic situation as an excuse?

On the one hand, the government is saying that all is well, that the unemployment rate is at a record low, that there is a labour shortage and that it will not reform the system. On the other hand, the government is saying that there is a risk of a recession and that now is not the time to reform the program. That does not make any sense. The government is twisting and dodging to avoid the issue. The time to reform the EI program is now, when we are not in a period of crisis.

I think the minister has free rein to do that. She needs to have that free rein. Members of her caucus are affected; they are dealing with the fallout from flaws in the system as well. She has all the solutions in hand. We invite her, we urge her, to introduce a bill that proposes new criteria to guarantee that workers, people in the regions and workers in seasonal industries can access this social safety net. That is what needs to happen. It would have been nice to hear the government stand up and strongly advocate for what we believe to be most fundamental, and that is ensuring equity and fairness.

In closing, public services are fundamental to ensuring equity in a strong state. Robust, high-quality public services rely on decent working conditions for employees. On that note, I would like to emphasize that we support and stand with the federal employees who are currently fighting for decent working conditions in the public service.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, in her speech, my colleague stated that she would be voting for what is good for Quebeckers.

Does she consider providing a grocery rebate for 11 million Canadians, increasing the Canada workers benefit, doubling the tradespeople's tool deduction, and capping the inflation adjustment for excise duties on alcohol at 2% to be good for Quebeckers?

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

Madam Speaker, we hear these kinds of comments in the 10-minute speeches by my colleagues opposite.

I am not saying that these are not good things. However, the government is not addressing the basic issues, the fundamental issues, the most dire issues. The government is basically not there for workers. I can say, for example, that the appeal board is a good measure. The Liberals finally saw sense, made this change and included it in this omnibus bill. However, all the other issues—

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

Order. The hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, does my colleague have anything to say about Bill C‑215 on employment insurance? The government refused to recommend this bill for royal assent even though it would have provided welcome assistance to workers struggling with serious health problems. It refused to increase the number of weeks of EI sickness benefits from 26 to 52. Is this important to the member?

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

Madam Speaker, this issue is extremely important.

This was another wasted opportunity. However, it may still be possible. It took 50 years to address this problem and raise the number of weeks from 15 to 26. As every study shows, this is not enough. People who are gravely ill are being left without enough protection to recover in dignity.

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

Madam Speaker, the member very often raises the issue of EI, and I want to thank her for that.

My colleague from Winnipeg Centre, earlier today, raised the point that the supposed feminist government is not really looking after the issues of women. We know that, when EI was first formulated, the participation rate of women in the workforce was less than half of what it is today. The EI system was not built for women.

Can the member share some comments on why it is so important to get this modernized for women after seven years?

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

Madam Speaker, several measures in our policies discriminate against women. Employment insurance is a prime example. When the employment insurance program was initially designed, it reflected the fact that workers work full time and that male-dominated jobs were the most important. That may have been appropriate at the time.

Now women are being discriminated against in two ways. The eligibility rules work against them because the rules are designed for those who work 40 hours a week. If a person works only 20 hours, they are necessarily discriminated against.

Then there are pregnant workers, women who carry a child and then lose their job. The rules currently discriminate against them because they will not be entitled to employment insurance if, when they return, they no longer have employment. They are no longer entitled to their benefits. They won in court and the ruling was appealed. I hope that decision will be upheld. The EI program needs to be reformed. It is essential and a matter of fairness.

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member. We can think of the Canada workers benefit, the supports from the government for the trades and unions, the $10-a-day child care and the credit for tools. In many ways, the government has been there for the workers of Canada.

Can the member give a tangible example of any other government that has done more than this government has for the workers of Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague truly believes what he is saying. I would not be able to sleep at night if my beliefs held that we cannot support workers.

I would remind the House that there is a universal program in Quebec, the program for early childhood education services, that has been around for more than 25 years. The Liberals have decided to feel good about themselves by introducing a similar program across Canada when that does not fall under their jurisdiction. They spent $30 billion when the people for whom the government—

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

Order. Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough Centre.

Canada's recovery from the recession caused by COVID-19 has been remarkable. In fact, we have the strongest economic growth among G7 countries over the past year. There are about 830,000 more Canadians in the workforce now than there were before the pandemic. The unemployment rate is near its record low. The labour force participation rate for Canadian women in their prime working years is at a record high of 85.7%, supported by our Canada-wide system of affordable early learning and child care. Inflation has fallen for eight months in a row, and the Bank of Canada predicts it will fall to just 2.6% by the end of the year.

With these strong economic fundamentals, the 2023 budget comes at an important time for our country and for the world. It is also a time when we must take bold steps to ensure our country's prosperity and set an example for the rest of the world. Canada is the best place to be in these challenging times, in a complex world.

In the near term, we must contend with a slowing global economy, elevated interest rates around the world and inflation that is still too high. Over the past year, the government has introduced a series of new targeted measures to help those who need it most pay their bills.

In the months and years to come, Canada must seize the remarkable opportunities arising from two fundamental shifts in the global economy. The first is the race to build the clean economies of the 21st century. The second is our allies’ accelerating efforts to friendshore their economies by building their critical supply chains through democracies like our own.

In budget 2023, the federal government would provide new, targeted inflation relief to Canadians who need it most. Specifically, the budget proposes to introduce a one-time grocery rebate. The rebate would be delivered through a one-time payment from the Canada Revenue Agency, as soon as possible following the passing of the legislation. For 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families, the grocery rebate would provide eligible couples with two children with up to an extra $467, single Canadians without children up to an extra $234 and seniors an extra $225, on average. This would be delivered through the goods and services tax credit mechanism.

Today, fewer women have to choose between their family and their career. In February, the labour force participation rate for women in their prime working years reached a record 85.7%. As of April 2, six provinces and territories are providing regulated child care for an average of just $10 a day or less, significantly ahead of schedule. All other provinces and territories remain on track to achieve $10-a-day child care by 2026.

The Government of Canada has entered into an asymmetrical agreement with the Province of Quebec. This will allow for further improvements to its early learning and child care system, where parents with a subsidized reduced contribution space already pay a single fee of less than $10 a day. Under its asymmetrical agreement, Quebec has committed to creating 30,000 new child care spaces by March 2026.

Budget 2023 announced that financial institutions would be able to start offering a tax-free first home savings account to Canadians as of April 1, and the money saved could be deducted from their income tax come tax time. This would give prospective first-time homebuyers the ability to save $40,000 on a tax-free basis, with a maximum allowance of $8,000 saved per year.

To ensure that Canada's national housing strategy programs can continue to deliver new, affordable homes for Canadians, especially for the most vulnerable, the federal government is taking action. Budget 2023 announced the government's intention to support the reallocation of funding from the national housing coinvestment fund's repair stream to its new construction stream as needed, to boost the construction of new, affordable homes for Canadians who need them the most.

During the pandemic, the federal government provided unprecedented funding for provincial and territorial health systems, personal protective equipment, vaccines, treatments and testing, as well as for public health measures for everything from schools to public transit. In other words, Canada was able to weather the worst of the pandemic thanks to the support provided by the federal government, which amounted to eight dollars out of every $10 spent to fight COVID-19. This significantly contributed to the budgetary surpluses that many provinces and territories are enjoying today.

Budget 2023 lays out the federal government's plan to provide an additional $195.8 billion over 10 years in health transfers to provinces and territories, including $46.2 billion in new funding through new Canada health transfer measure, tailored bilateral agreements to meet the needs of each province and territory, personal support worker wage support and a territorial health investment fund. This funding would be used to improve and enhance the health care Canadians receive; it is not to be used by provinces and territories in place of their planned health care spending. With historic federal health investments and a range of new measures to ensure that Canadians receive the care they need, budget 2023 would help deliver the improvements to health care that Canadians expect and deserve.

Nobody should have to choose between taking care of their teeth and being able to pay the bills at the end of the month. In budget 2023, the federal government would be moving forward with a transformative investment to provide dental care to Canadians who need it. In addition, budget 2023 proposes to provide $13 billion over five years, starting in 2023-24, and $4.4 billion ongoing to Health Canada to implement the Canadian dental care plan. The plan would provide dental coverage for uninsured Canadians with an annual family income of less than $90,000, with no copays for those whose family income is under $70,000. The plan would begin providing coverage by the end of 2023 and would be administered by Health Canada with support from a third party benefits administrator.

Budget 2023 is a direct response to essential short- and long-term objectives, such as reducing inflation through targeted inflation relief measures; strengthening our public health system, including dental care; developing Canada's clean economy through significant investments that will create more middle class jobs; and maintaining the lowest deficit and lowest net-debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.

We are proud to present budget 2023, a plan to build a stronger, more sustainable and more secure Canadian economy for everyone, including indigenous peoples. With new measures and important investments, budget 2023 will help everyone share in the opportunities and prosperity that Canada provides. Budget 2023 reaffirms our government's commitment towards indigenous peoples as we continue to build on the progress we have made together since 2015 on walking the path of truth and reconciliation with indigenous peoples, building strong, diverse communities, and protecting the environment and fighting climate change.

We will continue building a country where everyone can reach their potential. We have the remarkable fortune to live in the greatest country in the world, a country filled with people who can do big things.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, whom I recently worked with on issues of violence against women.

I would like to come back to that, because I know that she is very interested in feminism. How is it possible that a government that claims to be feminist is not providing better support to women who are victims of domestic violence by increasing health transfers to shore up our social services system, particularly in Quebec? How is it possible that a government that claims to be feminist is not keeping its promise to reform EI? We know that the people having the most issues with EI right now are women who, for a variety of reasons, have difficulty qualifying for the program.

My colleague also talked about the issue of mothers, pregnant women.

I would like to hear my colleague talk about these two critical issues, namely increased health transfers and EI reform. That is feminism.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague for her question. I would also like to thank her again for supporting the bill that she mentioned in her question. Her help is really a generous gift, and I agree with her.

That is why, as I mentioned in my speech, fewer women have to choose between their families and their careers. Paying $10 a day for child care is something that will truly help women continue their careers and stay in the workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, within the budget, the government has committed $80-plus billion in tax credits toward investing in a newer, greener economy. In the budget, it is very clear that it is there. It is not a secret, but with the announcement of Volkswagen creating a new plant near St. Thomas, Ontario, there is a tremendous amount of secrecy, in terms of what that $13-billion investment would actually be going toward.

I am wondering, if it is no secret what the tax credits are in the budget, which are coming from hard-earned taxpayers' money, why there is this level of secrecy in terms of this contract with Volkswagen. Should Canadians not know what that deal is all about, considering the fact that the government would be spending that money on that investment?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled by my colleague's question. I am just wondering if he is against the investment. That is what it sounds like, but I would like to say that Canada has one of the cleanest electricity grids all across the world. We are very proud of our record on this, and it is very important to continue with green technology to make sure that our environment and our economy can both work at the same time to improve the lives of all Canadians and contribute to the world as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, in a previous life I was a carpenter, I was a chimney sweep and I was a roofer. I ran a small business from my home, and we used to feed our kids french fries to help us get the mail-outs done in time at the end of the month. I had to go to the dentist and try to cut deals so the kids could get their teeth fixed.

I looked at the leader of the Conservative Party's LinkedIn, and I was astounded. He has never actually had a job; what he has had is 19 years of free dental care, and he has the gall to tell senior citizens and working-class families that they are not entitled to free dental care.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why she thinks the leader of the Conservative Party thinks he is so much better than people who have actually worked their whole lives.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that there are people who would still want to be against dental care in this manner. Dental care helps all Canadians. It helps those who are most in need. As we know, dental issues can cause other health issues as well. It is very important that we allow those who have the least to be able to maintain health security for themselves when they are just trying to live their lives. As my colleague said, he lived on a tight budget growing up. These are the people we want to help. This is why we are here.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always welcome the opportunity to rise in this place on behalf of the good people of Scarborough Centre. Today, I rise to speak to a very important piece of legislation, the budget implementation act, which I believe contains a host of measures that speak to the concerns they share with me every day. When I am attending events, knocking on doors, or meeting with constituents, they often talk to me about the cost of living. This is an overarching issue that manifests itself in many ways.

A long-standing issue of concern is access to safe, adequate and affordable housing. Rental housing, when it can even be found, is even more unaffordable and often old and inadequate for the families that want to call our community home. The dream of home ownership, once considered a birthright for hard-working Canadians, is becoming for many a seemingly impossible dream.

It is part of the larger issue of affordability in many aspects of everyday life. While the data shows that Canada has fared better than most other G7 countries when it comes to inflation, that is little comfort to my constituents, who go to the grocery store and find so much of their paycheque just going to put food on the table. This has them looking warily to the future. Will they ever be able to get ahead of the daily grind? Will they be able to find the money to save for their future or to put away for their children’s education?

It is because of concerns like these that the government is laser-focused, including in budget 2023, on affordability. With our made-in-Canada plan, budget 2023 would ensure that Canadians have more money in their pockets and are able to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, while building a Canada that is more secure, sustainable and affordable for people from coast to coast to coast.

Let us start with everyday expenses. While our opponents across the way want to lower taxes for the wealthiest 1% and hope the money will somehow trickle down to the middle class and those working hard to join it, decades of failed Conservative economic policy show that this does not work. Instead, our government is focused on delivering targeted inflation relief directly to the most vulnerable Canadians to help support them with the cost of living.

That is why, in budget 2023, our government is providing new, targeted inflation relief to the Canadians hardest hit by rising food prices. Budget 2023 introduces a one-time grocery rebate, providing $2.5 billion in targeted inflation relief for 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families. The grocery rebate will provide eligible couples with two children with up to an extra $467, single Canadians without children with up to an extra $234, and seniors with an extra $225 on average. An individual or a family would have to be entitled to the GST credit in January 2023 and have filed a 2021 tax return in order to receive the grocery rebate. This additional support would be delivered by the Canada Revenue Agency as soon as possible following the passage of the legislation, using the GST credit system.

Shortly after the budget was released, I visited Atiya's Fresh Farm, a grocery store in my riding, with the Minister of Transport to talk about the grocery rebate. I spoke with several mothers, who told me how the extra help from the grocery rebate would allow them to make better choices when doing the family’s grocery shopping. For families in my riding, this will mean being able to buy healthier options and more fruits and vegetables, instead of cheaper, less nutritious, processed food. That is especially important for children, to ensure they have the energy they need to grow and be active, as well as succeed in their schooling.

Speaking of schooling, with budget 2023 we are also making it easier for families to save for and invest in their children’s future. We are proposing to improve registered education savings plans by increasing limits on certain RESP withdrawals from $5,000 to $8,000 for full-time students, and from $2,500 to $4,000 for part-time students. We are proposing to allow divorced or separated parents to open a joint RESP for their children, which would make it easier and more affordable for parents to save for their children's education.

We are increasing Canada student grants by 40%, providing up to $4,200 for full-time students. We are raising the interest-free Canada student loan limit from $210 to $300 per week of study. We are also waiving the requirement for mature students, aged 22 years or older, to undergo credit screening in order to qualify for federal student grants and loans for the first time, which would allow up to 1,000 additional students to benefit from federal aid in the coming year. This follows other support for students announced by our government, including permanently eliminating interest on Canada student loans and ensuring that borrowers do not need to make payments on their loans until they earn at least $40,000 per year. We are committed to working with students in the years ahead to develop a long-term approach to student financial assistance in time for budget 2024.

Also, on affordability, I have already seen in my community how the Canadian dental care plan is making a difference for lower-income families. It is allowing families that have been putting off dental care for their children to be able to get their children in to see a dentist and make their oral care a priority. Dental care is health care, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. By expanding the program this year to include seniors and other lower-income Canadians, we are both helping make life more affordable and ensuring healthy outcomes for more Canadians.

I would also like to talk about housing, which, as I have said, is a real issue for my constituents. While the Conservatives did nothing on housing for a decade and still like to pretend the rental market does not exist, our government takes a holistic approach to housing that includes both homeowners and renters. Everyone should have a safe and affordable place to call home. However, for too many Canadians, including young people and new Canadians, the dream of owning a home is increasingly out of reach, and paying rent has become more expensive across the country.

Centred by the national housing strategy, over the past year the federal government has taken significant steps towards making housing more affordable for Canadians. We are building on that in budget 2023 by announcing that financial institutions will be able to start offering the tax-free first home savings account to Canadians as of April 1, 2023; publishing a guideline to protect Canadians with mortgages who are facing exceptional circumstances; and committing an additional $4 billion to CMHC to implement a co-developed urban, rural, and northern indigenous housing strategy.

This builds on other measures we have taken, such as a two-year ban on non-residents or non-Canadians purchasing residential property; a 1% annual underused housing tax on the value of residential property owned by non-residents or non-Canadians that is vacant or underused; a new tax-free first home savings account to allow Canadians to save up to $40,000, tax-free, to help buy their first home; an accelerator fund to remove barriers and incentivize housing supply growth, with the goal of creating at least 100,000 net new homes across Canada, and much more.

As I have said before, no one level of government holds the key to solving the housing crisis in Canada. It will take cities, provinces and the federal government all working together. There is still much more to do, but I am glad that, after a Conservative decade of darkness, Canada again has a government that is a willing partner in housing.

While our government is focused on programs that make life more affordable for Canadians, such as dental care and child care, the opposition on the other side is opposing us every step of the way. The Leader of the Opposition even called our child care plan, which is saving families hundreds of dollars every month, a “slush fund”. It is clear who is looking out for Canadian families.

Let us pass this budget and keep the focus on affordability for everyday Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would actually like to talk about the topic of a slush fund.

The housing accelerator fund, which will be put out by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has billions of dollars set aside for, well, we just do not know. We do not know exactly what it will go towards. I am concerned for municipalities, because I have heard from a local chief administrative officer who had no idea what the project does. How is this going to tangibly build homes that people can live in?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, housing is a really important issue for my constituents.

We believe in a long-term approach to housing. We have a national housing strategy, which is based on a 10-year plan for building more affordable housing for Canadians. In the budget, we are building on that.

We will make sure that housing becomes more affordable for all Canadians. It should be a right for all Canadians to have a safe place to live and to call home.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke at length about housing.

I think the logic is very simple. It is about supply and demand. The problem in my riding—and I think it may be a problem in my colleague's riding too, as it is throughout Quebec and Canada—is that there is not enough housing supply. There are several reasons behind this, including the proliferation of Airbnb, people living alone and so on. All this means that there is far less housing available. The priority should have been housing construction.

I welcome the measure included in the budget for a $4-billion increase over seven years for urban, rural and northern housing for indigenous people. However, there is nothing for housing construction for the rest of Canada. In my view, the biggest impact of the labour shortage is that people cannot find housing in our communities. That is a problem.

Why has the government not taken concrete action on housing construction?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, housing is an issue that one government cannot resolve. As the federal government, we are working with provinces and municipalities to make sure that we build more affordable housing.

In budget 2023, we have taken some measures to make sure we build more affordable housing, including announcing that financial institutions would be able to start offering tax-free first home savings accounts to Canadians as of April 1. We are publishing a guideline to protect Canadians with mortgages who are facing exceptional circumstances. We are committing an additional $4 billion to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to implement a co-developed urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy. We have announced a housing accelerator fund to make sure that municipalities could work to build more affordable, better housing for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, although I thank the member for the comments on housing, the Liberal government is tinkering around the edges in a crisis.

I am happy to see that there are structural investments in this budget around dental care, which will be long-standing and eternal for Canadians. However, what the government really missed was housing. Where is the investment in affordable housing in this budget?

We knew operating agreements that were made 40 years ago were going to expire. Ten years ago, we should have had our eye on it. Municipalities had their eye on the fact that operating agreements were expiring this year, last year, next year and the next three or four years. Where is the investment in affordable housing in this budget?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her concern in making sure that Canadians have access to affordable housing.

Housing is not something that we could resolve in one or two years. Since we came to power in 2015, we have worked on building a national housing strategy, which is a 10-year plan to make sure that we build more affordable housing. In this budget, we have taken certain measures to make sure that Canadians get access. We have announced a housing accelerator fund, which is a great investment and which would help in building more affordable housing, working with more municipalities and making sure that they cut the red tape to have quicker processes for building more affordable housing.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I share a border. Our ridings are next to each other. I am always aware of the great work that she is doing with young people in her community, with her youth council and with the local schools.

In the budget and past initiatives, we have seen $10-a-day child care and dental relief. We have seen relief on interest rates, as well as many programs, such as the child benefit, which help young people in our community.

Could the member tell us what the response has been from young people in her community?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since we came to power in 2015, certain measures that we have taken are really helping to make a difference. They include the Canada child benefit, $10-a-day child care and programs to make sure that we provide more support to students. When I talk to people in my youth council, they tell me how these additional student grants are helping them to make sure they can concentrate more on their studies. Many students find it difficult to find a job after graduating. However, they have some room in that they do not have to pay their student loans until they start earning $40,000. That is really helping our young kids to grow and be more successful in life.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who is actually my neighbour. His riding is right beside mine.

In talking about the budget, we should look at some numbers. The first number I want to talk about is $176 billion. Government spending is up $176 billion since 2015. That is a 63% increase in government spending in eight years. We might ask ourselves what all this spending has done for Canadians. It is a very reasonable question. That is a massive increase.

If I increased my home budget by 63%, I am going to guess my spouse and children might look around and ask, “Since the budget is way up, what is better? Have things gotten better here?”

Let us look at what all this spending has done for Canadians. Right now, there is a $176-billion growth in government spending per year, and one in five Canadians is now skipping meals because life is so expensive and unaffordable. I was not an A student when I went to university, but I am smart enough to understand that this is a problem.

Let us look at this other number: 1.5 million Canadians are now using the food bank. Let us go back. There is $176 billion more in government spending, and the result is that 1.5 million Canadians are using the food bank. We can take that part out of the equation. Affordability is actually being able to buy groceries and live. We know that the affordability question is awful after all this government spending. Every Canadian we talk to would say that life is unaffordable. However, we can put that aside for just one second.

Let us talk about something else that is important for Canadians. We can talk about rent. Rent has almost doubled since 2015. There is $176 billion more being spent, and one needs to pay twice as much for rent. We can imagine what that does to a family's ability to make ends meet. Families are now paying twice as much in rent. Have their paycheques gone up? Have they doubled? No, they absolutely have not, but the rent has.

It is the same thing if one wants to buy a house. Since houses are now so expensive and have gone up so much under the government, one now needs to put twice as much down as a down payment. People are thinking that their rent is terrible and unaffordable; maybe they should get out of the rental market and buy a house. What happens then? Now they need to have twice as much money as a down payment to buy that house.

Again, after eight years of the Liberal government, $176 billion more is being spent per year. When we look at affordability, or the ability to make ends meet, Canadians are skipping meals and going to the food bank. On that metric, it is an F.

Let us look at what else is going on, such as with housing. Housing is extremely important. Rents have doubled. If someone wants to buy a house, they find that down payments have doubled. A recent survey showed that nine in 10 Canadians who do not own a house think they never will. We can let that sink in for a second. That is how bad it is. This is after eight years of a Liberal government and increasing government spending by $176 billion.

To go back to my own house, if my budget had gone up by 63% and my spouse and children looked around and everything was more expensive, they might be asking me what is going on. They might ask what all this spending was for.

That is the incredible thing about it. Right now, we are in the middle of a massive public service strike. The Liberals massively increased the size of the government over the past eight years, as well as spending on the government, and still somehow managed to have 100,000 public servants go on strike. We are now on day nine. This is stunning incompetence.

Everything is more expensive. People cannot buy a house, and they can barely pay their rent. Government workers have walked off the job. That is the Liberals' record. It is astounding. When we look at all this, it has been financed with deficit spending, which adds to the debt. The debt is now $1.2 trillion. Interest payments on the debt have also almost doubled to $44 billion a year, soon to be $50 billion a year.

Many Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, find it hard to get medical appointments or specialist appointments. We can imagine for a second what $50 billion per year would do for health care. It would help to remove the lineups that Canadians are stuck in. When so many Canadians do not have access to a family doctor, it would help to hire more family doctors. Again, this is Liberal Canada after eight years.

The Liberals may not believe me; I find that often happens in this place. They seem to say they were spending all this money and ask why the Conservatives are talking about the problem. I will tell members why. It is because I get emails from people like Kim.

Kim sent me an email that says, “I am stretched so thin. I either pay bills or buy food because I can't afford both.” Again, we should let that sink in. There is $176 billion more spent per year by the government, and Kim is choosing whether to eat or pay bills. It is a disgrace what the government has done to this country and what it is putting Canadians through. Canadians deserve so much better than what the government has done. Kim goes on to say, “Food costs are ridiculous. Gas and heating keep going up. Is life better under this government? Not by a long shot.”

Can we guess what the government's answer to the affordability crisis is? It is that the carbon tax is going up. The carbon tax makes everything more expensive because the farmer who pays the carbon tax on the fuel to run the farm passes that cost on to consumers. Then the truck that takes the product from the farm to be processed has a carbon tax. That is more expensive. The plant that does the processing has a carbon tax. That makes it more expensive. It then gets trucked to a grocery store, and there is a carbon tax. It makes it more expensive. The grocery store has a heating bill with a carbon tax. That makes it more expensive. If we wonder why Canadians cannot afford to eat, it is because the government just increases the carbon tax at every opportunity.

I visited a farm two weeks ago in my riding. Guess what its carbon tax bill was? It was $17,000. The Liberals say the carbon tax is revenue-neutral, but it is not. The PBO has made clear that the carbon tax is making the lives of Canadians less and less affordable all the time.

I want to finish with an email from Daina. I got it just the other day. They said, “I want to express concerns for two full-time, very hard-working adults, one of which is a small business owner and in our home, so the home tax rebate doesn't assist us. We can't afford to bring a child into this world because of the costs.”

This is from a young couple that somehow managed to buy a home. It says she bought it five years ago, so things were not as bad then. They are choosing not to have children because they are barely making ends meet. I know what the member is going to jump up and say, “What about $10-a-day day care?” They know about it, and they are still making this choice. For one thing, it is just not available for everybody. Not everybody gets it.

The government spends $176 billion more per year, and everything is worse in this country. People are going to food banks. People are choosing between heating their homes and eating. People are choosing not to have children. That is the Liberals' legacy, and it is disgraceful.

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

Mr. Speaker, in so many ways I disagree with the member's statements. Let us take a look at what the Conservative Party has said.

Hundreds of millions going into billions of additional dollars being spent every year to support health care, $198 billion over 10 years. Hundreds of millions of dollars going into billions of dollars every year to ensure that child care is more affordable. These are the types of needs that Canadians have and the expectations that Canadians have of the government to provide. The Conservative Party believes that the child care investment is nothing more than a slush fund. All the provinces' different political parties have signed on.

Is it still the Conservative Party's position that we should rip up the child care $10-a-day plan? Is it the Conservative Party's plan to get rid of the tens of billions of dollars that we are putting into national health care? What is the Conservative plan? It does not have one.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is incredible. I just read two emails from the hundreds I have been getting about how tough life is even after all the spending. What does this member stand up to say? He asked if they know about the spending.

Of course they know about the spending. They know that all the spending has made their lives worse. That is what they know and this member stands here, effectively gaslighting Canadians, asking how dare they say things are so tough; look at all the money being spent.

They have spent the money in such a way that it has made Canadians' lives worse. We had a member just before who said the exact same thing. It was actually enlightening to hear that housing is unaffordable and all those kinds of things. However, their answer is to spend more money on things that are not going to make life better.

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

Mr. Speaker, members of the official opposition party have repeatedly mentioned the deficits being racked up by the government. They have also mentioned the Parliamentary Budget Officer's reports.

However, they are overlooking some information, including information from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I would mention the tens of billions of dollars in funding announcements that remains unspent. In 2021-22, this added up to $38 billion, and it was roughly the same amount last year. I would also mention the fiscal imbalance that is keeping funds in government coffers. This money comes from taxes paid by taxpayers. The situation has now reached a point where, in a matter of decades, the federal government will have settled all its debts stretching back to 1867, while the provinces and Quebec will be on the verge of technical bankruptcy, or will have lost much of their budgetary autonomy.

Is my colleague not outraged about this situation, this budgetary and financial hypocrisy, and the damage to the public and workers?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to talk about deficits. What every prime minister up until this point accumulated to the national debt, the Prime Minister and the current government have doubled over the span of eight years. Think about that. All the history of previous prime ministers, a certain amount of debt, has been doubled. What has that done? It has significantly reduced the fiscal capacity of the government just on interest payments alone, I would suggest.

What could go into transfer payments to the provinces if the national debt was not causing $50 billion a year just to service the debt? That is interest on the debt. Imagine what that could do to help the fiscal situation of the provinces. The growth of the government is contributing to that, $176 billion a year more, and it is still not transferring enough to the provinces. It is a remarkable disaster.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, the Comox Valley Chamber of Commerce said the number one priority to help solve the labour market crisis is increasing spaces in child care. In fact they are saying to keep going because we are seeing more and more spaces open up because of the agreement with Canada and the provinces. As someone who ran a chamber of commerce, as someone who actually had children in child care as a single parent at one time, I know how important those child care spaces are.

Does my colleague not agree that this would be a very important measure to help solve the labour market crisis in this country? What does he have to say to the chambers of commerce in my community?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, child care is important. That is why we were the first government to actually send money directly to parents for children. That was back under former prime minister Harper.

While $10-a-day child care sounds like a great idea, the problem is about how many spots and access people have to them; there are not very many. There are also lots of people who do not want to put their children into institutional child care. They want to take care of the children themselves or they want to put them into a family member's home or a neighbour's home.

To me this is so exclusionary. It is only open to a very small number of people. It is just not going to help enough.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our economy is stagnating, and that is not just in the last year or two, that has been going on for years. Let me explain. Average per capita gross domestic product is stagnating. In other words, average national income has not been growing. Per capita output has not increased in years. In fact, last year it was roughly the same as it was five years ago, in 2017. Flat per capita output, in the face of skyrocketing prices for assets like housing, in the face of skyrocketing prices for consumables like groceries, is the reason why households are struggling to pay the bills. It is the reason why Canadians are feeling the pinch. It is the reason why Canadian families are taking on ever-increasing amounts of household debt just to make ends meet.

Canada's flat per capita GDP is in marked contrast with what is going on in other advanced economies, which are rocketing ahead of us. Research by John Cochrane and Jon Hartley at Stanford shows that real GDP in Canada was just under $44,000 U.S. per person in 2021. In the United States, it was $61,000. That is shocking. American per capita GDP is now fully 40% higher than here in Canada.

However, even worse than the government's record over the last several years is the projection for the future. The OECD projects that Canada will only achieve 0.7% GDP growth this decade, putting us dead last among advanced economies. This projection is an indictment of the government's economic policies over the last eight years, and the government's own budget documents admit to this.

One chart in last year's budget, budget 2022, chart 28 on page 25, speaks a thousand words. It is titled “Average Potential Annual Growth in Real GDP per capita, Selected OECD Countries, 2020-2060”. The chart says that Canada's projected real GDP growth per capita will be dead last among advanced economies. That chart is in the government's own budget documents.

The budget in front of us, budget 2023, does nothing to change this trajectory. The budget in front of us is the seventh budget. It should have been the eighth, but instead of the government presenting a budget in 2020, it proposed an unprecedented power grab by proposing to give the PMO the power to approve taxation and spending for an unprecedented year and a half. While the Liberals backed off from that power grab, they set a dubious record for the longest period in Canadian history without introducing a government budget, and their lack of budgetary planning is beginning to show.

The budget in front of us proposes billions in new spending in the form of consumption rather than investments for things like dental programs that are often covered by existing employer and provincial plans. Rather than meeting our international commitments to the rules-based international order by making much-needed investments in our defence and our military, the government has chosen to spread more consumption in the form of programs that will further fuel inflation.

The budget also proposes billions in new spending in the form of massive industrial subsidies. Failing to heed the lessons of the past, the massive industrial subsidies do not work. In fact, the finance minister said as much last month in Washington. She voiced concerns about large industrial subsidies and warned against “a new mutually sabotaging competition to provide ever richer corporate subsidies”. That was last month.

This month, the government has introduced massive new industrial subsidies in the billions of dollars for large corporations. None of these policies, gobs of new spending on consumption rather than investment and gobs of new spending for massive industrial subsidies, are working. Canadians' standard of living continues to decline, and many economists are now ringing the alarm bells.

I want to quote from a piece published by Jonathan Deslauriers, executive director at the Walter J. Somers Foundation, and Robert Gagné, a professor at the Université de Montréal. It states:

In 1981, Canadians enjoyed a $3,000 higher per capita standard of living than the major Western economies.... Forty years later, Canada was $5,000 below that same average. If the trajectory continues, the gap will be nearly $18,000 by 2060.

This is an alarming analysis. In light of the recent $13-billion subsidy announced for Volkswagen, I would like to quote another part of their analysis. The article states:

Canada now remains stuck in an interventionist logic dedicated to protecting the immediate interests of Canadian companies. Successive governments have failed to move on from protectionist reflexes and impose the necessary reforms: they should have adjusted the regulatory framework to stimulate the competitiveness of Canadian companies in the domestic market. Instead, Canadian companies continue to operate within an outdated institutional framework that does not value competitive forces.

Here is what the authors conclude if the federal government does not change course:

[G]rowth will remain inadequate and our standard of living will continue to quietly decline unless we put competition back at the heart of Canada’s economic strategy.

None of this should surprise us. Massive industrial subsidies never worked in the past and they will not work now. They distort the price of capital, leading to a less efficient allocation of capital with the attendant declines in productivity and wage growth. Low productivity is the path to poverty. The only long-run determinant of prosperity is high productivity.

With respect to our aggregate GDP, our top-line numbers do not look too bad. However, our overall GDP growth is underwritten by Canada's massive population growth. We have one of the highest population growth rates in the world, including in the developing world. That massive population growth is masking low per-capita GDP growth. If the population goes up 3% but GDP only goes up 2%, people are getting poorer.

The master-of-the-universe types, the CEO types and the hedge-fund types are all fine with flat if not declining per-capita GDP growth, provided we have high population growth, because it means more customers for them by the millions, even if that average customer's disposable income is flat and if not declining, because the number of customers times the disposable revenue per customer equals total revenues. What the exact value of the number of customers is and what the exact value of the disposable income per customer is do not really matter if the multiplication of these two values is higher revenues because on the profit-and-loss statement higher revenues means higher profits, which means higher pay and bonuses for the master-of-the-universe types. Meanwhile, ordinary Canadians suffer to pay the bills as their per-capita income stagnates.

Let me finish by saying this: My parents immigrated to Canada. My father immigrated as a Chinese immigrant from Hong Kong in 1952. My mother immigrated as a Dutch immigrant from the Netherlands in the 1960s. They both left poorer countries and places to come to a much wealthier, more prosperous country. Decades later, the reverse is true. We are in big trouble. We are falling behind big time and we have a government that is utterly incapable of arresting this decline in our standard of living.

For all the reasons I have outlined, I cannot support the government's budget and I cannot support the current government.

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

Mr. Speaker, as members know, we hear time and time again Conservatives stand up and indicate concerns about the deficit and the debt. Having gone through the pandemic, with respect to the massive investments in things such as Canada's health care system and child support and the amounts of money we are talking about, including the wage loss subsidy programs, CERB, the rent subsidy programs to support small business owners, literally keeping hundreds of thousands of jobs intact, supporting Canadians to be able to get through the pandemic and meeting the needs of health care going forward, do the Conservatives not believe those to be wise investments in Canadians or would they rather we had not done that?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not once in my speech did I mention government debt or deficits. I focused on our declining standard of living.

In the five-year period from 2017 to 2021, economic output per capita was flat. We have not had any per capita growth, and that is why Canadians are struggling to pay the bills. The government has focused its economic agenda on consumption rather than investment. In the long run, only through investment, whether private sector investment or government investment in public infrastructure, are we going to get to higher levels of productivity, with the attendant increases in wages and prosperity for all Canadians, but the government has not been doing that.

In fact, it has been doing the opposite, which is why our per capita GDP is now much lower than that in the United States. Per capita GDP here is $44,000 U.S., while it is $61,000 U.S. south of the border. The American economy now has fully 40% higher output, per capita, than we have here in Canada, and that is affecting our ability to pay for social programs, such as health care and education.

That is what the government does not get and is incapable of addressing.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about people's quality of life.

Agriculture is a sector where the workers' quality of life has been hit hard this past year. Our agricultural producers have been severely impacted by the cost of inputs and fuel. In Abitibi—Témiscamingue, costs could be $40,000 higher this year than last just because of the cost of fuel. This has huge consequences.

Our farmers need cash flow. There is a rather interesting measure in the budget that would increase the interest-free limit under the advance payments program from $250,000 to $350,000. This helps farmers manage their debt a little better, but does not provide them with cash flow. If we want to maintain our agricultural production and food resilience in Canada, we need to make investments. Why are there none in the budget? What would the member have done?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I come from an agricultural riding that has many dairy and beef farms and farms that produce hay and other agricultural products. I really understand the importance of our agricultural sector and our farmers.

Agriculture is one of the few sectors in the Canadian economy that is a free trade sector and not heavily regulated by government, like the banking and telecommunications sectors are. What does the government do? It saddles our farmers with ever-increasing regulation and taxes, making it even more difficult for them to sell corn, wheat, soy beans, beef or pork on global markets.

The government cannot get anything right. We could be an agricultural powerhouse, but we are not. In fact, the second-largest agricultural exporter in the world is the Netherlands. It is far ahead of Canada. We have the second largest landmass in the world, and we are not taking advantage of it because the government has a completely misguided industrial strategy.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know there are 3.2 million Canadians who are underhoused. Now, the government set out an ambitious agenda of inviting 500,000 new immigrants a year for the next three years, but it has no cohesive strategy on where they are going to live.

Desjardins has made it clear that we would have to increase all new housing starts by 50% in the next year, just to meet immigration. The provinces are saying they need money for non-market and social housing.

Does my colleague not agree that, after 30 years of Conservative and Liberal governments lacking investments in social housing, this is the time to invest in social and affordable housing?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, quite simply, the government is putting roadblocks in the way of constructing purpose-built apartments buildings in this country. It is almost impossible to build a purpose-built apartment building, which is why all the focus is on building owner-occupied dwellings. It is because the government has subsidies for owner-occupied dwellings through CMHC's mortgage insurance, OSFI's regulatory structure and Finance Canada's rules, while on the other hand it is putting up roadblocks to building apartment buildings.

That is the fundamental problem that the government is not even talking about, and it is something it should be focused on.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the House today. I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Granville.

It is always a great honour for me to stand in the House to speak on behalf of the great people of Don Valley East, representing communities such as Wynford, Flemingdon Park, Don Mills, Fenside and Victoria Village. It is really a true honour to represent these communities within a larger community. Without question, I would argue that my neighbourhood is probably the most diverse and vibrant community in all of Canada. However, I know some may argue that point in the House. We are all proud to be a part of our communities, and I cannot say enough how proud I am to be here today to speak to this important bill.

There is no question that Canadians are going through a very challenging time. Things were tough before the pandemic, but they were amplified during COVID. I grew up in my community, and there were always challenges in my neighbourhood, but it has become more difficult for people. We can see this clearly in my community and communities across this great country. With the increase in mental health challenges, and the lack of affordability, and even of social cohesion, people are having challenges.

However, it is our job in the House, as members of Parliament, to look for ways to bring people together, articulate the challenges we are facing as a society and bring forward solutions in the House to move forward. I think most people in the House would agree that that is our job as MPs. I have to believe that every single person in the House of Commons wants to look for ways to identify problems and bring forward solutions to alleviate some of these challenges.

We have seen these big challenges come forward, but we are making some progress. We have seen an increase in job creation in this country. Inflation has dropped from 8.1% in September of last year to below 4.5% today. There are 865,000 more jobs today than prepandemic, so we are making progress. Despite the rhetoric that comes from the Conservatives, we are leading economic growth in the G7. There is no question about that. Despite all of this success, we cannot ignore the challenges people are going through.

I believe we are all on the same page when we identify the issues and problems people are going through, but the Conservatives and the Liberals differ on one thing, which is the solutions we bring forward. The Conservatives will tell us that the best type of government is the smallest government we could ever find, one that minimizes and cuts, which we have seen before, to do as little as possible to assist people who need help. Under their leader, they have found the solution is to gather support by taking on the fear and anxiety out there to steer people into a discourse and a discussion not necessarily about how they can help Canadians, but how they can amplify the anger that is out there. It is the get-out-of-the-way approach of letting the market take control and everything will be fine.

I think that is a very simple, archaic and naive philosophy, which really ignores the belief that government itself can be used as a mechanism for the common good. I know that is true because I am living proof that good government programs can bring out the best in people. I see it throughout my community all the time. Government can be used as a force for good. It is the belief that we are stronger as a society when we work together, pool our resources and present solutions together.

On this side of the House, we believe that, if we work together and invest in the right programs and services, we can benefit society as a whole. I have seen this with my own eyes. We have seen this on a grand scale historically with investments in programs, such as our national health care programs and provincial education programs, and we have seen it more recently with the child care programs in Ontario and across the country.

However, we know without question that there is a stark difference between the Liberal approach and the Conservative approach. That is why I am a Liberal. When it comes to building good government, one that will invest in people, that is what drives me to continue to do the work I do.

The Conservatives and the Leader of the Opposition are doing something that we have not seen in recent decades in this country. It is usually reserved for a very right-wing international style of power pursuit, where they look for ways to tap into people's anger and actually amplify that anger.

It is kind of like when one sees two people arguing and there is a person on the sideline who is actually amplifying that frustration between the two people, looking for ways to divide those people. I think the Leader of the Opposition is in a position of power where he could use that role to not only critique government but also bring Canadians together. I would argue that the success of this country has been entirely built on the fact that we as Canadians have stuck together when times are difficult. The Leader of the Opposition stands on the sidelines, encouraging people to amplify their anger and frustration rather than offering them real solutions to the problems we face as Canadians.

Even when the solutions are offered to the Conservatives and to the Leader of the Opposition, such as those, for example, in this budget, or many of the initiatives that have been brought forward, they simply disregard those solutions. The Conservatives said that they would vote against the budget even before seeing the budget. To me, that says a lot. It means they are so embedded in ideology, so driven by the pursuit of power, that they are actually pushing all of these great ideas to one side to pursue something completely different.

Conservatives are not interested in exploring innovative new ideas, and I think that this is to the detriment of Canadians as a whole. I want to take the opportunity to tell Canadians what the Conservatives are voting against in this budget.

There is a grocery rebate. I have heard members opposite just disregard it as being a small amount that will not really make a difference. Well, it is a $2.5-billion investment to help Canadians who are struggling to pay grocery bills.

There is the Canadian dental care plan. We are going to expand it so that it helps families who earn under $90,000. This is an important program for people in my community and many communities across the country. There is also $500 million over the next 10 years for a strategic innovation fund and $14,400 of accessible money to students for post-secondary.

This is not part of a new plan. This is a long-term plan that we have had on this side of the House for many years now, to look for ways to continue to invest in people. They are our greatest resource in this country, and we will continue to bring forward ideas that ensure that people in this country have the best options going forward.

I have little hope in the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party when it comes to providing those solutions. Just imagine a party that does not believe in climate change, that will tell one to take one's life savings and invest them into cryptocurrency.

Do not get me wrong, I believe in digital currency. I think there is a pathway for it, but to suggest that one should take one's life savings and invest them to avoid inflation is irresponsible. It is irresponsible for anyone who wants to end up being prime minister of this country.

We know the approach that the Conservatives take. It is a very old-style approach of trickle-down economics in which, at the end of the day, the rich become richer and those who need the most help are pushed to the sidelines.

Many Canadians are frustrated. They feel this way, and we have to acknowledge that Canadians are feeling this way, but we have to take that energy and come together as Canadians to look for ways to bring us together, find solutions, and really build the country as a whole together.

I believe that there is hope in this country. There is an option that is opposite to what the Leader of the Opposition is offering, an approach that recognizes the problems we face, brings people together to better understand the issues, works with Canadians to find solutions and uses the strength of good government to leverage everything we can do collectively as Canadians to continue to put in place programs and services that strengthen our greatest asset, our greatest resource: our people, Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we all bore witness to a bit of a comedy show here and a member who forgets that it is his leader who has divided this nation along many lines, including economic, race, faith, gender, etc. This is a leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister, who has referred to people as racists and misogynists, and who has referred to not having to tolerate these kinds of people, yet the member speaks about division.

The one thing Conservatives are is reflective of the voices of Canadians in this place, and the Liberals can learn a lesson about reflecting the voices of their constituents as opposed to the government telling them everything.

I am wondering if the hon. member has any comments about his leader wearing racist blackface so many times that he actually forgets how many times it was. How come he did not condemn his leader for doing that?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is so interesting that when the only Black person on this side stands up to talk, the member brings up blackface. I think it is ridiculous. They are a joke on that side. They bring up issues in the House on economic policy, but a Black person stands up and he brings up this issue—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. When we have questions and comments, we wait for the question and answer to be heard.

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find that we are getting into very dangerous territory when we see a white man in caucus attacking someone of colour over issues of race and then saying that this is about an issue of racism. That is way beyond the pale.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I believe this is descending into debate on the issue.

I will let the hon. member for Don Valley East defend himself.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives were in power, I was in the Ontario government, and I can remember that in their budget, they actually made cuts to refugees when it came to health care. It is a perfect example of the approach and style of the Conservatives when they get into power. It is about cuts. Imagine a Conservative government cutting refugee services in health care. It is unbelievable, but those are the kinds of services we get with the Conservatives in power.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party's role is to exaggerate the benefits of its budget to draw attention away from the things it is hiding and the major oversights. The role of the opposition parties is to cut through the Liberals' rhetoric.

It is all well and good for the Liberals to use “investing in people” as their slogan while completely forgetting about seniors, unemployed workers and unionized workers who are the victims of replacement workers. What a slap in the face from this party that taunts the opposition party about cryptocurrency while giving GST exemptions to those who mine cryptocurrency.

Will we get some consistency and respect for the Constitution in this budget at some point? That would be a welcome change.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree 100% that the role of any opposition member is to critique anything this government brings forward. That was exactly the point of my speech.

The Conservatives, the loyal opposition, are in a position of power where they can look for ways to critique and make suggestions for improvement to help Canadians. However, the number one piece, which is important when we are looking for ways to build this country, is to keep people on the same page, keep people together and stop dividing people and exploiting that divide in the pursuit of power.

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

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party came to northern Ontario and said he was too busy to meet with any indigenous people, which I think sent a clear message. However, then he made all these jokes about electric vehicles. The leader of the Conservative Party has never had a real job, so maybe he does not understand this, but in northern Ontario, which is mining country, we are going to be seriously focused on EVs because of the economic opportunities. Then this morning, again I heard the Conservatives insinuating and attacking investment in a battery plant in St. Thomas.

As the Americans are tooling up for a complete overhaul of their economy, we have the Conservatives attacking and undermining EV technology and digital investment. I would ask my hon. colleague why he thinks the leader of the Conservative Party does not understand the basics of economics.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I got to spend some time with the member and, like me, he has had many different jobs. I have worked in restaurants where I had to clean the bathrooms. I have worked so many jobs in my life just to try to get ahead, and I think work experience is a really important thing.

As to the Leader of the Opposition, I think the member is quite right that this is the only job he has ever had. He is a professional politician. I think in order to be successful in the House, we need to take the life experience that people face every single day and bring it into forums like this so we can make the best decisions possible.

I would like to thank the member for the question and thank him for his commitment to Canada.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House to speak on behalf of my riding of Vancouver Granville.

I want to talk a bit about the measures in budget 2023 that would improve the lives of my constituents in Vancouver Granville and indeed individuals across Canada.

A lot of issues have been discussed over the course of the last little while. My friend and colleague just gave an important speech that reflected some of the challenges we have in terms of the need for good debate in this House. I want to start with things that hopefully we can all agree on.

First is the fight against money laundering. Money laundering has been a central issue in Vancouver and across B.C. These criminal acts threaten the integrity of the Canadian economy and put Canadians at risk. Just last year, the Government of British Columbia released the final report of the Cullen commission on money laundering. The Cullen commission highlighted major gaps in the current anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime, as well as areas for deepening federal and provincial collaboration. That is why I am so happy and so pleased to see that budget 2023 introduces a new focus on combatting money laundering and terrorist financing and closes these gaps.

The budget announces the government's intention to introduce legislative amendments to the Criminal Code to make it easier to investigate money laundering, strengthen enforcement capabilities and improve information sharing between government agencies. In particular, law enforcement would have the ability to freeze and seize virtual assets with suspected links to crime. Under these proposals, the CRA, law enforcement and FINTRAC would be able to share financial intelligence. We are introducing an offence for those who structure financial transactions to avoid FINTRAC reporting. We are also extending whistle-blower protections to employees who report financial information to FINTRAC.

These are just a few of the many ways we are working to end money laundering and ensure that no terrorists are hiding their money here in Canada. I hope everyone in this House can support those measures.

Budget 2023 also announced measures to protect Canadians from the risks of crypto-assets. We know that Canadians have invested in crypto. There is nothing wrong with that. I have invested in crypto. However, there is a big difference between investing in crypto and telling Canadians they should put their life savings in crypto to avoid inflation.

The crypto-asset market is extremely turbulent and is prone to high-profile failures such as those of FTX, BlockFi and Signature Bank. We are all aware that crypto-assets are not a credible way to opt out of inflation. We have heard this time and again, and it is important for Canadians to know that. If anything, unregulated and risky crypto-assets can threaten the financial well-being of Canadians.

Budget 2023 proposes new measures to protect Canadians, including ensuring that the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, or OSFI, would consult federally regulated financial institutions on guidelines for publicly disclosing their exposure to crypto-assets. These types of measures would ensure financial security for Canadians.

Speaking of the economy, following the impressive rebound the Canadian economy has made coming out of the pandemic, Canadians need assurances that the economy will remain strong. Inflation is steadily coming down and interest rates are steady. To see how stable the economy is, let us look at the key indicators that most people are concerned about.

First, the federal debt-to-GDP ratio continues on a declining path from 2024-25 onward. Second, the deficit continues to project a decline in every year of the forecast. Third, our public debt charges, as a share of the economy, are projected to remain at historically low levels, and our credit ratings in this country remain strong.

However, we cannot stop there. Our government intends to invest in key areas that are strategically targeted to help everyday Canadians. These are investments that would not risk increasing inflation.

It is vital that economic policy focus on helping middle-class Canadians and those working hard to join it. That is why a major focal point for the budget is affordability. During a time of heightened inflation around the world, the budget proposes new, targeted support to those who need it most.

When times are tough, we have to remember to take care of the people who are struggling the most. That is why in this budget, we will find a grocery rebate aimed at helping people afford essential goods. Over 11 million Canadians and families would benefit. Eligible couples with two children could receive up to an extra $467, and seniors would receive up to an extra $255. When people can worry a little less about providing basic necessities for their families, it gives them further room to thrive, including almost 30% of modest-income individuals and families in my province of B.C.

We are not stopping at grocery costs. Unexpected hidden and additional fees can quickly eat up a budget. They are frustrating and are a sneaky way to hit the pocketbooks of everyday Canadians. This is why budget 2023 takes action to crack down on what we call “junk fees”, whether it is Internet overage charges, roaming fees, extra charges on a concert ticket that one has saved up for or things like excess baggage fees. We are going to work with regulatory agencies, provinces and territories to reduce these junk fees for everyone. We are going to strengthen existing legislative tools and create new regulations to ensure that we curb the escalation of and remove junk fees wherever possible.

Another area my constituents in Vancouver Granville are deeply concerned about is the fight against climate change and moving emissions to net-zero. Canada is a major energy producer, and we have a unique opportunity to build a cutting-edge clean economy. With the help of our highly skilled workforce and partners in the private sector, we will be net-zero by 2050.

However, the federal government cannot do this alone. With the help of provincial, territorial, municipal and indigenous governments, we will help realize this goal. How we do that is going to be important.

We have announced an investment tax credit for clean technology manufacturing, and it will provide support to Canadian companies that are manufacturing or processing clean tech and their precursors. This is going to assist companies across sectors and will apply to those extracting, processing or recycling critical minerals that are essential for clean tech and those manufacturing zero-emission vehicles. The tax credit will also apply to the manufacturing of grid-scale electrical energy storage equipment. By investing in clean, safe technology, we can ensure a prosperous country for generations to come.

It is important to recognize that this budget is a study of contrast. On this side of the House, we have solutions. We have ideas that are going to help make life more affordable for everyday Canadians. We have a plan to build the economy of the future. We are taking care of the most vulnerable in our society, but we are seeing it as an investment into the future of this country rather than as a handout.

We know that tax cuts are not the solution. We know investing in Canadians is. On this side of the House, our commitment is to Canadians and to working with Canadians to ensure that they can support their families, that they have access to affordable child care, that they have access to affordable and high-quality dental care and that the most vulnerable in our communities do not need to worry about where their next meal is going to come from. Most importantly, we will work to give Canadians a sense of hope for the future of this country. That hope comes from their ability to work and live in an environment that is clean, where we take care of our natural resources and, above all else, respect one another in the debates we have and in the way we build a better future.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member for Vancouver Granville knows, a commitment to net-zero by 2050 is not worth the paper it is printed on if we do not stop subsidizing the companies most responsible for the crisis we are in.

He mentioned affordability and mentioned supporting the most vulnerable Canadians across the country. As he knows, 40% of people living in poverty are living with disabilities. In this budget, once again the Canada disability benefit was not funded.

I would like to hear what he is going to do to put more pressure on the governing party to move much more quickly on moving forward the Canada disability benefit.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his advocacy.

It is important for us to recognize a few things. First of all, our government has made historic investments in ensuring inclusivity and building an inclusive economy that considers the challenges faced by those with disabilities. There is always more we can do, and it is important for us to find ways, as we move forward, to make additional investments where we can.

What this budget does is look at other means to support those with disabilities, whether it is the grocery credit or dental care. There are so many options and opportunities here for us to help alleviate the burden on all Canadians and particularly those with disabilities. I will commit to working with the member to see if there are more things we can do going forward, because I believe that to build a truly inclusive economy and build a truly inclusive country, we must take into consideration the most vulnerable in our society.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the way Canadians judge a budget is by looking at the previous year's budget to see whether the government has actually implemented the promises it made in that budget.

I went back and looked at the previous year's budget, and there was a commitment that the government was going to introduce a policy to ensure that “profits from flipping properties held for less than 12 months are taxed fully and fairly”. I would love to hear the member's comments on how that implementation has gone. Has the government actually implemented any policies that would basically cut down on the flipping of properties and the financialization of housing in Canada? How is that process going?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member across is well aware, every single member on this side of the House in our caucus is fully supportive of those measures. These are important measures to reduce the financialization of the housing market in this country. We are going to keep taking those up.

I note the Conservatives continue to oppose those measures, and I would love for the member opposite to be explain this to the House and all Canadians: While every single person on this side of the House is uniformly supportive of taking additional measures, why do his party and his leader continue to oppose them? They will increase affordability for Canadians and improve the ability of Canadians to get into good-quality housing.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government's slogan is “investing in people”. The mammoth budget bill contains a clause recognizing King Charles III as Canada's head of state.

Given that 56% of Canadians and 70% of Quebeckers are in favour of abolishing the monarchy, I am wondering how much it is costing or will cost to recognize that in the budget and what that has to do with the needs of Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very complicated to get into a debate about our relationship with the monarchy. This is a very important subject for many Canadians, regardless of their point of view.

Debates about our institutions that have a long-standing history and practice in our Constitution are things that are worthy of discussion and consideration. We should always be willing to have those conversations.

What we have seen in the House is an effort to undermine our institutions. We have seen so many examples of that over the last little while. It is really important for us to engage in thoughtful debate and conversation about the institutions that make our country what it is and be able to call into question and challenge those institutions but in a way that is respectful and thoughtful with respect to the views of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here to talk about the budget bill before us and the next steps that the government needs to take to make things a bit better for Canadians.

Just over two years ago, I remember sending out a mailer to my constituents of North Island—Powell River, asking them what they felt about dental care and if that would have an impact on their lives. We were inundated with responses, letters, emails and phone calls, from people across the riding. They talked about what dental care would mean in their lives.

I remember one day going into my office quite early in the morning and a gentleman was waiting outside. He had a slip and had written an extra note on it. He talked about the fact that he worked a very good job his whole life. He had a pretty comprehensive pension but he was struggling to afford dental care. He had some significant teeth issues and that was such a huge gap in his life. Even though he made a fairly decent income, a fixed retirement income, not a totally crazy amount of money, he could not afford it. He said that he was there to talk about himself, but, more important, he was there to talk about the many people he knew who could not afford dental care at all.

I am very proud that the NDP pushed the government to make this a reality. In this budget implementation act, people under 18 years of age, seniors or people with disabilities will be able to get access to dental care, which will fundamentally change lives. I do not think we can ever underestimate how it feels for families not being able to afford basic dental care for their children and when their children experience bad dental health, what it feels like to know that this weight can be lifted from them. If they cannot make it work, what does that mean to them every day when their children are in pain? It means they are going to the hospital as a last resort, and this needs to change.

I also want to acknowledge that this budget is hard for me. I am the spokesperson on veterans affairs for the NDP. For years, I have been fighting for the government to fix the marriage-after-60 gold-digger clause.

I talk to seniors. Just last week, I talked to a beautiful woman in her eighties, who married a veteran after he turned 60. She looked after him for many years, loved him very much and when he passed away, she did not receive a cent of his pension, nothing, after many years of caring and loving another human being. It is appalling that so many people who serve our country are not allowed to pass on anything to their loved ones, the survivors of their deaths, because they were married after 60.

What is particularly frustrating for me is the fact that the veterans survivor fund was announced in 2019. There was a little research done that said, and I know this is crazy, we should be ensuring that caregivers, largely women, of military and RCMP veterans should get something. This clause was made in 1901; it is now 2023. That $150 million over five years has not been moved to one survivor of a veteran, not one. Statistics Canada told us that about 4,400 or 4,500 spouses, somewhere in that range, were subject to the gold-digger clause. They have received nothing from this $150-million announcement.

As much as I will stand here and fight for people across the country to get dental care and to see an increase in the GST rebate so that people who are struggling every day to make ends meet will get a little more, the hard part is that not everything that would be in an NDP budget is here.

One of the other things that I am proud of, but also have a challenge with, is the investment in a clean energy economy to create well-paying union jobs while addressing the climate crisis. The member for Timmins—James Bay was one of the people who worked very hard to make this a reality.

Workers across the country need to know that, as we move forward to address climate change, their having a good job on the side of that process is important to the NDP. We pushed really hard to ensure that employers who were moving forward were doing things that would help us address the climate change, and moving forward in a more positive green and sustainable way. If they are actually supporting their workers, if they are paying them well, they are going to get better tax credits. This encourages behaviour that we want to see in our country.

We also know that the oil and gas subsidies just continue on and on despite being the biggest emitters. They are not being held to account in a way that I would like to see. We are still working on that. I think of the member for Victoria who is continuously working on that issue, but the government is continuing to not take active steps. A sustainable future is important.

I represent a rural and remote riding. Our economies have been boom and bust because they are largely resource-based. These communities are doing a lot of innovative and great work to adjust to a new and changing world, but resources need to be put in place for those communities to find sustainability.

I was in Port Alice a few weeks ago, talking to the mayor about some of the challenges that his community was facing. He talked about connectivity and the opportunity that they were not getting. They need that bit of money to help connect them to the fibre that is being laid. We are working on that. These communities are working hard to create economies that are strong and they need supports that are going to help them do that in a sustainable way. I think everyone in my riding agrees that we do not want to continue to see the boom and bust. We want to see a steady boom that keeps everybody paid well and respected for the incredible work they do.

I am also pleased to see that there are some things in this budget to address the most wealthy in our country. We know that the top 1% is making an incredible amount of income and they do not have to pay their fair share. People in my riding have to pay their fair share. They work really hard and they pay their taxes because they believe in having a strong country. They also are frustrated that so many in the top 1% are not paying their fair share.

One of the things we see in this budget is the change to the alternate minimum rate, from 15% to 20.5%, and the removal of the tax exemption for dividends received on Canadian shares held by financial institutions as business income. This is important. It means that they are being held a bit more to account, not to the extent that the NDP would do but it is definitely moving in a direction. This means more of the ultrarich are paying their fair share.

The resources that are needed to address the genocide of indigenous people to the missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse population is being a little more addressed. I am really pleased to see the red dress alert. This is something that can be done to allow a system that alerts our communities quickly to any indigenous women, girl or gender-diverse person going missing. We need that.

When I think of my riding, we have a couple of groups that fundraise. They bead and do different activities. They fundraise to help support those families that have lost indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people. There are too many missing. We need to do better. This is a step in the right direction, but so much more could be done.

I am also pleased to see that there is more support for indigenous housing in urban, rural and northern indigenous communities. I wish there was more. I do not think there is enough. I know in my riding that urban communities are really looking for strong indigenous housing, and it has been neglected for far too long.

I will be supporting this budget. Politics is hard and I am willing to take that challenge, because making lives better for Canadians will always be my main focus.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that when we take a look at the budget we have presented, there are many different forms of direct relief. We can talk about the grocery rebate and about how we would be expanding the dental program to cover seniors and others, but there are other aspects of the budget that are maybe not getting as much attention. For example, there is the enhancement for air travellers. After all, it is a budget implementation bill. We are taking a look at better ways in which we can provide more money up front for the Canada workers benefit.

I wonder if the member could provide some additional thoughts on those aspects of the budget implementation bill or whatever else she might want to talk about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see there is some more movement on passenger rights and strengthening airlines' obligations to compensate passengers. We have definitely seen, during the last while, how frustrating it can be for Canadians as they are trying to travel.

However, one of the other areas of concern is that I did not see anything momentous around housing. I know that, in my riding, we see a lot of people without housing. The challenges of finding affordable housing just continue to grow, and although the province is investing substantially in our region, the need is so high that it would be really good to see the federal government step up as a meaningful partner. We look forward to that.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, although I do not agree with the budget, I was very interested in the “gold-digger” clause on veterans. Of course, I have a lot of people who are involved in that and certainly support it.

I wonder if the member can just expand a bit on the “gold-digger” clause, which is a clause about the spouses of veterans who have died. Why is that hung up? Why have we not moved forward with that? What is the problem there?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have put forward a private member's bill on this, and I just want to remind people that we do not have to wait for my bill to be in the order of precedence. Actually, the government, at any point, could take leadership and address this issue in a meaningful way. My bill is just one suggestion. The government has the power to do that.

The other thing I want to draw the member's attention to is that the veterans committee did do a study, at my request, on this very issue. We talked to veterans and their spouses, who talked about the reality of the “gold-digger” clause. I might add that women across this country are very offended by that name. I have heard from so many of them who say that they are absolutely not gold diggers. They did not marry veterans for their money; they married veterans because they cared about them.

I think there are a lot of acts we can do, but we definitely want to see the veterans survivors fund. That money needs to move and go to these people.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C-47, the budget implementation bill.

In theory, it is a budget implementation bill. We would expect such a bill to contain budget measures. In reality, that is not exactly the case, because this bill that we are currently seized with is a 430-page bill that amends 59 acts. That is a lot. It is a big bill that the government has decided to cram with as much stuff as possible so that the House does not have time to debate and study it properly.

It is a shame, because there is a lot in this bill that we would have liked to debate. There are a lot of things we would have liked to study, but unfortunately, the bill is so big that it is difficult to do that job properly. It is also unfortunate that it is not simply about the budget. Rather, it is a bill that deals with a bunch of other matters.

If we at least had the opportunity to discuss the budget, and only the budget, that would have been fine. There is much to say about the federal budget. As some of my colleagues have already mentioned, the Bloc Québécois had very specific requests for the federal budget that unfortunately were not answered.

For starters, there was the issue of increasing health transfers, which is critically important. Everyone agrees that there is not enough money, not enough funding for the provinces' health care systems. For example, we would like the federal government to fund 35% of system costs. That is not the agreement that was reached with the provinces. The agreements with the Quebec government were disappointing. Even the Quebec government said that it signed the agreement with a knife to its throat. It is a shame, because it is reflected in the budget. A pleasant surprise would have been nice, but we did not get one.

We would have liked to see an increase in old age security starting at age 65. We are faced with a staggering increase in the cost of living. Everyone is struggling, everyone is having a harder go of it, but workers have an advantage over retirees. They can go to their boss and ask for a little more money because it costs more to feed their family and to get to work. Retirees do not have that power, and the government should have listened to them.

When I walk around my constituency, I get told the same thing every day. Seniors tell me that it is insulting to receive pension increases of $1, $1.10, or $1.50 a month. What are they going to do with that? It makes absolutely no difference in their lives, and they feel like they are being laughed at. That is what the federal government is doing to our seniors, and it is really sad to see. The message it is sending is that they are not important.

The Bloc Québécois also expected to see the employment insurance reform that the Liberal government has been promising for years. There is no sign of it yet, but they tell us it is coming. This government has been in office for almost eight years, but the much-touted EI reform has still not happened. However, there were consultations. We saw lots of consultations but not a lot of results. Unemployed workers are getting impatient. Regional workers who are grappling with the spring gap are getting really impatient.

What it comes down to is that this government is not interested in anything the Bloc Québécois requests, because it has an agreement with the NDP to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Consider the dental care plan, a matter that falls squarely within the authority of the National Assembly of Quebec, since health is exclusively a provincial domain. The federal government waded right in, with the NDP at its side.

That is how we ended up with a budget that does not make any sense and that does not meet the needs of Quebec, that does not meet people's needs. What is worse, as I said before, the Liberals are taking advantage of this opportunity to include a number of measures in the bill that have nothing to do with the budget.

Speaking of measures that have nothing to do with the budget, we got a big surprise when reading division 31 of part 4 of the bill, which is found on page 325. It states that we recognize Charles III as King of Canada by amending the royal titles. This is a budget implementation bill. Do we need to recognize Charles III as the new King of Canada for the budget to work? Is the King is costing us too much money? Is that why the government decided to include that in the budget implementation bill? I do not really understand what that is doing in there.

The Liberals did not mention this at all in the budget speech. Not a word was said about Charles III. It seems as though the government was trying to pull the wool over our eyes. It made sure that there would be no debate about the monarchy. The Liberals know that there are members on the other side of the House who do not like the monarchy and who do not identify with it. Most of the population is opposed to the monarchy in Canada. The Liberals therefore hid that somewhere in the 430 pages of the budget so that no one would talk about it. Unfortunately for the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois is here to talk about it and to say that people do not agree with this and that it is not going to fly.

The ascension of King Charles III should not be formalized in this bill. It should be done in a separate bill so we can have a debate about it as a society. A provision on Canada's head of state has been buried somewhere in the 430 pages of the budget. One would almost think that the Liberals are ashamed to be monarchists or to be part of a monarchy. I can think of no other reason why they would bury this in the budget. It does not make sense. A provision about the head of state is buried at the bottom of the budget. Personally, I would like to be proud of my head of state. I would put it at the forefront and explain how important it is to me. Unfortunately, I am not proud that my country is a monarchy or that it is governed by the Liberal Party.

There are other things in this bill that I find quite relevant and that I would like to discuss. Once again, they are mentioned in the budget, but I do not really understand what they have to do with the budget. These are measures for passengers. It is sad, because it would have been really good to talk about these issues. During the pandemic, it was evident that there was a major problem with rules protecting passengers in this country. The government admitted it, even though it was in denial for so long. Its air passenger bill of rights was a complete failure. The government said that it was because of the pandemic, but, ultimately, the same problems occur season after season. It has nothing at all to do with the pandemic. It is because of the government's incompetence and failure to listen. When the government came out with the air passenger bill of rights, it did not listen and did not do the work properly.

The government is now trying to fix things. That is a good thing, but this deserved a completely separate bill, outside of the framework of the budget, so the matter could have been discussed properly. I hope that we will have the opportunity to discuss this in detail instead of talking about it for just a few minutes along with the other 430 pages.

A drastic change needs to be made for passenger rights. I understand that the government wants to address the issue, but this needs to be taken seriously. We welcome the changes. Sadly, I do not have a lot of time to talk about this during my speech. I would have liked to talk about it for 10 or 20 minutes, even half an hour. We could have invited witnesses to committee to discuss this and see how we might do more to help passengers. This would have enabled the government to introduce a better bill to better protect passengers.

Unfortunately, all I can say is that I am glad the burden of proof has been reversed. The bill ensures that the airlines will have to cover some of the cost of dealing with complaints. The agency's decisions will be more transparent. Carriers will be forced to respond to people more quickly. These are all good things. The compensation categories are staying the same, but under the bill, passengers will be entitled to compensation for any flight delay or cancellation. These are good things, but why were they not introduced in a separate bill?

Why did the minister end up hastily organizing a press conference one morning to make this announcement? Since people might have missed a small item about air passenger rights in this huge 430-page bill, the minister made his announcement at a last-minute solo press conference. He would have liked people to talk about it, but his government did not have the time for it, so he hoped that this would do the trick.

That is sad, because the government does not do its job properly. Its work is shoddy and half-baked, and we will live with the consequences for many years. When addressing such an important matter, the government needs to take it seriously and do it right by introducing a real bill so we can have a real debate and find a lasting solution. Then we would not have the same problems we experienced with the passengers' bill of rights that was implemented by the government and by former minister Marc Garneau in 2019. There was a whole host of predictable problems that could not be corrected.

I hope that the government will listen to us and do the right thing as we move forward.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

When we resume debate on this matter, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères will have five minutes for questions and comments.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we would be hard pressed to find an individual in this chamber who does not love Canada. However, there is a difference in approach in this House as it pertains to managing the affairs of the country on behalf of the taxpaying Canadians who have elected us.

We are servants in the House of Commons, not masters. If one wants to see greatness, they should not look around this chamber but around our ridings. In my riding, it can be seen in the coal-stained shirt of Jason, the miner who extracts metal-making minerals from the ground in Elk Valley, metals the government has not acknowledged as critical minerals. It can be seen in the hands of farmers like Tyler, who understands the science and the weather, the soil and commodity prices and how to bring food from the fields to our tables. It can be seen in Terry, the electrician in Cranbrook who can send lightening shooting through a copper wire to light up our homes.

Often these people are called ordinary, but they are not ordinary. They are extraordinary. They are the ones bearing the brunt of broken federal policies. They are the individuals paying, from their paycheques, for the inflation caused by out-of-control federal spending.

Waitress Kassidy in Revelstoke can serve 15 customers at the same time, be on her feet all day, have enough energy to help her son with math homework and pay all of her bills on a minimum wage salary, but she is unable to save any money for her and her son's future. She is not ordinary; she is extraordinary.

Police officer Constable Dianne pushes through the pain of recovering someone's overdosed daughter from a homeless camp in Cranbrook or Nelson, and then, with her husband, tucks their children in at night. She is not ordinary; she is extraordinary.

As the leader of the official opposition has said, that is “the goodness, the greatness, and even the genius of the common people.”

It is the common sense of the common people striving for the purpose of the common home. The people's common democratic home is right here in this place, the House of Commons. All of this is theirs, and it is their common-sense voice that is missing from this budget.

They are the experts on the expense of inflation, an expense caused and fanned by the government. The reality for the hard-working people in Kootenay—Columbia is that life is now more expensive, homes are unattainable, groceries are becoming a luxury and life has become more difficult. However, the finance minister says she has “never been more optimistic about the future of our country”. She is out of touch. This should not be the Canadian experience.

This chamber is green because the first commoners met in the fields of England over 800 years ago. They wrestled power away from high society, the nobility, to make themselves, commoners, masters in their own homeland. Would those who wrestled agree with the policies of the Prime Minister?

On this side of the House, the official opposition remembers what the government has forgotten: We are servants, not masters. It is the common people, those we serve, who are the masters in this free land, and they are the ones who fund the budgets of the day. It is their common sense that is absent from this budget. In fact, this budget continues the Prime Minister's nonsensical approach of higher taxes and inflationary deficits. It does not make Canada work for the people who have done the work.

On the point of the budget, the Conservatives asked the government for three things. First was that the budget pave the way for Canadians to bring home powerful paycheques by lowering taxes and scrapping the carbon tax. Instead of listening to Canadians, the government is continuing with its war on work and increasing taxes, which means workers are punished for working and will now take home even less of their paycheques. Inflationary spending has caused the cost of food and groceries to skyrocket. One in five Canadians is skipping meals, and people are going to food banks asking for help because they cannot afford to eat.

The Prime Minister's grocery rebate would give $234 for a single adult to cover the rising cost of food that the government's inflationary deficits helped cause. Canada's latest food price report predicts that a family of four will spend up to $1,000 more on food this year. That is $600 more than the $467 rebate they will receive.

Just this year, the government raised payroll taxes on workers and small businesses. This means that Ken, a forestry worker living in Creston making $66,600, will be forced to pay an extra $255 through the mandatory Canada pension plan tax this year. That worker will also have to pay an extra $50 through the employment insurance tax. That is a $305 increase.

The grocery rebate does nothing more than just give money back to Canadians that the Prime Minister already clawed away with his tax increases. This will not solve the cost of living crisis.

There is more. The government increased the carbon tax to 14¢ per litre on April 1, making it more expensive for Canadians to heat their homes and get to work. The PBO shows that the carbon tax will cost the average family between $402 and $847 in 2023, even after the rebates. By 2030, the Prime Minister's two carbon taxes could add 50¢ per litre to the price of gasoline. The people of Kootenay—Columbia are already paying $1.70 a litre, which is 40% more per litre than the same fuel 30 minutes away.

We are all well aware, especially in rural Canada, that our food security is dependent on distribution from our truck drivers, those who use diesel fuel. The significant increase in the carbon tax has a direct effect on the cost of our groceries, and the more remote, the more expensive. The cost of fuel is added to all of the commodities shipped, which is a huge burden on the families and seniors in rural Canada.

I could go on. The fact remains that the budget continues the government's war on the worker.

Second, we asked that the budget pave the way for lower prices by ending the inflationary debt and deficits that drive up inflation and interest rates.

Instead of listening to Canadians, the Prime Minister added more debt than all prime ministers combined. He has no plans to balance the budget and control his inflationary deficits, which are driving up the cost of the goods we buy and the interest we pay. Canada's federal debt is projected to reach $1.22 trillion. That is nearly $81,000 per household in Canada, which is more than many households earn.

Worse than that, he is planning on growing the deficit by $40.1 billion. According to the budget, Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to increase from 42.4% to 43.5%. Last budget cycle, the finance minister said that Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio was her “fiscal anchor” and that the debt-to-GDP must decline for Canada's finances to be sustainable.

I would like to repeat the finance minister's words, for the constituents of Kootenay—Columbia. The minister said:

...let me be very clear: We are absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline. Our deficits must continue to be reduced. The pandemic debt we incurred to keep Canadians safe and solvent must—and will—be paid down.

This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we shall not cross. It will ensure that our finances remain sustainable.

This means, according to the finance minister, that the Prime Minister's inflationary debt and deficits are unsustainable.

The third thing the Conservatives asked for was that the budget pave the way for Canadians to bring the opportunity for homes Canadians can afford by removing government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits. The dream of home ownership has gone from a reality to a dream for young and old Canadians under the government. Nine out of 10 people who do not own a home say they never will.

By every objective measurement, things are more expensive and Canadians are taking home less. This is a tired government that has no plan to help Canadians, no plan to remove the gatekeepers and build more homes, no plan to free up federal lands and properties and no plan to speed up building permits by withholding federal funding from cities that refuse to remove gatekeepers.

Under the government, everything feels broken. Broken is Emma, an elementary school student in Cranbrook asking why her parents cannot afford groceries. Broken is Mary, a single senior in Creston who does not have enough left over to pay for fuel and to make the 120-kilometre drive to visit her doctor. Mary has to make a choice. Broken is Ethan, a father in Cranbrook who has worked hard and done everything right and yet finds himself at the food bank because his paycheque, after taxes and inflation, does not make it to the end of the month.

These are real stories from real Canadians, but help is on its way. The Conservatives plan to turn hurt into hope.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly have much more optimism than the member across the way regarding the position our country is in. It is a lot to say that a country is broken. I could not disagree more with the member.

Yes, from time to time we certainly have work to do, and right now, with the rising costs we are seeing throughout the country and indeed throughout the entire world, we have to help Canadians and support them. However, there are many measures in this budget implementation act that seek to do exactly that, whether it is increasing the GST to help people with the rising costs of groceries the member just mentioned or it is the various other supports in there.

I am wondering if the member can explain, if he is so concerned about people in his community, as he has just indicated, why he cannot support this budget, which takes aim at helping them directly.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that the people out there in our communities are not saying that. They are saying they cannot afford this budget. They are saying they cannot afford to eat. They are saying they cannot afford to drive to a doctor's appointment and eat. Seniors are struggling every day. This budget is not helping them. The carbon tax is not helping them. Our groceries are delivered by diesel trucks. That is our supply chain. We knew during COVID that our supply chains for food supplies were critical, yet we are taxing everyone more, especially with the carbon tax, such as farmers, ranchers and our deliveries, so I do not see a light at the end of the tunnel.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my Conservative colleague talked about seniors in relation to the carbon tax.

I have a suggestion for my colleague. What the seniors in my riding, in Quebec, are asking me for and what they talk to me about is a little more direct assistance to help them get through this crisis. They want an increase in old age security for all seniors to address the inequality between people aged 75 and over and those under 75. This would be a first step towards recognizing that seniors are affected by the inflation crisis.

This budget contains nothing except a one-time cheque to help them with groceries. That cheque will be used up in no time.

I wonder if he could talk more about the importance of providing much more direct assistance to seniors, specifically by increasing old age security.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree that seniors are fragile and they are the ones getting hurt the most as the prices go up for groceries, when a head of lettuce goes up to $3 or $4 and seniors are only getting OAS. Some get CPP, and some do not. That is the most critical part of our society. Seniors are the ones who took care of us, our parents. They are the ones we have to take the time to find some funding for, so we can help them through this inflationary crisis, but we cannot do that if we keep spending money we do not have and all of a sudden inflation starts rising.

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

Madam Speaker, my neighbour in the Kootenays spent a lot of time talking about the carbon tax. The Conservatives, and certainly a British Columbian conservative such as he, never mention the fact that the carbon tax in British Columbia is a conservative tax. It was brought in by Gordon Campbell in 2008, 15 years ago. I am sure the member voted for Gordon Campbell several times. Yes, it went up 3¢ a litre on April 1. The price of gas in his riding and my riding has gone up probably a dollar over the last year.

Instead of this fight against the carbon tax, when most people get all of that back, would he join the NDP in the fight for an excessive profits tax on the big oil and gas companies and big grocery retailers that are driving up the price of gas and groceries?

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, here is the issue: People cannot afford the carbon tax today. To say that it is only 3¢ is not the point; the point is that they do not have the money to buy their groceries. They do not have the money to take their children on holidays. They just do not have any money. They cannot buy homes. They cannot rent houses. The taxes we have today are overpowering. When we talk about the carbon tax, let us talk about the farmers and ranchers. They are the ones paying the brunt of the carbon tax because of what they are delivering. I cannot support that.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to tell the story of budget 2023 as it pertains to my constituents in the Yukon. This budget is one that aptly reflects the unique circumstances we are living in today. Given the present tough times Canadians face, the budget is restrained while at the same time ambitiously setting the tone for the years and decades to come.

After ensuring that we were there to support Canadians through the COVID–19 pandemic, directing unprecedented levels of fiscal and social supports to Canadians for the last few years, our government now must refocus its efforts for the future. Our planet is facing a series of challenges, from climate change to geopolitical instability. Canada must rise to meet these crises head-on and boldly go where Canada has not gone before.

Affordability, accessible health care and clean energy are the three themes of this budget, and I will, in these few minutes, spend a bit of time on each of these areas.

In this budget, we are making sure that our country responds effectively to the climate crisis while continuing to support Canadians through the difficult times brought on by the high cost of groceries or limited access to family doctors.

These measures are a direct investment in maintaining our leadership in a rapidly changing world.

While I recognize that it may be little consolation to a Yukoner struggling to pay rent or buy sufficient food to feed the family this month, it is important to note Canada’s relative economic position in the world and recognize the indicators of a strong overall economy. Because we did the right thing to support Canadians through the pandemic, we are poised for a strong recovery.

Helping those who are feeling the pain of high prices the most is a government priority. I am grateful, therefore, that the House unanimously approved last week, in addition to the Canada health transfer top-up, the new grocery rebate, which will help over 9,000 Yukoners.

While we take care of those with the greatest needs, as we have always done with this government, we are laying the foundation for the new economy, one that finally pushes us beyond our dependence on fossil fuels and plants us firmly in the green energy future.

Another aspect of this budget, one important to note for those who, like me, were disappointed not to see everything they were hoping for, is that budget 2023 is another chapter in a series of budgets, not just in the 44th Parliament but since 2015, when our work of rebuilding a Canadian economy that works for all Canadians began, and more chapters will follow.

Our government has been working progressively to insulate Canadians from financial hardship. For example, the affordable child care program announced between Canada and Yukon just over two years ago is creating new regulated early learning and child care spaces for Yukon families to access for $10 a day. The grocery rebate builds on the previous GST rebate extension and the one-time rental subsidy introduced in the fall. Continuing to build our assistance to students, we are proposing a 40% increase in the Canada student grants, which follows on the interest forgiveness for Canada student loans this past year.

In the meantime, we are continuing with the expansion of the rapid housing initiative announced in last year's budget, the tens of billions of dollars announced in 2021 and 2022 for a host of programs to advance reconciliation, and other programs, like the green and inclusive community buildings program.

Now let us take a look at health care. As a physician working in northern and rural communities for much of the past 30 years, including 13 years as the chief medical officer of health in the Yukon, I saw first-hand how our already stressed health care systems strained to meet the added burden placed upon them by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The pandemic highlighted and exacerbated long-standing issues within our health care systems, including access to a family doctor, recruitment and retention of our health care workforce, data collection and sharing, access to care in rural communities, service gaps in mental health care and measures to address substance use and addictions, and a lack of investment in prevention.

As an advocate for better health care for Canadians, I was pleased to see our government’s almost $200-billion commitment to begin addressing these critical issues. For Yukon, this means $380 million over 10 years, including $195 million in new funding. An important part of territorial health funding is a commitment of $100 million for the Yukon over 10 years to support medical travel and health care innovation through the territorial health investment fund. We also see commitments made to meet health care priorities in the Yukon, including improving access to primary care, modernizing the health care system, and addressing the mental health and the toxic drug crises.

Also of note in this budget is $810 million to support medical travel under the non-insured health benefits program for first nations, and $359 million to support a renewed Canadian drugs and substances strategy, including $144 million toward the SUAP, or substance use and addictions program.

Canadians will also benefit from the new dental care plan, which will provide dental insurance to Canadians with family income of less than $90,000. Once the plan is fully phased in, it will help thousands of Canadians and complement the new program that is already up and running in the Yukon. At last, my constituents and millions of other Canadians will receive the dental care they need to avoid costly complications and health problems down the road.

Underpinning the health of Canadians is a healthy economy, an economy that includes and supports all Canadians. To that end, I am pleased to highlight from this budget the investments we are making in order to transition to a cleaner and greener economy.

As many know, Yukon has a proud mining heritage, one that is not only integral to the Yukon’s colourful history, but also key to our future economic prosperity. The days of the gold rush may be past, but renewed interest and investment in critical minerals are just getting started. Canada has an opportunity to become a world leader in this field if we grow and develop critical mining assets in a manner that is responsible, sustainable, efficient, and in lockstep with indigenous partners and communities.

The Yukon is home to 25 of the 31 critical minerals in Canada’s inventory, most notably copper, nickel, tungsten and zinc. Budget 2023’s introduction of a 30% clean technology manufacturing tax credit would help companies invest in the technology and equipment to responsibly extract these key critical minerals.

Canada will need to pick up the pace and increase its presence at every stage of mining, from exploration to processing, in order to provide the materials we need to fuel our green energy future, as well as to provide rewarding and sustainable jobs for Canadians for generations to come.

Mines need power, and so does a growing population, and that power must be clean. I am pleased to see the 15% tax credit for clean electricity investment in this budget, as this and other clean electricity measures would help communities across the north support the transition away from fossil fuels and toward achieving our emissions goals. There are a number of projects currently under way or in the planning stages that I hope will be able to take advantage of these new credits, such as the Atlin hydro expansion project, a partnership among Yukon, B.C. and first nations in both jurisdictions.

Other projects in the north could use the new clean hydrogen investment tax credit and other support measures that have also been announced under the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

As the IPCC's latest report warns us, we are in the last few years of having a chance to turn the climate crisis around. In the Yukon, we are increasingly familiar with the costs of climate change. Just two weeks ago, Whitehorse had to close one of its two routes into the city due to a landslide from heavy snow burden and highly saturated ground. Buildings, roads and runways around the Yukon buckle and bend under melting permafrost in a landscape that is warming at three times the rate of the rest of Canada.

Some of our colleagues across the way believe that fighting climate change is just too much to spend.

Yes, it is costly to invest in building our community's resilience to climate change. It is also costly to transition the economy and drastically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. That said, the cost of the damage associated with climate change in Canada will be much higher.

In addition, if we make the necessary investments within the next decade, Canada could see a net economic benefit of over $465 billion over the next 10 years.

While Conservatives may take, well, a conservative approach, I prefer to be part of a government that acts to prevent costly disasters and invests in measures that will grow our economy in the future.

Since 2015, we have committed and remain committed to the journey toward reconciliation. An important step on that journey was made by this budget in the urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy, which saw a $4-billion commitment, which, over the next seven years, will complement the three existing distinctions-based housing strategies with the CMHC. This new budget commitment will add to previously announced initiatives already under way to continue our ambitious yet much-needed housing strategy.

Affordable housing, accessible health care and investments in clean energy are all making life better for Canadians today, tomorrow and for decades to come. We are living difficult days, and there are more to come.

However, making significant and smart investments today will help us reap the benefits of a greener, fairer, healthier and more prosperous future.

This budget is yet another chapter in building a better Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yukon for his speech. It is really nice to hear him speak French.

I would like to know whether he shares a concern that I have. Two or three years ago, the Prime Minister said that he would invest 2% of the budget in military spending.

That did not happen. He broke his promise a few weeks ago when he said that he would never reach that target. When we look at the conflicts around the world and the donations that Canada has made to countries like Ukraine, which I am in no way disputing, we see that Canada's military inventory is diminishing.

Does my colleague share my concern that Canada is or will be unable to support countries in need?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, we are all concerned about Canada's security, our armed forces and the need for security in the Arctic. However, we need to recognize that that we have spent billions of dollars to strengthen our armed forces and military posture.

We recently heard about the Minister of National Defence's list of achievements. I am very pleased with the progress that has been made.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my time on the fisheries and oceans committee alongside this member.

One thing that I did not see in the budget was any mention of a national strategy for warning labels on alcoholic products. I know the member has a background in health care and did a lot of work around strategies for warning labels on these products. We know that alcohol consumption comes with increased risks of at least nine different forms of cancer, including breast, colon and liver cancer. The member is very aware of this.

Canadians need and deserve this information. Could the member give his thoughts around supporting my motion, Motion No. 61, to get warning labels on bottles, as well as the stance of the Liberals as to whether they are going to support this important work?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I also enjoy our time together on the fisheries and oceans committee.

We have had direct discussions on this really important subject, which I take to heart. It is important to recognize the many risks that alcohol poses to our health, as well as the place that it has in our society. I certainly look forward to discussing my thoughts on the motion more. It is very good that this motion is being prepared to come to the House, and I look forward to discussing this important issue with my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments about dealing with rare earth minerals and the huge mining that we deal with not only in Yukon but elsewhere. Vital Metals is a rare earth company in Saskatoon that the federal government has given money to. I suspect the member understands that it has actually shut down because of the huge inflationary cost to produce what it is doing.

The government is proposing that this funding be sponsored by the CPP investment fund. Is the member aware that this is being used to back the investment?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, briefly, there are a number of exciting investments in budget 2023 to encourage numerous private, public utility and indigenous investments in critical minerals. I look forward to their implementation over the year and the years to come.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to a subject that could have been a source of hope for Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet, but that is not the case.

Sadly, this discussion is just a formality, since the costly and socialist NDP-Liberal coalition has control over the government for the next few years. In fact, that is how things will stay until the Conservatives are in power and give Canadians hope of regaining control over their wallets.

Until then, we can rise in the House, as I am doing, to criticize the mismanagement of public funds and oppose things that make no sense, such as budget 2023 tabled by the Government of Canada on March 28.

This discussion is important because it allows us to highlight the concerns of my Conservative colleagues, as well as the proposals being made on our side of the House to provide real help to people who are struggling because the Liberals do not understand the stress Canadians are under. If they really understood, they would have proposed a budget that made sense.

I am speaking here in a rather sombre economic context, namely Bill C‑47, the budget for 2023. It is hard to overlook the record rates of inflation we have been enduring in the past few months. I have been talking about this here in the House of Commons for three years now. The Minister of Finance told me that this was just a temporary situation, but, unlike her, I have always believed that we are dealing with structural inflation.

Structural inflation is caused solely by an abnormally rapid increase in the quantity of currency in relation to the country's volume of production. Since 2015, Canadians have been subjected to reckless Liberal tax policies which have led to a significant increase in government spending, at a time when that was not what the economy needed at all. The Liberals injected money into sectors that were doing well. Indeed, in my riding, entrepreneurs were telling me that they were taking the money because it was being offered to them, even though they did not need it. No one understood why the government was spending so much. Today, the result is clear. Inflation always catches up with the culprits.

I thought that the budget would include some fiscal restraint and a target year to achieve a balanced budget, but no. There was talk of 2027, but not anymore. The Liberals have completely eliminated “balanced budget” from their vocabulary. A return to balance seems all but impossible now. They think that money grows on trees. They open the tap and money flows out by the bucketful. Except that, in reality, in the real world, that is not how things work. The Liberals should review the principle of cause and effect. The cause is printing money to excess. The effect is inflation being where it is, the worst in 40 years.

The Liberals have plunged Canadians into an inflationary abyss. The Prime Minister has caused the highest rate of inflation in 40 years by doubling the national debt and increasing our debt more than any other prime minister in the history of Canada. What are the consequences? The cost of living for ordinary Canadians is rising. The cost of groceries is skyrocketing, as is the cost of gas. According to a recent poll, 74% of Quebeckers say that they are struggling to pay for their daily expenses such as groceries, gas and necessities. We are talking about workers who get up every morning to go to work so they can put food on the table for their families. We are talking about hard-working people who did everything they were told to do. They are no longer able to make ends meet because the Liberals have been totally irresponsible with the public purse for the past eight years. Furthermore, these workers' paycheques are shrinking because all the money goes to taxes, and now they are being told that this budget will represent $4,200 in additional costs for every household in Canada. Honestly.

I know that the Liberals are going to tell me about their grocery rebate, so let us talk about it. It is only a marketing ploy, because the grocery rebate is nothing more that the doubling of the GST. They should stop presenting it as a revolutionary idea. There is nothing new about it.

As we can see, there are numerous problems with this budget. The important thing to take away from this budget is that workers have been left behind, and they are not being compensated for their work. The Conservatives want to make work pay again by cutting taxes.

As for workers being left behind, I do not have to go very far to see a concrete example. I need only think of the workers at the Olymel plant in the riding of my colleague and friend from Beauce. These workers will be out of a job in the next few months, since the company has announced that it is closing the largest hog slaughterhouse and meat processing plant in Quebec. We are talking about 1,000 jobs lost in a municipality of 2,000 people. Once again, the government is in no hurry to act. Worse still, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food cannot be bothered to even mention it. It just goes to show that the Liberals are not there when Canadians need them.

In addition to the Liberal war on labour, there is also the issue of critical minerals. This issue is important in my riding. I am thinking particularly of the need to add phosphate to the list of critical minerals as soon as possible. I have been asking for this for a number of years in the House, as well as at the Standing Committee on International Trade, of which I am a member.

That is why I was anxious to see what the government was proposing in this budget for critical minerals. A passage on page 92 states, “In the past year, the federal government has taken action to fast-track the assessment of mining, energy, and other major projects”.

I would like to clarify that I hope the government does not really believe what it is saying there. Let us think about GNL. The government did not send a strong signal on this project. Hundreds of billions of dollars in investment projects were lost under the Liberal government because of its lack of leadership and because of Canadian taxation and Canadian regulations, which are not conducive to a good investment climate.

In the section of the budget that deals with major projects, there is $1.3 billion in funding over six years starting in 2022-23 for major project assessments and $10.6 million in funding to help critical minerals companies get permits and approvals. Sometimes the Liberals take us for fools. How can we trust the Liberals when it comes to meeting a deadline? This six-year time frame is far too long, and we know it will take longer than six years. The possibility of mining critical minerals like phosphate and the feasibility of using them in batteries will end long before that.

We need to give a helping hand to projects that are already well under way and that have already received authorization, such as Arianne Phosphate in Saguenay. We are a long way from that because, as I said before, the budget makes no mention at all of phosphate. We know how much it is needed for lithium iron phosphate batteries, which have many advantages, such as their longer life span, better charge efficiency and lightweight nature. Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean is home to the Arianne Phosphate mining company, which has one of the largest deposits of phosphate in Canada. The phosphate is also very high quality.

As I said, I am a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, where I have often had the opportunity to talk about the usefulness of critical minerals in the economy. The findings of studies on batteries, particularly for electric vehicles, are always the same. In Canada, there is a real problem with regard to the cost and the time between discovery, extraction and production. Canada is currently extracting critical minerals for the new battery economy, but it is exporting them abroad for the manufacturing of finished products. How is it that Canada has still not developed a battery manufacturing chain, given all of Quebec's electrical expertise? I think that a big part of the answer lies in Canada's tax competitiveness and the government's top-down regulations.

In sum, this budget fails workers in every sector. Canadians are sick of being bribed with one-off cheques. We need to address the source of the problem instead of handing out cheques here and there. This waste of public money needs to stop. Canadians have had it with watching their money being thrown out the window by the Liberals. Week after week, we keep learning more about scandals involving taxpayers' money. Just look at the huge contract awarded to McKinsey. The government gave $120 million to consulting firms, representing $1,500 an hour in fees.

Time is running out, so let me say that a Conservative government will put Canadians first by stopping unnecessary spending and waste and by lowering taxes. Let us bring back common sense—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member is out of time. He can finish his remarks during 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, I heard the member talk, towards the end of his speech, specifically about the battery supply chain, questioning why we do not seem to be able to accomplish that in Canada. Meanwhile, I am wondering if he is aware that his own colleague, the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington, which is the neighbouring riding to mine in Ontario, has the largest investment coming into her riding, in terms of battery manufacturing for electric vehicles. It will be the largest plant in North America, expanded on by the company Umicore, from Europe.

I am wondering if he is even aware of that, and how he thinks that will impact the supply chain.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, these are investments in North America, but the question is, when will it actually happen? First of all, there are always delays and huge costs. It costs far too much. Taxation also needs to be reviewed, because all the delays and paperwork do not help us persuade foreign investors to come here. Everything is complicated. Projects that people think can be done quickly sometimes take two or three times as long as expected. There is also a question of timing. It is never the right place at the right time when projects need to be done.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from my neck of the woods for his remarks. I am also glad to see that the Minister of Health is here with us, because my question for my colleague is about health funding.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, the member just referenced the presence in the House of a minister, a member of the House, and the member should not be making those references. Perhaps she can rethink the way to say that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member is signalling to me that she understands that she should not refer to the presence of other members in the House, so I will let her continue with her intervention.

The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I apologize for my absent-mindedness. That caught my attention, and I forgot the rules of the House.

The government has been underfunding the health care systems of Quebec and the provinces for many years now. That has had a negative impact on the public finances of every province, Quebec's in particular. Because Quebec and the provinces have had to compensate for the federal government's underfunding of health care, they do not have enough money to invest in other important developments. I would like to know whether my colleague agrees that the federal government needs to contribute more to the health care systems so that Quebec and the provinces have more funds available for other things.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, obviously, health transfers have been pretty minimal. They did not live up to the provinces' expectations. There comes a point when it is hard to understand why a lot more funding is not being transferred to the provinces for health care.

Basically, we have seen the current government waste a lot of money. We are talking about $120 million in contracts given to McKinsey, when many public servants could have done the work. We know that there was $500 billion in inflationary spending in two years. We are completely in the dark about how $200 billion of that $500 billion was spent. When a government cannot control its spending, it is extremely difficult to have a reasonable budget. This is creating significant scarcity in some very important areas.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, last week, when I was in the chamber, we spoke at great length about the position the Conservatives had for fixing the economy. Many of the brilliant solutions they advocated for were cutting taxes and cutting some of the most important revenue-generating aspects of the federal government, while not simultaneously talking about the services they would cut.

What services would the member cut if he and his party were to form government?

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know why we are talking about cutting services. We just have to pay attention to the wasteful spending of the Liberals over there. If the government would control its spending and stop the waste, everything would be fine. I always have a problem with saying that services need to be cut. It is more a matter of putting the money in the right place.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak about budget 2023 and, in particular, the recent announcements and significant initiatives taken by the federal government to improve the lives of millions of Canadians across the country. Budget 2023 has been designed to address some of the most pressing issues affecting Canadians, including affordability, education, health care and mental health. What I would like to highlight is how our government is supporting Canadians at many different life stages.

The most critical issue of affordability, which affects a vast number of Canadians, is an issue our government does not take lightly. In the riding of Mississauga—Streestville, I continue to hear about the rising cost of groceries, for example. The federal government has announced the grocery rebate, which will provide eligible couples with two children with up to an extra $467, single Canadians without children up to an extra $234 and seniors an extra $225, on average. This will be delivered through the goods and services tax credit mechanism and will help up to 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families, which is a significant step toward making daily essentials more affordable for those who need it the most.

I would like to thank all my colleagues from all parties in the House for voting to support the grocery rebate. Let us take a moment and think about the impact. That is 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families who will experience financial relief.

Affordability is important, and, as part of our government’s national housing strategy, I am excited to share that, with the help of our financial institutions, we started offering the tax-free first home savings account to Canadians as of April 1. I reflect on the time when my husband and I were married, 15 years ago. I remember how excited we were to start our life together, to buy our first home and start a family. Home ownership is a very important milestone for so many.

In last year’s budget, the government committed to introducing a tax-free first home savings account. This new registered plan will give prospective first-time homebuyers the ability to save up to $40,000 on a tax-free basis. As with a registered retirement savings plan, contributions will be tax-deductible and withdrawals to purchase a first home, including from investment income, will be non-taxable as well, like a tax-free savings account. It will be tax-free in, tax-free out. With this new tax-free first home savings account, 3.5 million families across Canada will be able to start saving for a new home.

In support of families, budget 2023 would assist Canadians as their families grow. After my husband and I settled into our first home, we started to grow our family. After our son Kyle was born and after maternity leave, I needed to get back to work. I relied on our local day care to ensure Kyle would be taken care of. When I was working in downtown Toronto, child care was very expensive. At that time, it cost an average family $1,500 to $1,700 per month or more, depending on the location one chose.

Since 2015, the government has been investing in the middle class, growing the economy and strengthening Canada’s social safety net. We continue to support 3.5 million families through the tax-free child care benefit. This year, families will be receiving up to $6,997 per child under the age of six and up to $5,903 per child aged six through 17.

Our government’s child care program is already seeing fees being cut by 50%, on average, which is delivering regulated child care that will cost an average of just $10 a day by 2026. This is incredible. We have already had six provinces and territories reduce child care fees to $10 a day or less as of April 2, while we are strengthening the child care system in Quebec with more child care spaces. This support will help parents and young families start their lives without worrying about any additional expenses. I wish I had had this when I had just gotten off maternity leave many years ago.

I also have more good news. The proportion of core-age women employed was 82% in March. This translates to close to seven million women aged 15 years and older being employed on a full-time basis. This is a huge win. In addition to child care, we have also enhanced the Canada workers benefit for our lowest-paid and often most essential workers, with up to $1,428 for a single worker without children and up to $2,461 for a family, as well as an additional $737 for workers with disabilities.

My son Kyle is entering high school soon, and, naturally, what is on my mind is his education. My parents, Norma and Zosimo, worked very hard when they immigrated to Canada so that my brother and I would be able to seek higher education in a post-secondary academic institution. I am truly grateful for all of their sacrifices.

We wanted to ensure that we are here to support families and young adults with their education. This is an important part of budget 2023 and a key priority. The federal government has announced several initiatives to help students across Canada. These include permanently eliminating interest on Canada student loans and ensuring that borrowers do not need to make payments on their loans until they earn at least $40,000 per year.

Our government would also increase Canada student grants by 40%, providing up to $4,200 for full-time students, and raise the interest-free Canada student loan limit from $210 to $300 per week of study. Additionally, the requirement for mature students, aged 22 years or older, to undergo credit screening in order to qualify for federal student grants and loans for the first time would be waived. This would support individuals looking to switch their career or get additional education to improve their existing knowledge and skills. This change would allow up to 1,000 additional students to benefit from federal aid in the coming year.

The next area I would like to speak about is health care. I would like to first take a moment to thank our frontline workers and health care workers for their continued care for us and for taking care of all our families.

As we look at budget 2023, we need to take into consideration the challenges that we faced during COVID-19 and the impact it had on our economy and health care system. We will work to ensure that we can recover as quickly and as effectively as possible. Health care is at the top of the minds of constituents in my riding, as well as all Canadians. This is why the government has laid out an ambitious plan to provide an additional $195.8 billion over 10 years in health transfers to provinces and territories, including $46.2 billion in new funding through the new Canada health transfer measures.

This funding would be used to improve and enhance the health care Canadians receive and is not intended to replace the planned health care spending of provinces and territories. Furthermore, the government would provide $2 billion in 2022-23 to address urgent pressures in emergency rooms, operating rooms and pediatric hospitals, building on $6.5 billion in top-ups provided throughout the pandemic.

On top of that, the government has also announced $25 billion over 10 years through a new set of bilateral agreements to address individual provincial and territorial health care needs. This includes expanding access to family health services, supporting health workers, reducing backlogs, increasing mental health and substance use support, and modernizing health systems.

A few months ago, I met with the Service Employees International Union and spoke directly with several personal support workers. I listened to their heartbreaking stories about what they endured during the pandemic. They spoke about how underpaid they are, considering how much they were required to work at the time. Considering their sacrifices, they deserve more. The government has listened to our health care workers and, as a result, will provide $1.7 billion over five years to support hourly wage increases for personal support workers and related professions. This funding aims to improve the health care Canadians receive. These additional investments are contingent on continued health care investments by provinces and territories.

I would like to highlight the importance of mental health supports, which have been a critical issue for Canadians during the pandemic. The government has proposed to provide up to $50 million over five years, starting in 2023-24, to Employment and Social Development Canada, to develop and test innovative solutions to strengthen the retirement savings of personal support workers without workplace retirement security coverage. This funding would go a long way toward helping those who work in this critical field. Furthermore, the government would also invest in expanding mental health and substance use support services for Canadians.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the initiatives announced in budget 2023 would be a significant step forward toward improving the lives of millions of Canadians across the country from many different walks of life. From making daily essentials more affordable to enhancing health care, education, and mental health supports, the government is committed to making Canada a better place for all its citizens and tackling the most pressing issues we face.

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

Madam Speaker, since we began debating the budget bill, I have asked government members many questions about the housing crisis.

There is absolutely nothing in the budget to address the housing crisis. They themselves admit it and say that they invested in housing last year. Yes, but there is still a crisis this year. The National Housing Council released a study last week showing that, between 2011 and 2021, Canada lost 550,000 affordable housing units, meaning housing that rents for about $750. That is Canada-wide. Not only does the national strategy, which was launched five years ago, not create housing that people can afford, but we are also losing housing.

The National Housing Council believes that there should be a fund to purchase private housing and turn it into non-market housing in order to maintain affordability. Does my colleague think this would be a good measure?

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, housing is certainly a priority for us as well. I know that the Minister of Housing is committed to ensuring that initiatives, like the rapid housing initiative, which is part of our overall Canada housing strategy, will continue to help Canadians be supported across this country.

In my riding, there are many different housing initiatives that we have continued to support. That will help ensure that even the lowest-income constituents get the help they need.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, in her comments the member opposite spoke a bit about health care and the importance of strengthening the health care system.

I would like her comments on a recent announcement by the Leader of the Opposition. It is a proposal to have a national accreditation, a blue seal, for health care workers, whether they are new Canadians coming into the country or those looking to work in other provinces.

We should be investigating this and looking at the many ways we can be breaking down the barriers to ensure that health care workers can work in their field anywhere in this country. To my knowledge, the Liberals have not made any comments regarding that proposal.

Can the member share any comments on that?

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my speech, our focus is definitely on health care. I want to give a shout-out to my mom, who is a registered nurse. She worked really hard to get her credentials recognized in this country.

I am going to continue to work with my colleagues across the way to continue supporting our Canadians in health care.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is important that we work across party lines to put forward real solutions for people. One thing I was happy to see in the budget was the red dress alert that is being put in place. It is something similar to an Amber Alert which is being put in place regarding missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people so we have a platform to alert when something has happened. It is a very good resource.

Despite this particular piece in the budget, we are not seeing the level of investment and resources needed to address the crisis being experienced with ongoing murdered and missing indigenous women. Why are we not seeing that prioritized and when will we see that done?

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her advocacy for indigenous peoples across Canada.

I agree the effort that we put into our budget with the red dress initiative is definitely one step; however, there is so much more work that can be done. I hope we will continue to work together to address those concerns for those who need it most, particularly indigenous peoples.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

Before I begin my speech, I hope my colleagues will humour me while I take a brief moment to wish my daughter, Maddie, a very happy 16th birthday.

There is a lot in this bill, of course, and I want to start by providing a few words about dental care, which is the most significant, optimistic and powerful policies contained within this legislation. I hear all the time from seniors, young families and people who do not have dental insurance and cannot afford to get their teeth fixed. They are so excited to see dental care finally coming in this bill, and it cannot come soon enough. It is the most significant expansion of public health care in a generation. It is going to make a difference for some nine million Canadians, including folks in Skeena—Bulkley Valley in the beautiful northwest of British Columbia, which is the area I am so proud to represent.

Today I want to focus on the portions of Bill C-47 that deal with air passenger rights. As the NDP's transport critic, this has been my preoccupation over the past year or so. It is something we studied at the transport committee and it is something the Minister of Transport has chosen to slip into this budget implementation act in order to, what he claims, finally fix air passenger rights in this country.

The Liberals brought in their air passenger protection legislation back in 2019. The former minister of transport brought it in to great fanfare. He claimed that it was going to be a world-leading approach and that air passengers were finally going to have a government that would have their backs, yet what we have seen over the past four years has been anything but world-leading.

We have seen thousands of Canadians put in extraordinarily difficult situations by the big airlines. We have seen passengers sleeping on airport floors. We have seen families having to miss much-awaited vacations and trips. We have seen people out thousands of dollars. This system the Liberals claimed was going to be world-leading and was going to have air passengers' backs has really left people in a lurch.

What we see before us in Bill C-47 is the government's third attempt at fixing this problem. Of course, this problem exists because the big airlines make commercial decisions that delay and cancel flights and leave passengers picking up the slack. What we have seen in other parts of the world, particularly in the European Union, are effective approaches that get passengers compensation when that happens, and yet the approach we have seen here in Canada has not succeeded in protecting air passenger rights.

In fact, right now there are over 44,000 complaints before the Canadian Transportation Agency. Who are these folks? These are the most determined air travellers. I say “determined” because they have the fortitude to navigate not one but two complaint processes. Under the Liberals' current system, not only does a passenger need to complain to the airline and wait 30 days for a response, but when the airline almost inevitably declines their claim for compensation, they need to file a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency and then wait in line while this very complex bureaucratic and expensive process runs its course. Right now the wait time to proceed through that complaint process is over a year and a half.

As I said, the transport committee has been studying this issue. We heard from the leading consumer advocates working on air passenger rights in this country. We heard from all sorts of witnesses and put together a report with a whole host of recommendations aimed at finally bringing Canada's air passenger protection regime up to the standards set by the European Union.

I also had a chance, about a month ago, to table in this place a private member's bill, Bill C-327, the strengthening air passenger protection act, which aims to lay out in legislation precisely which changes are required to create a robust regime of air passenger protections in this country. Then the Minister of Transport brought forward his proposed changes, this third attempt at fixing air passenger protections.

I want to start by giving credit where credit is due. There are a couple of things in this new approach that have been called for fairly consistently by advocates and by me through my private member's bill. One is increases to the fines within the legislation that can be levied against airlines that continue to break the rules and not award compensation as they should. There are other pieces in the legislation, particularly around delayed baggage, that have also been called for, so there are a couple of things the minister got right.

One of the key concerns with Canada's current system is a loophole that exists in the Canadian Transportation Act. Unlike the European system which sets out a very simple two-category classification system for flight disruptions, our system has three categories. In Europe, disruptions, which are cancellations or delays, are considered either ordinary disruptions, such as things that fall within the reasonable influence of the carrier, or extraordinary disruptions, things like major weather events, acts of terrorism or recalls by the airplane manufacturer. Nobody is suggesting that airlines should be held accountable for factors entirely outside of their influence, but we have been seeing airlines deny compensation for factors within their influence that cause delays and cancellations, such as making sure they have enough crew to fly the flights, ensuring the aircraft are properly maintained, and ensuring their computer system is working properly.

This bill was intended to fix that. Everyone knows this loophole exists. It has been a matter of much conversation and debate. The minister claims to have fixed this loophole in the legislation that is before us. I do not see it. When I look at the section of the Canadian Transportation Act where this loophole exists, I see those same three categories.

The category that is particularly problematic here in Canada is the category of disruptions that are within an airline's control but are required for safety reasons. When we are talking about companies that fly passengers around in aluminum tubes at 30,000 feet, I think pretty much everything related to that industry is related to safety. The issue here is that airlines are making decisions within their sphere of influence that are causing real hardships for air passengers. In those cases, passengers should be compensated and treated well.

There are other things in Bill C-47 around air passenger rights that are very concerning. I had a chance to speak to this earlier today. One aspect is essentially a gag order on passengers who pursue complaints through the Canadian Transportation Agency. It states:

All matters related to the process of dealing with a complaint shall be kept confidential, unless the complainant and the carrier otherwise agree”.

If Canadian air passengers file a complaint with the CTA, go through its resolution process and are not happy with how they are treated or the outcome, this legislation is going to prevent them from talking about it. If the minister is truly proud of this system he has put forward, why is he silencing the people who will be using it? It is incredible.

We are at a point now where the minister has claimed to have closed the loophole. He and I have had this conversation. He said that a lot of it will be forthcoming in regulations, which we have not yet seen, sort of like the answer to my questions will be self-evident over the next rise. He is empowering the CTA with a tremendous amount of discretion over this process instead of making the changes in the legislation itself. That is the process we wanted to see, yet what we see falls well short of that mark.

Another issue we see is with respect to transparency and the amount of information the CTA provides. We think the amount of compensation paid through this complaint process should be part of the disclosure. That is something we will be working on when it comes to amending this bill.

I will end with this. Canadians deserve real protections that are easy to navigate and get them their compensation. That is what we will keep fighting for.

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

Madam Speaker, I prepared a question about the budget. My colleague's speech was about a lot of things as he acknowledged that the budget is about a lot of things. There are a lot of Canadians and a lot of concerns out there. It does cover a lot of bases.

Two of the things that I am the most proud to bring to my constituents are two programs that are going to help them a lot: the dental care program and the grocery rebate. I have been out there talking to them, knocking on their doors and answering their phone calls. In my constituency just over 1,000 young people have been supported by the dental care program. That means 1,000 smiles will be brighter and cleaner, thanks to our dental care benefit. The grocery benefit is going to support 11 million households across the country with up to $467.

These are really phenomenal measures that are going to support our neighbours. I was wondering if my colleague had any reflections on dental care or the grocery rebate.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things I think we can be proudest of as Canadians is that starting in the 1960s, we said that every Canadian, regardless of their income, deserved the dignity of access to adequate health care. We have known right from the very beginning that health care does not just include going to the doctor. It includes being able to afford the medications that doctor prescribes. It includes eye care. It includes mental health care and it includes dental care.

We know that oral health is so integral to our overall health and yet there are millions of Canadians who cannot afford to visit a dentist. Frankly, it is shameful that it has taken this long for us to get to this point. We in the NDP have been pushing for it from the very beginning. I am so proud that we have been able to get to a place where we have leveraged our position in this minority Parliament to finally get dental care for millions of Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague did talk a little about the dental program and I would like to just ask him this. Former premier John Horgan, when he was the head of the Council of the Federation, encouraged the federal government to not seek new national programs when important programs such as health care need reinforcement.

I am sure the member knows of the drastic needs of rural communities for health care funding. Former Premier Horgan had said to not add any new social programs; reinforce the current ones like health care. What does he think of this when someone who led his own party provincially said that this is not a priority and now he says this is? How does he square that?

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

Madam Speaker, the member's question was whether I agree with remarks by a former premier. I think that former premier would agree that the health of our teeth, oral health, is integral to our overall health. Dental care is going to help millions of Canadians.

We also need to be investing heavily in our overall health care system and ensuring that coming out of the pandemic, our health care workers and our hospitals have the resources that they need to function effectively.

However, this is going to help millions of Canadians and I know that my party and many people right across the country support it, moving forward.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague talked a lot about the national dental program. Since this is an area of provincial jurisdiction, as my colleague indicated to him earlier in his question, it is up to the provinces to decide what to do within their jurisdiction. This is basically a Quebec sovereignist asking that the Canadian Constitution be respected.

Does my colleague agree, if this national dental program exists, that Quebec should have the right to opt out with full compensation and no strings attached?

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

Madam Speaker, the question was: Should Quebec be able to withdraw from the dental care program?

If we are going to be one country, we need to ensure that every Canadian has access to dental care. Within that question, there are going to be different nuances across the country, and those can be negotiated. However, what we are talking about is a national program delivered by the federal government, and I think a lot of Quebeckers are going to benefit from that.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to the budget implementation act. This is a budget that will impact so many Canadians in various ways, and I will spend my time focused on a few of those.

The one issue I want to talk about, which I have not heard talked about a lot, is the initiative that has been put into the budget with respect to doubling the tax credit for individuals who are in the trades for the tools they need to purchase for their particular trade. We know that, in our country, there is a lot of demand right now for people in the trades. We would pretty much pay whatever is asked these days if we are looking to hire a plumber, electrician, drywaller, a painter or just anybody in the trades. There is high demand right now in this country, and we need to get more people involved in the trades. I have been saying for years now that I genuinely believe that this is where the money is in the future.

So many people throughout Canada's history came to this country seeking better lives. For some reason, at least within my family, and I think of my grandparents who immigrated from Holland and Italy many years ago, all they wanted for their children was to be professionals in terms of doctors, lawyers and other such professions. There seems to have always been this stigma towards getting involved in the trades, as though it was somehow not as well regarded as being a doctor or lawyer. However, this is where we need people working right now. I encourage people, on a daily basis, including my son who just graduated from high school, to get involved in a trade, especially if they do not know what they want to do with their lives. It is a great way to get started in the workforce by getting involved in a trade. This budget specifically seeks to assist people in doing that by doubling the tax credit available for the tools that are required for a skilled trade.

Another item in the budget that I have not heard talked about a lot are the supports that are in there for Ukraine. I am glad to see that the rhetoric from politicians in the United States, and I think particularly of Donald Trump and Governor DeSantis of Florida, who have been questioning the role of the west, or in their case the role of the United States, in Ukraine has not found its way into this House. There seems to continue to be broad support in terms of resources from Canada going to Ukraine.

It is indeed an issue of democracy to stand up and support Ukraine in any way possible. We can think about what this world would be like if Vladimir Putin was successful with his efforts in Ukraine. He certainly would not stop there, and look to other countries to invade until, I am sure, he met his end objective, which is solidifying that Soviet bloc that used to exist during the Cold War. So it is in the interest of western democracies, western civilization, to ensure that Ukraine is successful and wins this unwanted war with Russia, or with Vladimir Putin specifically, I should say. To that end, it is the responsibility, at least in my opinion, of other allied countries to support Ukraine in any way we can. That is why I am very pleased to see ongoing supports in this budget that specifically target it.

When I was on the defence committee, I had the opportunity to travel, study Operations Unifier and Reassurance, and see the incredible things that Canadian troops were doing abroad. It was really moving, while I was in Ukraine as part of the defence committee study, to sit with the chair of Ukraine's defence committee and hear him say to us that other allied countries were lining up behind the Canadian brigade. They wanted to be part of the Canadian brigade, because it was Canada leading it.

That says a lot about a country. That says a lot about the reputation that a country has throughout the world, when there are other brigades being led by the United States, for example, and countries like Italy and Poland are saying that they want to be part of the Canadian brigade. That speaks tremendous value to what we have to offer. I am very glad to see the ongoing resources that are being allocated through this budget toward supporting Ukraine.

I am even more encouraged by the fact that we are not having that rhetoric that we are seeing in the United States coming from people like Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis, specifically about questioning whether or not there is a role for our country to be playing in supporting Ukraine. Indeed, there is.

The other thing I wanted to talk about, again an issue that I have not heard talked about a lot in this budget debate, is specifically the section of it that relates to crypto protections. It is not a mystery to most Canadians who have been following politics that the Leader of the Opposition, back in the heyday, not long ago, of cryptocurrency, when he went and purchased a shawarma, I think he was live on Facebook or Twitter at the time, made the exchange by paying for that with bitcoin. It was celebrated by him and his entourage with him at that event.

From that moment on, he started talking up cryptocurrency and how important it was to embrace the change of how we were going to transact in the future. There is no doubt that there are real discussions to be had about blockchain and crypto currency, more generally speaking, but the reality of the situation is that, in Canada, we rely on the Canadian dollar as our only peg, as we reference back to value and what we are going to use as a form of currency in this country.

When we have the Leader of the Opposition, who is openly out there, encouraging people to invest in bitcoin, almost as though he is encouraging them to bet against the Canadian dollar, it is extremely discouraging.

In this budget, there are specific resources being put towards the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to consult with banking institutions to ensure that they disclose what their exposure to cryptocurrency is, in terms of how much they are investing in it. Also, it would be a requirement for federally regulated pensions to disclose how much of those pensions are invested in crypto currency.

There is also a provision to ensure that any tax deductions being made as they relate to GST and HST, and the treatment of anybody who was mining specifically, and if they were making claims against paying GST and HST, and trying to get a refund out of it, would not be considered supply for HST purposes, and the input tax credits specifically would not be available.

It is extremely important that we stand firmly behind the Canadian dollar as the only form of currency in this country. The Bank of Canada, only two blocks away from here, provides a valuable service to our country, in terms of being at arm's length from this place and from the government, and being given direction on what we expect the inflationary rate to be, and to ensure that it gets to that as expeditiously as possible, and to maintain that.

That leads me to the last part of my speech, and that is specifically with respect to inflation. Inflation is, indeed, something that is not just happening in Canada, despite the fact that folks from across the way would like to suggest that this is a made-in-Canada problem, that only Canada is experiencing inflation. That could not be further from the truth. Canada is actually, of the OECD countries, one of the countries that is experiencing lower levels of inflation.

That does not provide a lot of comfort, and understandably so, to those who are experiencing inflation, especially as it relates to some of those very important items that we need, like groceries. However, it is important to understand the context. It is important to understand that inflation is not something that is just in Canada. It is throughout the world. When we live in a globalized economy and have as many trade deals as Canada does with other parts of the world, it is only understandable that we will be impacted by others' inflation as well.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke quite well about Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine and that situation, and I agree with him that we should continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies. However, my concern is that Canada has lagged behind in its NATO commitments and military spending for quite some time. Recent reports have indicated that the Prime Minister has said privately that Canada will never meet its military spending targets when it comes to our agreements and commitments to NATO.

If the military and standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies are so important to the government, as the member claims, could he explain why the government continually underfunds our military?

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

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. There is actually a really good answer to it. NATO, and the U.S. in particular, is asking all countries to spend 2% of their GDP. The problem is that not every country measures that in the same way. For example, the U.K. includes pensions in its 2%. The United States includes their Coast Guard because it has armed vessels. In Canada, our Coast Guard does not have armed vessels, so we do not include it in our 2%.

The other thing it does not account for is what I talked about before, and that is the incredible value that Canada has. We punch above our weight compared with the dollar value of our military capacity. When Canada goes abroad, our troops are so well regarded, as I indicated, that other nations want to line up and be part of the Canadian brigade because of the reputation we have. That is priceless. One cannot put a price on that.

I respect the fact that NATO is trying to get somewhere by saying everybody should spend 2%. However, for starters, it is very difficult to measure. Moreover, the reality is that when trying to measure it, one can exclude things like the value that a country has outside of the monetary portion.

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

Madam Speaker, in 2019, when the Liberals got elected, there was one key promise that was very prominent in the election campaign, particularly in Quebec. It was repeated everywhere. They were going to plant two billion trees. Here we are, four years later.

After four years, 800 million trees should have been planted, considering that they were talking about two billion over 10 years. Take a guess. Have they planted 800 million, 500 million—or maybe not quite so many because politicians never keep their promises—say 200 million, or 10% of the total? No, this week we learned that we have planted 2.3% of the two billion trees in the last four years.

I have a question for my colleague. Were they all planted in his backyard?

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

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if trees work the same way in Quebec as they do in the rest of Canada. One starts with a seedling; that seedling takes time to properly germinate and get to the point where one can actually get out there and plant it. I know the member would like to think that if we commit to planting a billion trees, we should be walking out there with shovels and starting to plant them the next day. The reality of the situation is that it does not happen that way.

We should all set very ambitious targets in relation to our environmental commitments. We should all strive to do even more than we possibly can because of the dire circumstances that we are in. However, to trivialize the reality of the task in planting that many trees and the process it takes to do so is not a genuine way to debate.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a fact that Canada's greatest resources are our workforce and skilled labour. That is why Trade Winds to Success, a fantastic organization across Alberta, helps indigenous people who want to enter the workforce and the trades. It ensures that they have the support and financial assistance they need to get those outcomes. Unfortunately, it has been underfunded. As a matter of fact, it closed its Calgary operation because of a lack of federal funds.

Organizations like Trade Winds to Success that help indigenous tradespersons are not receiving the funds they need now. Would the member speak directly to how the government is going to support organizations like this to continue to do that good work?

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

Madam Speaker, I started my speech by talking specifically about trades and the increase in the tax credit for individuals in the trades, where the amount has been doubled. We need more trades and more people in the trades in this country. We need to support that in any way we can.

I am unfamiliar with the particular organization that the member is talking about, and I would love to hear more about it.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of Brantford—Brant. The budget released by the current out-of-touch government, blindly supported by the NDP, fails to support the number one issue to my constituents and to many Canadians, which is the cost of living crisis. The costly coalition is solely responsible for the financial uncertainties Canadian families have been facing for the last eight years. Conservatives and Canadians have been calling out the Prime Minister's inflationary taxes and spending as they continue to hurt the hard-working people of this country the most.

With the support of the entire Conservative caucus, our leader demanded that this budget work for the people who work for this country. We had three clear demands, which were as follows: ending the inflationary deficits and spending; lowering taxes, including scrapping the carbon tax; and removing government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits, so that people can afford housing in this country once again. Unsurprisingly, this budget fails to fulfill any of these demands. Instead, it would bring an extra $43 billion of new inflation, debt and taxes. This is what the Prime Minister delivers year after year: debt, inflation and more costs on the backs of hard-working Canadians.

Last year, the Deputy Prime Minister pledged that the debt-to-GDP ratio would decline and that deficits would be reduced. She said, “This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we will not cross. It will ensure that our finances remain sustainable.” A year later, her boss and the entire Liberal team definitely crossed that line numerous times.

I will specifically discuss how this budget fails to address the cost of living crisis that is hurting Canadian families, how the coalition focuses on flushing out the pockets of taxpayers and punishing workers and what the next Conservative government would do differently.

On April 1, the Liberal carbon tax increased to 14¢ per litre, making it more expensive for Canadians to heat their homes and get to work. Despite the Liberals claiming for years that 80% of households that were paying the carbon tax would end up with more money in their pockets, the PBO confirmed what we Conservatives have been saying all along: The carbon tax will actually put Canadians in a worse financial position. As outlined by the PBO, the carbon tax will cost the average family between $400 and $847 in 2023, even after the rebates.

The carbon tax is not now and has never been an environmental plan. It is a costly tax plan that is damaging to families, especially those on a fixed income and those who live in rural areas. In fact, the current government has failed to hit any of its emissions targets.

Statistics Canada recently reported that grocery prices are rising at the fastest rate in 40 years. Almost a quarter of Canadians have had to cut back on the food they buy to keep up with rising grocery prices; to cope with food costs, 20% of families are skipping meals. As the current government knows, last summer was the worst for Canadian food banks in 40 years. They recorded 1.5 million visits in just one month, which is a 55% increase over 2019. The number of visits is projected to be greater this year. Working Canadians need and deserve concrete and fiscally responsible changes. The all-talk, no-action approach taken by the Prime Minister is failing Canadians.

Canadians are the ones paying for the government's agenda. What is the government offering in return through this budget? It is offering a grocery rebate; in reality, this is nothing more than an enhanced GST credit of anywhere from $200 to $500. Shockingly, this will not be made available until July of this year. This works out to approximately $3.85 to $9.61 a week. The government is making a mockery of the cost of living crisis by suggesting that this credit would make a tangible difference in the lives of Canadians. This is not even enough to cover the cost of milk and cereal for children in a given week.

In addition, “Canada's Food Price Report 2023” predicts that a family of four will spend over $1,000 more on food this year. This is almost $600 more than the $467 rebate that such a family would receive. This so-called rebate would not even come close to covering the rising cost of food that the Liberal deficits and tax hikes have caused. It would permit the rising cost of living, however, as the price of food is expected to increase by an additional 5% to 7% by the end of the year.

The budget contains no new policies to increase the supply of Canadian housing, even as record-high immigration places unprecedented stresses on home and rental prices. The reality is that home prices have doubled since the tax-and-spend Prime Minister took office in 2015.

There are 35-year-olds who have no choice but to live in their parents' basements; they are unable to buy a home and start a family. According to Bloomberg, Canada has the second most inflated housing bubble in the world. Monthly payments on mortgages are rising even as house prices are dropping.

We have an amount of available land that is second in the world, yet Vancouver and Toronto are the world's third and 10th most overpriced housing markets. To put that into perspective, renters in Toronto can now expect to pay over $2,300 per month for a one-bedroom apartment. The government housing benefit, involving a one-time payment of $500, was nothing more than a small bandage on a serious crisis.

To give this point greater emphasis, The Canadian Press reported today that only 44% of those who would have likely been eligible for the one-time top-up to the housing benefit actually received it, and just over one-half have received the Canadian dental benefit. That is unbelievable and inexcusable incompetence.

The expenses of the government are driving up the cost of living. In the Prime Minister’s legacy, he will stand as the one who has doubled Canada’s deficit, adding more debt than all Canadian prime ministers combined.

Inflation is at a 40-year high. Canadian homeowners experienced eight consecutive interest rate hikes, at the fastest rate in decades. If families bought a modest home with an affordable mortgage five years ago, and it is now up for renewal, they will pay $7,000 more a year.

The former chief economic analyst of Statistics Canada says that, by failing to control spending, the government’s budget is working against the Bank of Canada’s policy to reduce inflation. The Prime Minister believed that the budget would balance itself, claimed he was not interested in monetary policy and took on debt so people would not have to. He is now advising, with a serious face, that Canadians should be fine with using their credit cards to pay for tuition and home renovations.

CTV News reported that more and more Canadians are resorting to debt to pay bills amid high inflation. This is not to mention that the average increase in debt payment because of higher interest rates is another $2,000. Despite the Liberal political narrative, it has been revealed that 40% of all new spending measures had nothing to do with COVID. That is an astonishing $205 billion.

Despite this abysmal track record, it is important for Canadians to know that not all hope is lost. A Conservative government would turn the financial situation in this country around. To be specific, a Conservative government would create more cash flow by creating more of what cash buys. We would produce more food, gas and other resources here in Canada.

We would remove government gatekeepers by building more homes and making Canada the place where one can get a building permit most quickly in the world. We would make energy more affordable. The next Conservative government would repeal anti-energy laws and get Canadian energy out into the world market.

We would cut corporate welfare and scrap the carbon tax, while simultaneously tackling climate change by making alternative energy cheaper instead of making everything else more expensive. We would reform the tax-and-benefit system, making sure that Canadians are rewarded for their work, and putting those hard-earned dollars from picking up an extra shift into their pockets, not the government's pocket.

We would be a government that restores hope. We would rekindle the belief that people’s paycheques and savings can buy them a decent life. We would make fiscally responsible decisions to create an affordable life for Canadians. We would restore Canada’s promise in a country where everyone has the ability to achieve their goals, regardless of who they are.

I will continue to stand for the interests of my constituents and fight for all working Canadians. I will not be supporting this inflationary budget bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened keenly to the member's speech. At the end, he said that he will always stand for the interests of his constituents. I wonder if that means their financial interests.

I know that, like Milton, Brantford—Brant is a family community. The member actively talked down the importance of immigration as a direct contributor to our economy. He talked about building permits, as if the federal government had anything to do with building permits in his community. He also ignored the fact that 32,000 households in his riding are likely to benefit directly from the grocery rebate in this budget.

Demographically, his riding is a lot like mine, so I also know that over 1,200 kids in Brantford—Brant have accessed dental care because of our health care investments. At the same time, our child care agreements are saving a lot of money for families in his riding. It is not the best it has ever been, as he claims we say. Times are tough, but we have solutions. The members on the other side have only slogans and absolutely no solutions for Canadians.

What does he have?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, we, as Conservatives, have so much more to offer Canadians than this particular member and that entire Liberal government. They are failing Canadians. They continue to fail Canadians with their failed policies.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Name one measure.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

One measure? I will give you measures—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that they are not to be asking questions when they have already asked a question, and when I have not asked if there are questions and comments.

I would ask the hon. member for Brantford—Brant to not engage in any other conversations going on or questions being asked.

The hon. member for Brantford—Brant has the floor.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, perhaps my friend failed to listen attentively to the last part of my speech, where I identified six key measures the next Conservative government would take to address the affordability issue.

To address the member for Milton specifically on that issue, we will start, number one, by scrapping the carbon tax. How is that for an answer?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is something quite interesting in Bill C-47 that has passed under the radar because it is hidden in a pile of measures. In division 31 of the bill, which is in part 4 and on page 325, the government introduces a measure that has absolutely nothing to do with the budget. It is asking us to recognize Charles the Third as King of Canada through an amendment to the Royal Style and Titles Act. It is not clear what that has to do with anything.

Furthermore, currently, any time a government makes an order in council appointment, as is the case here, that individual may be called before a parliamentary committee to verify their qualifications. My question for my colleague is this. Does he think that Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, should be called before a committee to verify his qualifications?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if there was a distinct question there but, I make no apologies for the beliefs and values I bring to the House. I swore an allegiance to Her Majesty at the time. Although I did not have to formally swear an allegiance to His Majesty, I stand fully in support of the monarchy and always will.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listen intently every time Conservatives stand to speak in the House because I am listening to hear if we are finally going to hear something about the climate crisis and protecting our environment, but yet again, we are not hearing anything about that.

We do, however, hear about carbon capture. That is the push they would like to see, despite the International Panel on Climate Change making it clear that this method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is unproven, risky and one of the most expensive options.

When will the member and the Conservatives finally acknowledge that we are in a climate crisis and start pushing the government for real solutions for future generations?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to push the government for solutions on many issues, including the environment. We have never shied away from that.

I would encourage the member from the NDP to stand by her values and her principles the next time she is blindly supporting the government on these issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a question that probably deserves more time than we have, but we are talking about inflation, and a lot of what we are experiencing right now is not typical inflation. It is not a wage-price spiral. It is from events that are making things cost more, such as the impact of Putin's attack on Ukraine and the impact of climate events, which make various foodstuffs cost more.

I wonder if the hon. member has some thoughts on that, about how he distinguishes between inflationary trends the Bank of Canada can affect, for example, and things costing more. How do we alleviate those costs for Canadians?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her thoughtful introspection on this particularly important issue.

The thrust of my speech was very obvious. It is the failed fiscal policies of this government that have created the financial crisis, the affordability crisis that we find ourselves in.

I am not diminishing world events. I think it has taken root around the world and it has impacted Canada to a certain degree, but as many economists have argued, as many former random Liberals have argued, it is the failed Liberal policies that have contributed to the crisis we are facing.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-47, budget implementation act, 2023, No. 1.

I want to start, first, by explaining that Canada has probably been the most successful country coming out of COVID in the last two years. In the last year, we have seen the best and strongest economic growth in the G7, which is quite impressive.

Canadians had created 1.2 million jobs prior to the pandemic. Now we have recaptured that 1.2 million, and Canadians have created another 830,000 jobs. That is over two million jobs in the last five years. I would say that is very impressive.

Yes, we are facing inflation, which is a challenge the world is facing, but in the last month inflation has come down from 8% to 4.2%. The banks and economists are saying we are going to be down to about 3% by September. That is quite impressive as well.

We know there are challenges. We know the banks raised the interest rate, which is putting more pressure on individuals and Canadians, yet the unemployment rate is at a record low, which is extremely important.

What we have seen as well with unemployment is the fact that we brought forward the learning and child care program. We have seen a lot more women joining the workforce, which has shown us at a record high of 85.7% of women between 25 and 55 years of age participating in the workforce.

This budget targets inflation relief, strengthening public health care and dental care, the clean economy, and of course, maintaining our lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.

The grocery rebate is directly helping 11 million Canadians. It is extremely important. A family of four is receiving about $467. Single Canadians are receiving about $234, and seniors are receiving $225. That is for low-income Canadians who are receiving the GST, of course.

For students, we are increasing the student grant by 40% and raising the interest-free Canada student loan limit so we can be of help on that end as well.

There have been various programs for seniors. I just mentioned the grocery rebate for those with low incomes. We also increased the OAS and GIS, which will grow by 30% by 2027-28. That is about $20 billion a year in increases, so that is direct support for seniors to ensure they are able to enjoy their retirement.

In the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, there have also been investments, like in the Beaverbank Kinsac Lions Club, which received $25,000 for upgrades. Also, the Sackville Seniors Advisory Council received $25,000 for programming. Those are direct investments into the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

On the housing front, which is extremely important, for first-time homebuyers, young people, there is a new tax-free savings account, which will allow them to save $40,000 tax-free over, I believe, about seven years. This is tax-free going in and tax-free coming out for first-time homebuyers, which will be a very good investment and definitely a major help to young people.

It is also creating more flexibility around existing mortgages by extending amortization payments, adjusting the payment schedule or even authorizing lump sum payments. In the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, there have been some successful housing projects in the Chezzetcook area, the Lake Echo area and the Preston area.

Under the economy, industry and competitiveness for the green economy, which is a focus of our government, there are tax credits that will entice, invite, encourage and build on green electricity. We will see a 15% tax rebate on clean electricity. We will also see up to 30% in tax credits for machinery or equipment used for manufacturing or processing clean technology. The cleanest, hydrogen, will get up to a 40% rebate, which is encouraging. We know that Canadians will move forward on those major initiatives.

Through the Canada Infrastructure Bank, we have invested up to $20 billion for major projects in electricity and clean growth, and for those in Ontario, we have seen a major project, which is a game-changer, in the Volkswagen battery manufacturing, which will be an asset for the workers and people in Ontario.

I will quote the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters: “CME welcomes #Budget2023 and the initial steps it takes to respond to the US Inflation Reduction Act...drive net zero transitions, improve labour shortages, and alleviate and supply chain disruptions.” That will also be an asset.

There are also industry-targeted investments we have for our space industry, our forestry industry and our tourism industry. We know our tourism industry took a major hit during COVID. We need to support our communities, so they can have more ways of attracting more tourists to their communities and also invest in bringing more international investment in conventions and events in our regions.

With that, of course, I cannot go without mentioning the investment in Michelin, the tire plant in Nova Scotia. It has three plants, of course, and the Bridgewater one is where they are going to modernize and also create innovative technology for tires to be more efficient, including the electric vehicle tires. Of course, they will cut on emissions, which will mean more jobs and a reduction to the environmental footprint of our economy.

We have also seen some reductions and savings, of up to $15 billion over five years, by reducing spending on consulting firms. There will be a 3% reduction for each department right across the government and $6 billion in savings over six years through the realignment of former announcements.

I do need to touch on a couple of key things. Health care is extremely important in Nova Scotia. We had been receiving $3.5 billion over 10 years. Now, we will be receiving $5 billion, which is $1.5 million, or a third, more. That would be very helpfully invested in home care, long-term care, dental care, oral health care, major doctors and nurses, and also in promoting initiatives to bring them to rural and remote communities.

Our workers are very important, and one of the things I want to talk about is the doubling of the tradespeople tool deduction from $500 to $1,000. I have heard many tradespeople tell me that was something they wanted. Also, I think a very important initiative is the employer ownership trusts, which mean there would be tax changes to allow private owners to sell to their employees the shares in the business, which would make them directly engaged in the challenges, but also the profits as well.

Our student work placement program is creating quality work-integrated learning opportunities. I will share with members that there is an announcement we had in Nova Scotia not so long ago of the Nova Scotia Apprenticeship Agency's START program, which sees many students who are learning on the ground as well as in their institutions.

There are many other investments, of course. The one I want to talk about is the investment in veterans to reduce backlogs once again. We already reduced the backlogs by 70%. We want to bring that down to 0. Also, we will continue to support our veterans through various services. There are some investments in my riding, of course. The Royal Canadian Legion branch in Waverley would receive $159,000 for a roof replacement, and the one in Eastern Passage would receive over $21,000 for renovations as well.

There is lots of investment, of course, in Atlantic Canada, in the Coast Guard, the ferry services, protecting our fresh waters and the Atlantic loop, which would help Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and others.

In closing, very importantly, I want to thank the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. I also want to thank all Canadians who contributed to the success of this budget, because it is a budget for Canada.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise this evening to talk about budget 2023 and all of the investments it is going to make in our country and in our communities right across Canada from coast to coast to coast.

Since the tabling of budget 2023, I have had the opportunity to spend some time in my riding, as we all did, throughout the Easter break. However, it was more than just Easter break in my riding. There were quite a lot of activities, festivities and things to celebrate, including Sikh Heritage Month, Ramadan, Passover, Easter and many other things. It was good to be back in Milton to engage with industry leaders, families, students, academics and various advocates on budget 2023 and put into context what it means for Milton and Miltonians.

Budget 2023 is designed to meet the challenges and opportunities of today by building an economy that works for all Canadians while supporting our communities towards a greener, healthier and more sustainable future. These are really ambitious objectives. We are meeting the moment, and we are going to achieve those objectives by providing targeted relief to help families, seniors, students and workers afford everyday essentials, with some fairly historic investments in health care. We are expanding our dental care rebate and focusing on families and the people who do not currently have access because they do not have any insurance.

When I was an athlete competing for Canada, I did not have a dental care plan, so I paid out of pocket for dental. At the time, I thought I was a minority. I thought I might be one of only a few Canadians who do not have access to dental care. However, as it turns out, fully one-third of Canadians do not have access to dental care, and that is too many. It turns out that many seniors in my riding fall just over the income threshold for the provincial program that seeks to provide support and dental care for seniors. One has to have very low income in order to qualify for some of those programs.

A lot of self-employed people, and we have plenty of those as we have a lot of entrepreneurs in Milton, do not have access to benefits, and some of their kids will not have access to dental. Friends of mine in Milton, Carly and her husband, have three jobs between the two of them. They work really hard serving our community, yet their three kids do not have dental care insurance, because their jobs do not cover it. However, with these new investments, all three of those kids will be able to visit the dentist, and it will not provide the family with any sort of financial burden, which is great.

I would like to take a deeper dive on some local implications of budget 2023, and how it will invest in the clean economy and deliver some great jobs and great careers for now and for generations to come.

First and foremost, I would like to focus on how budget 2023 makes life more affordable for Milton families. Too many people in our community and across the country are faced with real, tangible affordability challenges. They are struggling with the effects of higher grocery prices and rising housing costs. Budget 2023 is providing relief with a one-time grocery rebate, which is a $2.5-billion measure targeted on inflation, for the Canadians who need it most.

It is a proven method to address these concerns, by using the GST rebate, which a lot of people are familiar with. Over 11 million low- and middle-income Canadians and families will receive the grocery rebate, and that means an extra $467 for families. Canadians without children will receive $234, and seniors will receive up to an additional $225. These measures are means-tested, which means they will be targeted to the families that need it most.

I looked into this a little bit and did some research on the rising cost of groceries in Canada, and indeed, in 2023, groceries will cost families, on average, about the same amount. Many families are changing some of their eating habits. My partner, Emily, does not eat meat, and I eat less meat as a result of eating many meals with her and find that eating vegetarian a couple of times a week lowers our total cost.

Adding all of those supports and programs that our government has introduced and improved over the last couple of years really puts this into context. I encourage Canadians who are interested in the budget or in any of these cost-savings measures to go to the website and check out how certain families will be implicated with all of these changes. I will post the website when I post this speech.

I actually did a bit of research, taking an arbitrary four-person family in Milton with an income of $85,000. I found that, with reduced child care costs, the Canada child benefit, the Canada dental benefit, tax relief from an increased basic personal amount and the increased climate action incentive payments, this family will save over $11,000.

I actually went a step lower on the income scale. I applied the same income that my family would have had when I was growing up, with two kids under six and a combined income of around $60,000, which is probably more than my mom made back in the day, but obviously times have changed a bit. With the grocery rebate, the increase in the Canada child benefit, the climate action incentive results and reduced child care costs, for a family that earns $60,000, that would result in a net savings of over $21,000. These are real, tangible impacts the budget would have on chequebooks.

I was knocking on doors throughout January. Families in Milton were saying that times are tough, but they recognize the measures we have brought forward as a government, which are really helping their families. That was good to hear, and it makes me want to come back to work to keep working hard on these things.

I have stood in this House before to talk about the $198.6-billion investments in health care that this budget formally introduces, but I would like to focus on one aspect that impacts many of our neighbours, and that is the health care human resource crisis. My mom is at an age now when she is looking to have a few procedures done. One of those is a cataract surgery. She also needed a new knee, and she has been waiting a long time. That knee was ready to get fixed during the pandemic. She went on a couple of lists, and that was delayed, obviously. Many of those challenges are worsened by the health care human resources crisis.

Canada needs more doctors and nurses, and we need them now. We are addressing this need with a number of priorities outlined in bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories. Namely, we are streamlining foreign credential recognition, so that internationally trained medical professionals in Canada can get working in their fields of expertise more quickly. We are investing in wages for PSWs and other workers to encourage retention, and we are also investing in education for better recruitment to the sector. We want young people to know that if they are considering a job in health care, we are here to support that ambition every single step of the way.

For students, the budget is really extraordinary. Over 750,000 post-secondary students rely on federal assistance each year to help them cover the cost of tuition, housing and everyday essentials. We want to make those expenditures more affordable, so budget 2023 seeks to do this by improving financial assistance for students with a 40% increase to Canada student grants. That is $4,200 for full-time students. We are also raising the total federal aid available to full-time students by over $1,000, up to $14,400 for 2023. In all of that, we would also eliminate all of the interest on Canada student loans and Canada apprenticeship loans forever. There will be no more interest on those loans. I think this is an incredible measure. The next generation of students will never know the additional burden of that financial hardship going into their working years. I was really glad to hear that.

Two weeks ago, two of the awesome co-op students working in my constituency office in Milton organized a day when I went into their schools, Milton District High School and St. Francis Xavier, and I spoke to teachers and students about the impact this would have. The majority of those teachers have experienced student debt. I asked the students who was planning on going to university or college next year, and everybody put up their hand. I asked the teachers who had student loans when they were in school, and every teacher there put up their hand, obviously. I asked them how long it took to pay off that debt. It took a while. It took a couple of years; there is no question. It is important to note that this is not just for college and university; it is also for trades and apprenticeship graduates, so that those students would never have to experience that same financial burden.

I would like to skip forward a bit to some of the measures in this budget that would support seniors, specifically. In budget 2023, we are strengthening pensions by providing $76 billion in support to over seven million seniors through critical programs like the guaranteed income supplement and old age security. Really importantly, these benefits would continue to be adjusted to keep up with inflation, and we would also expand dental care to seniors and redouble our efforts to support local seniors through programs like the New Horizons for Seniors. I recently announced over $100,000 in funding for seven local senior-serving community organizations, groups like Ontario Seniors' Forum and many others, which are hosting events in the library and at the arts centre to combat loneliness and isolation and serve our seniors.

This budget would do so much for Milton. I had a chance to visit local small businesses to talk about the fact that we are going to work with credit card companies to reduce the costs of constantly swiping our phones or our cards on small purchases. I am guilty of buying at least one coffee a day with my telephone, and I know those costs get downloaded right to the small businesses.

These are just some of the ways the lives of Miltonians would see positive change with the passing of this budget, and I am glad I had the opportunity to engage with some of my local members and stakeholders. Now, I would like to engage with some of my fellow members here in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Milton talked a lot about local implications and being back in his riding. I, too, was back in my riding over the last couple of weeks. When I was there, I heard a totally different scenario from my constituents. They were talking about the huge inflationary cost of everything that is impacting them. In fact, they talked an awful lot about the servicing of the debt, which is going to be $42.9 billion, and who will pay for that. Those were concerns they had.

One of the big things in my riding was a concern about the fact that there was not a single mention of the coal transition or, using the new wording that Liberals like to use, sustainable jobs. The reality is that none of that was there to try to help the people who are going to be losing their jobs. Jobs are not being created in the riding.

I do recognize that the member has been involved with health care. He and I both met yesterday with the Canadian Chiropractic Association. In his speech, he talked about student debt and its impact. Does he recognize that the chiropractic students who are paying back student loans are not actually included in this? Would he agree to adding them to this?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was nice to see my colleague at the Canadian Chiropractic Association's meeting yesterday. I had a chance to give a speech as the parliamentary secretary for health. I had a chance to acknowledge that the doctor opposite is in fact a chiropractor. I know that he was well received by many of those constituents.

Indeed, when we frame the conversation around what one likes about the budget or what one does not like about the budget, we are very likely to receive different feedback. However, it is undeniable that the measures in this budget that I went through, measures for seniors, to tackle the climate crisis and to invest in jobs, will have an impact in Saskatchewan. My dad used to live in Regina, and I have a lot of great friends there.

I saw my former teammate Kia Byers just a couple of days ago, and she was talking about the need of Saskatchewan to get off coal and join the green revolution and to invest in more sustainable practices going forward. I could not agree more. There are enough people in Saskatchewan that I think they deserve their own nuclear power plant and they should start using some of that great uranium they take out of the ground in that fine province to fuel their province rather than burning coal.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to hear my Liberal colleagues today, I really get the impression that everything is just fine and dandy.

I thank my colleague for his speech, but there were many things that piqued my attention. I could ask tons of questions, but I will try to be brief.

An annual income of $85,000 for a family is good, but my colleague said that his government was helping seniors. What is it doing for seniors whose annual income is $20,000? Does he really think it is possible to live with dignity on that amount?

I just reread a press release by FADOQ because I too have been consulting the people back home. In fact, I organized a conference on seniors' health. FADOQ says that the only thing for seniors in this budget is the one-time help for groceries, a single cheque that seniors will receive once. That is not going to help in the long term. FADOQ is critical of the fact that the guaranteed income supplement was not increased.

As far as old age security is concerned, I would remind my colleague that, currently, every senior under 75 is still not getting help from their government, and those 75 and older got an increase of only 10%. Those 75 and under got absolutely nothing.

My colleague just spoke about nuclear energy. I cannot believe how much greenwashing there is in this budget. As I said, I could go on at length about that, but his government is putting the same spin on its approach to seniors.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments and mini-speech. There were a lot of questions in there.

This government has done some amazing things over the past seven years.

I am going to speak in English so that I can get my idea out because I have never actually said this in French before.

There is no government in history that has done more to solve seniors poverty. When we took power in 2015, seniors poverty was at a totally unacceptable rate, something around 9% or 10%. Seniors as a cohort in Canada are now the least impoverished group socio-demographically. That is not to suggest that we ought not to do even more to support seniors, but we have done more than just cut seniors poverty in half in this country by investing in old age security, which my colleague erroneously pointed out has not been reinvested in.

We have increased all sorts of funding to seniors-serving organizations, and seniors poverty is now at an all-time low. That does not mean that we should not continue to invest, but to suggest we have done nothing is false.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

All right, here is my reminder of the evening: I really do not want to interrupt people's thoughts or to limit the time that people ask questions or answer questions, but we just asked two questions and other parties are not going to get an opportunity to answer. Try to keep the questions short and try to keep the answers short so everybody can participate in this debate.

Continuing debate, the hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is so much to do in politics. There are people to listen to, people to convince, people to defend and people to support, but the most important thing for politicians to do is to keep their word and their commitment to the people they have met, listened to and shaken hands with.

I got into politics as a member of the Bloc Québécois by promising the community of Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix and all of Quebec that I would speak on their behalf, do my utmost to defend the things that matter to them and that they are concerned about, and live up to the expectations that they have of the federal government based on the taxes that they pay. Those taxes take a significant portion of their hard-earned, proudly earned money out of their pockets and, as good citizens, they hope to see it used to benefit society in general.

This is my second term and, once again, I have the opportunity and, of course, the privilege to share their messages in the House, to speak on their behalf and to make the government aware of their reality.

People in my riding have a different reality than that of people living in urban centres, where activities and investments are buzzing. Along the Côte-de-Beaupré, in Île d’Orléans, Beauport, Charlevoix, and from Courville to Baie‑Sainte‑Catherine, the people from my neck of the woods are creative, innovative and resilient. They are hard workers.

Entrepreneurship is very popular, and, every year, we salute the excellence of good work at galas worthy of major social events in the big city. People in the regions are resourceful, proud and forward thinkers, because we have no other choice. All too often, we cannot count on anyone but ourselves to develop our socio-economic potential, which is too often ignored in favour of the electoral potential that can be courted in major urban centres. Our economic levers are considered negligible, whereas they are often levers that ensure food sovereignty and national economic vitality. SMEs, non-profit organizations and their human potential are the socio-economic vectors that ensure the stability and constancy of the economy in general, in addition to allowing regional development and providing people in the communities with the services and the means to stay where they were born and where they have chosen to live and raise a family.

That is what has informed my opinion of Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. It is a 430-page bill that amends 59 pieces of legislation, as well as the tax regulations, and that, in its current form, once again prevents a full discussion on all the important measures it contains. Unfortunately, we will be voting against this bill because, despite its volume, it contains significant gaps. The position we have taken is because of these gaps.

There is nothing for seniors, who are the forgotten ones. It is impossible to live decently on benefits that are well below the poverty line. The Bloc Québécois is calling for seniors to be given the bare minimum, specifically an additional $110 per month starting at age 65. They deserve it. They are entitled to it, period. We also need to encourage seniors who want to put their knowledge and experience to work for a few more years by offering them attractive tax benefits. Everyone agrees, except the government.

There is nothing for housing. We continue to tread water. There is no ambitious plan for accessing affordable housing. The government is handing out crumbs just to save face. People, families and thousands of people are waiting, completely destitute. Their despair is palpable. Everyone knows it except for the government.

There is no long-term solution to the underfunding in health. I could go on about that. Quebec and the provinces have been picking up the slack for years to make up for the lack of federal funding in health. The result is that Quebec and the provinces are getting poorer year after year trying to maintain acceptable health services without adequate federal funding, which means they cannot invest properly in other sectors. Budget after budget, they are falling behind in several areas.

Canada is getting richer on the backs of Quebec and the provinces, and nothing in this budget suggests that things are going to improve.

When the pandemic hit, the balance that was already so fragile collapsed, and health care services completely broke down. Essential investments for the economic health of the provinces and Quebec, to enable them to keep up with international development, fall short. On the whole, there is a general decline in services and quality of life. I think it bears repeating that this is a significant problem.

Every person and every socio-economic area is affected in one way or another by the federal government's failure to meet its obligations to the provinces on health care. Everyone knows it, except for the government. It is serious.

We do not talk enough about the recent provincial agreements. They are ridiculous. The provinces so urgently need a lot of money for health care that they would rather have these ridiculous agreements than nothing at all. They are between a rock and a hard place.

The government slipped in some surprising provisions about the monarchy. What is that all about in 2023? Millions of dollars will be wasted on an outdated exercise that is the symbol of futile and unjustified supremacy, and, even worse, of submission for Quebec. Most Canadians and most definitely the National Assembly of Quebec and Quebeckers themselves agree that they want no part of the monarchy. Everyone knows it, except the government.

There are the lovely stories from oil country. Bill C-47 will create infrastructure to let organizations that are not accountable to Parliament manage billions of dollars that the government plans to invest in the green transition. Who will measure the results of these investments? The oil companies? Who will tell us if it is a real green transition or simply an exercise in greenwashing? Given what we know about environmental forecasting, how can we allow oil exploration in 2023, let alone invest in it?

I cannot believe that we have not made more progress. All that money should be invested solely in developing clean energy. That is the only way. The year 2030 is tomorrow. Everyone knows it, except the government.

What about employment insurance? I am not going to dwell on this topic for long. Not only are there no partial provisions to help EI claimants in seasonal jobs, but there is nothing to signal EI reform in the short or medium term. The Employment Insurance Act stipulates that the fund cannot run a surplus or deficit on average over seven years.

Last year, the government grabbed nearly $2 billion that belonged to workers. The same thing happened again this year, and the 2023 budget calls for another $13 billion to be taken away by 2030. In the end, we are talking about $17 billion that the Trudeau government intends to take from the pockets of EI fund contributors. We have no right to let this happen. It is not okay for the government to use the premiums taxpayers pay into the EI fund to pay off some the government's pandemic debt. It is unacceptable.

The EI fund is balanced and must be fully reserved for workers who experience a break between active work periods. Insurance is meant to insure, not to prop up the government when it makes financial blunders. Everyone knows that, except the government.

What about the fisheries, which have been adversely affected by the Prime Minister's and the minister's decisions to cut pelagic fishers off from their livelihood with 48 hours' notice? What is being imposed on the fisheries is shocking: no measures, no consideration for the fisheries, no on-site consultation, no funding for modernized ships and research, both for measuring the consequences of climate change and for properly and adequately assessing all resources. What about the lack of predictability, a word that is not in DFO's vocabulary? Everyone knows it, except the government.

Together with the Bloc Québécois, we established a fishers' round table in Sainte‑Anne‑des‑Monts. Everyone was there, including suppliers, fishers, scientists and processors. We listened to them, and they made us aware of the issues. We heard some great solutions. Everyone knows what needs to be done, everyone, that is, except the government.

The legendary passion and genius of our regions have kept them going so far. However, with each federal budget, the regions are forgotten, ignored and impoverished. One day very soon, the regions will forget, too. They will ignore the federal government and demand to regain full control of their economic potential. Quebec will get fed up with the federal government's moods and its lack of consideration for Quebec and its socio-economic development. On that day, Quebec will become independent. Everyone knows it, except the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, just because the member says it does not necessarily make it true. To give a false impression that the government is not in the different regions of the country is absolutely ridiculous. In every region of the country, the government is actively there supporting Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Whether it is our trades, our health care, our seniors, building a healthier and stronger economy, by being there for the environment, there are ample examples throughout the budget implementation legislation that clearly demonstrates that we have a national government that is genuinely concerned about the development of our communities, no matter the size, big or small.

Would the member not agree that she is being a little selective in her interpretations of the readings that she made and compared to other governments, this is a government that genuinely cares about all the regions of our great nation?

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to echo what my colleague said earlier, one would think that everything is going great for this government. Everything is just fine and dandy.

On the ground, we are hearing from desperate people, destitute fishers, who are under the thumb of bureaucrats and technocrats who have never consulted in the field. This is just in the fishery. What about employment insurance, which is a major lever for economic development?

Business owners and workers alike agree with the Bloc Québécois's position that EI must be adapted for seasonal work done by people in the regions. If that does not happen, seasonal work will cease to exist.

How can the government tell me that everything is fine and that the government supports the regions?

That is not what I am hearing in my region.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I agree with a lot of what the member said. There is a lot of disappointment in the budget, including especially the delayed commitment to address indigenous housing. There is $4 billion and I understand that would not start until next year. I wonder if the member could explain what the Liberal government needs to hear to make sure that we are doing better for indigenous housing, including in Quebec.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the plight of indigenous people is terribly sad. We are talking about housing, of course, but there are still some indigenous people who do not have access to clean drinking water.

The government is congratulating itself on its big investments and fine words about truth and reconciliation, but it still has not given these people clean drinking water, let alone affordable housing. The government would rather stimulate the construction of condos worth $700,000 or $800,000 than help people who need it and who are dependent on government decisions.

I agree with my colleague. We absolutely need to band together and force the government to invest more in affordable housing, particularly for indigenous people.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to remind the member for Winnipeg North that my colleague and I were being sarcastic when we said that everything is just fine and dandy. That is my first point.

My second is that my colleague spoke about employment insurance. I will be more brief than I was earlier, I promise. Employment insurance is vital. The current government is all about fake feminism. By not investing enough in health transfers, it is harming the community groups that work to prevent domestic violence. By failing to invest in EI reform, it is harming women, who are penalized more by the current EI system. That is also true for those who go on maternity leave. The government is all about fake feminism. These investments are being called for.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with my colleague. I think that she added to my speech, which I had to condense, so I was not able to provide all the detail that I wanted to.

I thank my colleague. That is absolutely right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join the debate on the budget implementation act.

There are some interesting numbers in this budget. Total revenues coming in to the government are $456.8 billion and expenses are $446.6 billion. On the surface, when one looks at that, one would think that is not too bad. There is actually some money kicking around, but the problem is the government has run up our national debt so high that the debt charges alone are just shy of $44 billion this year, and they are going to increase to $50 billion. That is creating a deficit this year of $40.1 billion, which is $10 billion higher than what was originally projected.

Why is the interest rate so high? That is because the government, under the Liberal Prime Minister, has run up our national debt so it is now twice as big as what it was when he took office, at $1.2 trillion. That is a travesty, and it is shameful what the government is doing to our taxpayers today and in the future. Our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay off this spending binge that the Liberals have been on for the last eight years.

As shadow minister of national defence, I want to talk a bit about the expenditures in this budget. If we look at the budget and the estimates today, Liberals are going to spend $26.4 billion. That is down from last year's $27.58 billion. Despite the rhetoric coming from the Liberals, they are not spending more, they are spending less. The Prime Minister, we know from leaked documents, has no intention of ever reaching the NATO target of 2% of GDP being spent on our national defence.

However, the Prime Minister has no problem spending $6,000 a night in luxurious hotel rooms in London. He has no problem wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to go on his luxurious vacations in Jamaica and the Bahamas. It relates back to the Prime Minister just not prioritizing our national defence and how important it is, not only in protecting Canadians here at home, but also in standing up for our allies around the world and having serious relationships.

The Conference of Defence Associations Institute just wrote a letter, signed by 60 prominent Canadians. In it, they say, “Years of restraint, cost cutting, downsizing and deferred investments, have meant that Canada’s defence capabilities have atrophied.” They go on to say, “the recent federal budget was largely a summary of previous announcements without any acknowledgement that the Government must accelerate program spending, and make significant additional funding available to address the long-standing deficiencies in military capabilities and readiness.”

Our safety is not a luxury. We have to make sure we are treating national defence like we do in our homes by buying home insurance and fire insurance and paying the premium. Investment in our military is a premium that we have to pay to protect us at home. In the letter from those 60 prominent Canadians, they said, “Canada cannot afford to conduct 'business as usual'”.

Part of the responsibility we have in national defence is to stand up for our democracy and protecting democracies around the world. For 426 days, we have watched in real time the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine and have witnessed barbaric war crimes and atrocities being committed by Putin's war machine. For 426 days, the people of Ukraine have now only stood up to the Kremlin's genocidal attempt to Russify Ukraine once again.

This is a war of attrition. Vladimir Putin is prepared to play the long game, turning this war into a frozen conflict to let war fatigue overtake western resiliency. Unfortunately, it may be working. I just never dreamed that Canada would be the first ally to show signs of war weariness. One may ask what the proof of that is. In the Liberals' recent budget, the finance minister, surprisingly, offers Ukraine little more than platitudes. So much for her being a champion for Ukraine.

Despite President Zelenskyy asking for more assistance and Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, who was just here, hoping Canada would donate more armoured vehicles and ammunition, budget 2023 provides only $200 million in new spending in military equipment for Ukraine. Much of this is a bookkeeping exercise to account for the eight Leopard tanks that we have donated to Ukraine. We can only hope that the Canadian Armed Forces will use that money to buy new tanks to replace the ones we just donated.

Regrettably, the Prime Minister and his Liberals have spent our fiscal cupboards bare. After eight years of the Liberal government, our national debt has doubled to $1.2 trillion. Our federal deficit is $10 billion higher, and it will soon reach $50 billion, which is more than what we spend on National Defence. The size of our government is $151 billion bigger than it was in 2015.

The Liberals have increased spending on just about everything in this budget except National Defence. A case in point is that they have spent a whopping $22 billion on consultants. As our Conservative leader pointed out in his reply to the budget, “Now the interest costs on the national debt have doubled. We are spending double the national defence budget on the interest costs on the national debt. It is ridiculous.”

Sadly, well-connected consultants, big bankers and wealthy bond holders will get more from these Liberals than our troops will. This is all bad news for taxpayers, and it inhibits Canada's ability from helping allies such as Ukraine or investing in our National Defence during these troubling times in Europe, the Indo-Pacific and our Arctic. To be clear, as His Majesty's loyal opposition, we have supported the military, humanitarian and financial assistance provided to Ukraine by the government, but Canada's Conservatives believe the government can and must do more to help Ukraine win this war.

Conservatives have strongly advocated to increase the production and exportation of our ethical oil and natural gas, along with other energy products, to Europe to displace the Russian oil and gas that is fuelling Putin's war machine. Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine 426 days ago, Conservatives have consistently called on the government to send more lethal weapons. In fact, since March 2022, we have been asking the government to donate to Ukraine our armoured ambulances; Harpoon missiles; Role 3 mobile hospitals; sniper rifles; and our soon-to-be-retired fleet of light armoured vehicles, also called LAVs, specifically the Bison, the Coyote and tracked LAVs, also known as M113s.

National Defence confirmed in writing, in its response to an Order Paper question tabled in this House, that it has 149 LAV II Coyotes; 142 M113 tracked LAVs, and 196 LAV II Bisons. These LAVs will soon be replaced with 360 brand new LAV armoured combat support vehicles, which are currently sitting in London, Ontario. Instead of decommissioning our old LAVs and turning them into war memorials or selling them for scrap, the Ukraine defence forces would gladly welcome them. A case in point is that the U.S.A. and Australia donated 130 M113s last summer to Ukraine, and they were crucial in the liberation of Kharkiv.

The Liberals have sadly argued that our Coyotes, Bisons and tracked LAVs are too old, too worn out and have not yet been declared surplus. DND had noted that 62 of the Coyotes were deemed reparable, but they would take 220 days to procure the parts and put them back into service. That was 309 days ago, back in June of last year. Did the Liberal government act? Are we able to donate those LAVs now? Unfortunately, the answer is no, so Ukraine does without.

Regardless of the Liberals' apathy and excuses, I remain confident in the resiliency and ingenuity of the Ukrainian people. I know that if we sent our fleet of older LAVs to Ukraine, the Ukrainians would immediately put them to good use. What works, they would fight with; what does not, they would cannibalize for parts. This is not a novel idea. Just ask our Royal Canadian Air Force. The Liberals stuck it with 18 old, worn-out F-18 Aussie fighter jets, and they had to buy another seven broken fighter jets for the spare parts.

The black, fertile plains of Ukraine are soaked with the blood of millions of innocent people who were murdered during the Holodomor and the Holocaust. We must stand with Ukraine and stop today's genocide being committed by Putin's war machine. Canada must not waiver. We cannot grow weary. We must not falter. During difficult times like these, we remember great leaders such as Sir Winston Churchill, who said in his famous “blood, toil, tears and sweat” speech, “victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.” Ukraine must survive. Ukraine must win.

As I said earlier, with respect to National Defence, the Prime Minister does not seem to care. His rhetoric does not match his actions. In the leaked documents that came from the Pentagon that were on the Discord app, it said, “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has told NATO officials privately that Canada will never meet the military alliance’s defense-spending target”. It goes on to say—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. Even though we are quoting, we cannot say a name, so we are going to back that up to say, “the Prime Minister”.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, it was the Prime Minister. The documents go on to say that the “defence shortfalls hinder Canadian capabilities, while straining partner relationships and alliance contributions.” That impacts our bilateral relationships, which not only affects defence and security but also impacts our trading relationships with those partners.

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

Mr. Speaker, whether it has been the incredible leadership of the member for Etobicoke Centre, the Deputy Prime Minister or the Prime Minister himself, not to mention the different ministers responsible, whether for defence or foreign affairs, we have been very much on top of the Ukraine file. In many areas, we have led.

In other areas, we continue to work with the United Nations and our allied partners. I think it is somewhat shameful that the member would try to give a false impression that the Government of Canada has not been supportive of Ukraine because, in every way, it has been supportive of Ukraine.

My question to the member has to do with the member making reference to the Government of Canada not hitting 2% of the GDP. Does the member not remember that he was, after all, the parliamentary secretary of defence and it was the Harper government that actually dropped below 1% of Canada's GDP? I can assure the member that this government has never even come close to that, as we get closer to 2%.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member for Winnipeg North that they are going backward, not forward. They went from 1.34% down to under 1.29% of GDP this year.

They have also gotten very creative with their accounting. They added in veterans' pensions, Global Affairs Canada costs and Coast Guard costs, which we never added in. If we added all of those things in when we were government, we would probably have had 1.5% during the time that we were in Afghanistan.

Yes, we did take a bit of a fall in spending after we pulled out because we were balancing the books, something that the government has no plans of ever doing as it continues to saddle our kids and our grandchildren with its reckless spending.

I will just say this on Ukraine: This budget only has $200 million in it. It is nothing for Ukraine. We supported everything that the government has done in the past, but it is doing nothing in this budget, and that is shameful.

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

Mr. Speaker, in one of his recent books, Michael Mann, a physicist at the University of Pennsylvania, said that the oil industry's primary strategy to deal with climate change was first to deny reality. Then, as the consequences of climate change became visible, the industry changed its strategy to mislead the public. It is trying to make us believe that there is hope that new technologies will emerge in a few years and that we will be able to defeat climate change easily.

I would like to know whether my colleague is prepared to accept science and recognize that taxpayer-funded carbon capture strategies are a ploy to mislead taxpayers. Those subsidies and tax credits for carbon capture and storage represent a significant amount of public funds. Is my colleague, who is so concerned about a balanced budget, prepared to rise and take a stand against these subsidies?

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

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, in this budget, there is some money for our Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg, Lake Manitoba, Lake Simcoe and every other lake across Canada. It is only $650 million spread out over 10 years. That is not an investment in making sure that we protect our freshwater lakes, which are a precious resource.

I was proud that over the time I was a member of Parliament in government, the Lake Winnipeg Basin got over $35 million, just for one lake. This government is not even going to commit that over 10 years for any lake in this country. That is what is disturbing.

I will just say this: The government's idea of reducing carbon emissions is to tax Canadians more, and as a rural Manitoban, as someone with an agriculture background, and as someone who has family that is still farming, I see the impact this is having on our seniors. I see the impact that this is having on farmers. Their costs of production continue to go up. The price of food gets more expensive, and it is all because of the government's tax plan, which is not a carbon plan.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise the issue of support for students. I met with members of the Graduate Students' Society at the University of Victoria. They were hoping for support in this federal budget, and they shared the struggles that many grad students are facing, living on less than $20,000 a year. In addition to skyrocketing rents and groceries, they also have tuition costs. They are going into debt. Low-income students are adding to their undergraduate student loan debt.

I was concerned when I heard a Conservative member, a couple of days ago, say in the House that the government should be charging interest on student loans. That penalizes low-income students. I think we need to do more to support students, not less.

Grad students are asking for an expansion of tri-agency grants and increased awards. They are organizing a national walkout on May 1 to demonstrate how integral they are to institutions and how they are affected by these funding decisions.

Could the member speak to his opinion on how we can better support these students, who are asking the government to invest in the next generation of leaders, often while they are struggling to put food on the table?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say this: The one thing I detest about the student loans program is that it is very much prejudiced against kids who come from farms and small businesses, especially in rural areas. Because of the assets owned by their parents, they do not qualify for a student loan. That works against their ability to get an education, which often ends up costing a lot more because they have to travel great distances and move into cities, where those universities are located. I want to make sure those barriers are removed for all rural students.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I quote:

...let me be very clear. We are absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline and our deficits must continue to be reduced. The pandemic debt we incurred to keep Canadians safe and solvent must [and will] be paid down.... This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we will not cross.

Who said that? It was our finance minister. A year ago, she made that bold statement, said those bold words, when she proclaimed to the world that Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio would be Canada's anchor and that she would not cross the line of allowing it to increase.

Here we are a year later. Can we guess what happened? Our finance minister took a big step across the line. The issue for Canadians is this: Whom do they trust to manage this country's finances?

We asked for three things. We asked that the war on work and lower taxes for workers be ended, that the inflationary deficits that are driving the sky-high cost of living be ended and that the gatekeepers be removed from home construction across Canada so Canadians can have their dream of home ownership restored. None of those three requests were followed through on by the Liberal government.

I want to touch on a couple of issues, including affordability and inflation, the problem of uncontrolled spending, the staggering cost of government and, finally, economic performance. I do not know if I will have enough time to cover all those issues, but I will do my best.

First is affordability and inflation. Taxes on everything are going up. There is a reason that Canadians should not trust the current government to manage finances. It is a tax-and-spend government under which the cost of living has skyrocketed, including the cost of groceries, gas at the pumps and home heating.

Let us not forget the cost of housing. Under the Liberal government, nine out of 10 Canadians now say that dream of home ownership has disappeared. It is a dream I grew up with. I assumed it was attainable for most, if not all, Canadians. Today, nine out of 10 young Canadians say that dream is no longer a reality for them. A down payment on the average Canadian home, the average mortgage payment and, quite frankly, the average rent payment have doubled in Canada over the last seven years under the Liberal government.

Inflation has eroded what a dollar buys. We see stagnating wages across the country. It is at the point now where the gap between the rich and the poor is growing ever greater. Those with assets are growing richer, whereas those who earn paycheques are growing poorer. We now have one in five Canadians skipping meals just to get by and have enough to eat. Let us think about that. There is a perverse situation in which the poor are going to food banks and asking for medical assistance in dying, or in other words, assisted suicide. This is not because they are sick but because they do not want to go hungry. Is that the perverse situation in which we find ourselves in Canada? The government is expanding access to medical assistance in dying, while at the same time, it is not providing the resources Canadians need to at least survive and have some kind of satisfaction in their lives.

I will talk about the problem of uncontrolled spending, which is a critical issue for this country. Today, the government is spending $151 billion more than it did in 2015, when it came to power and took over from the Harper government. That spending has created unprecedented inflationary pressures that are driving the skyrocketing cost of living for Canadians, who just cannot afford life in Canada anymore. Today, we have a deficit of $43 billion. Does everyone remember when the Prime Minister, back in the 2015 election, promised tiny deficits of no more than $10 billion? Every year since then, budget deficits have been much greater than that.

We all acknowledge that, during COVID, there had to be supports and benefits provided to Canadians to allow them to make it through that very troubling period. However, we are out of COVID now, and the deficits continue despite the government's promises to return to balanced budgets. The Minister of Finance promised we would return to a balanced budget. She promised that last year, just one year ago, and today she broke that promise. Promise after promise after promise is broken by Canada's corrupt and failed government.

The result, of course, is that over the last seven years, Canada's national debt has doubled. In fact, the government has racked up more debt than all other Canadian governments combined. That, by definition, is profligacy. That is irresponsible use of taxpayers' money. The government does not understand that we have to live within our means, the way any Canadian family has to.

I will go on and talk about the staggering cost of government. Under the current government, the federal public service has increased by nearly 31%. In seven years, over 80,000 new federal government positions have been added. I can ask an average Canadian citizen out there whether they are getting better service. Those 80,000 professionals who have been hired by the government must be providing an enhanced level of service. How are passports doing? What a failed program that is. How are visas doing? That is a failed program. Immigration is a failed program. It goes on and on and on. Service is going down, and the cost of government is going up. Who pays for it? Canadians do.

Finally, I will talk about economic performance. One thing I had hoped the government was going to include in the budget was something addressing the issue of competitiveness. We compete with other countries around the world for capital, for investment and for human resources, and we have a productivity gap in this country that continues to grow. Canadians are producing less and less product. That is undermining our national competitiveness, and it is driving inflationary pressures. Every economist will tell us that. There was nothing in the budget to address that gaping hole in our productivity.

I have had so little time to flesh out why we, as Conservatives, cannot support the budget. This is a failed budget. Canada has a failed government, and Canadians deserve better.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Speaker, just a few minutes ago, in his speech, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman talked about the fact that the Harper government cut the defence budget in order to balance the books. I notice that my hon. colleague across the way is also talking about balancing the books. It just seems like the Conservatives sometimes want it both ways. They talk about balancing the books, but then on each individual thing, they say, “Oh, but we need to increase that, and we need to increase this.”

I would ask the hon. member opposite this: Does he agree with his party's defence critic that we should cut defence spending to balance the books?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way just had an opportunity to ask the defence critic that question.

I would suggest to the member that it was her finance minister who, last year, said that she could balance the budget in four years. How would she have done that? It would have required controlling spending and being responsible with taxpayer dollars, which is something the finance minister has been unable to do. That is why we will not support an irresponsible budget.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague has spent a lot of time telling us that we need to shrink government and reduce debt and the deficit. I understand that; he is a Conservative. I respect his point of view, even though I do not share it.

That being said, the government has fundamental responsibilities that should be important, even to a Conservative. One of those responsibilities is employment insurance. He and I will both agree that a company like Sunlife is not going to provide a decent private-sector EI program.

For years, the Liberal government has been promising to reform the EI system. We need to expand coverage, ensure that there is no longer an EI spring gap and change the way it is funded, because we are going to shift the burden of pandemic-related expenses to our businesses and workers. Does my colleague agree that the government has broken its promise, and does he think that the system needs to be reformed?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague and I might agree that the EI system must be reformed but disagree on how it should be reformed.

In terms of his suggestion that I would advocate for shrinking government, I will say that I did not mention that in my speech. I talked about controlling spending. If we control spending and grow the economy, we suddenly have the capacity to deliver the services that Canadians need. It is about balancing those two things, and I believe that, as a Conservative government, we will be able to get that done.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which focused on fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget and a zero deficit. I would simply like to remind my colleague that a deficit was posted in eight of the nine years of Stephen Harper's Conservative government. The only year that did not show a deficit was the year before the election, and that was because his previous government had sold the GM shares it purchased during the auto sector crisis. It was a bit artificial.

I have two questions for my colleague. What would he cut and where would he look for the additional money to balance the budget?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud of the Harper years. During the Harper years, of course, the globe experienced an economic crisis that Canada also had to address. The member knows that Canada was the last country in the G7 to enter that global recession and the first to emerge from it. This occurred because of the management of Stephen Harper. I am very proud of our accomplishments.

By the way, the member is right that, in 2015, we left the Liberal government a surplus of $2 billion. We had balanced budgets. Since that time, the Liberal government has been unable to achieve balanced budgets. In fact, the deficits this government has incurred are actually atrocious when we look at the generational debt that has been created for my children and my grandchildren and for his.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, every single day we hear new stories and new reports about the affordability crisis in this country. Canadians are struggling. Never mind luxuries; basic necessities are out of reach for far too many Canadian families.

Food bank usage continues to skyrocket and break records across the country. Some have even resorted to dumpster-diving to feed their families. Mortgages and rent prices have nearly doubled since the Liberals have taken office and nine out of 10 young Canadians have reportedly given up on the dream of home ownership. This costly coalition is squeezing Canadians' drive.

Budget 2023 was yet another opportunity for the NDP-Liberal government to course-correct. Conservatives put forward three clear demands to support Canadians in the lead-up to the budget. We asked for the elimination of the inflationary carbon tax and deficits, lower taxes so that it pays to work and the removal of the gatekeepers who are driving up the cost of housing. Not a single one of these demands was met in the budget. Instead, the finance minister doubled down on her government's record of higher taxes and inflationary deficits.

Budget 2023 is an absolute failure. It is a failure even by the finance minister's own standards. Just a year ago she stood in this place and told Canadians that the country's debt-to-GDP ratio was her “fiscal anchor” and that it must decline for Canada's finances to be sustainable. In fact, she said it was a line that she would not cross. Budget 2023 crosses that line, so according to the government's own finance minister, this costly coalition's inflationary debt and deficits are unsustainable.

Budget 2023 introduces $40.1 billion in additional deficit spending that will be paid for by the taxpayers. That number is almost $10 billion more than forecasted just last fall. The Prime Minister has added more to the national debt than all other prime ministers combined, racking the debt up to $1.22 trillion. That breaks down to nearly $81,000 per household in Canada.

The Prime Minister's new spending in this budget alone costs every Canadian household an additional $4,200. It is the Canadian taxpayers of today and tomorrow that will pay the price for Liberal mismanagement. The cost to service Canada's debt has nearly doubled in two years climbing from $24.5 billion to $43.9 billion. That is money that is added to the government's ledger annually but that delivers no services or benefits to Canadians.

The reality of this costly coalition's inflationary debt and deficits is that it is adding more pressure and more costs to the household budgets of Canadians. They are responsible for driving up inflation and interest rates. What is even more concerning is that in budget 2023, we find out that there is no longer a path to a balance in Canada's budget projections. The government has completely abandoned any efforts to balance the budget. Canadians are being squeezed from both sides.

Despite the endless deficits of this government, Canadians are still paying more in taxes than ever before. Payroll taxes are costing workers and small businesses more this year and the increased carbon tax is driving up the cost of everything. It is making it more expensive for Canadians to drive to work, buy groceries or heat their home.

For those in the communities that I represent and for rural Canadians across this country those costs are even more punishing. We know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that the average family is paying more in carbon taxes than they get back in rebates and now the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has finally admitted that as well. The costly coalition's high-tax agenda is cutting directly into the paycheques of hard-working Canadians and inflationary deficits are ensuring that whatever is left of their paycheques does not go nearly as far as it once did.

This NDP-Liberal coalition is costing Canadians more and more, but they are not getting more for their money. Canadians are not getting better or more efficient government services. In fact, some line items were noticeably missing from the budget. The budget offered no support for our rural municipalities, for the retroactive RCMP wage cost that is constraining their municipal budgets. The one-time back pay costs were negotiated by the Liberal government, and it was their decision to not consult or include the municipalities in those decisions. The negotiated agreement far exceeds what it told municipalities to plan for, and it has left them holding the lion's share of the bill.

Certainly, our RCMP members deserve appropriate pay for the work that they do, work that is so important to our communities, even more so as the Liberal government's catch-and-release crime policies are making our communities feel less and less safe. The fact is that the government failed to consult with the municipalities, and the Liberal government is the one that should be responsible for that one-time cost. Those costs have serious implications for the municipalities in my riding, and yet there is no relief for them in this budget bill.

Another noticeably missing line item from the budget, and subsequently the budget implementation bill, is a time to attach benefit for adoptive and intended parents. The government has been promising parity to adoptive parents since the 2019 election, and the creation of a new benefit has been in the minister's mandate letters since then. The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion publicly alluded to the long-promised benefit, but it is nowhere to be found. Adoptive and intended parents should not have to keep waiting to get the parity they deserve and that they need.

My private member's bill addresses this inequity, and I sincerely hope that it finds support from all sides of this House. It is time that Canada works for the people who work. Budget 2023 and this budget implementation bill fail hard-working Canadians. They fail to ensure that Canadians could get ahead when they work hard and they play by the rules. They fail to reverse the inflationary deficits and taxes that are burdening Canadians and limiting their ability to provide for themselves and their families.

This budget proves that this costly coalition is unable and unwilling to reverse course on its harmful policies. Only with a change of government would Canadians get the relief that they so desperately need and deserve. Only Conservatives have a plan to make Canada work for everyday Canadians. Conservatives would lower taxes so that hard work does pay off. We would keep more money in the pockets of Canadians so that they could spend more of their own money on what they need and their priorities.

Conservatives would reverse inflationary deficits that are driving up inflation and interest rates within this country, and we would eliminate the costly carbon tax, a tax that is driving up the cost of basic necessities on just about everything in this country, all while doing nothing for the environment. We know that because the Liberal government is lining its pockets off the backs of Canadians while missing every single one of its emissions targets that it sets for itself. Conservatives would also remove government gatekeepers who are contributing to the soaring housing costs.

Those are all common-sense principles and policies that Canadians deserve, but that are nowhere to be found in this budget. This costly coalition has put forward a budget bill that for the sake of Canadians cannot be supported.

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

Madam Speaker, every so often we get a sense of what it is the Conservatives are really up to.

The critic for the defence department says that they are going to work towards a balanced budget, that they are going to be doing some cutting and that defence is on the chopping block. He has made it very clear. The Conservatives support cutbacks to defence. The Conservatives have also made it very clear that they would get rid of the dental program.

We just had a major announcement for the community of St. Thomas and in fact all of Canada with the Volkswagen electric battery plant. It would be Canada's largest factory. The leader of the Conservative Party has been very critical of it. Could the member explain why the Conservative Party does not support it?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, one thing that we have noticed with the government is it does not have any fiscal restraint. When there is defence of the Prime Minister going on lavish holidays or even going to a state funeral and spending $6,000 a night, which is Canadian taxpayers' money, there is a problem. There is so much wasteful spending from the government, which could be going to help Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, in her speech, my colleague spoke about the gatekeepers of housing construction. This gives me an opportunity to remind her that Quebec is the only province with a permanent program for the construction of social housing among other things.

With respect to housing construction, the worst gatekeeper for many years has been the federal conditions. The national housing strategy in particular has deprived poor Quebeckers of housing because much time was lost in administrative delays.

Does my colleague agree that the federal government's conditions have hindered the development of housing? Is she ready to admit that money to help build housing should be paid directly to the Quebec government without any conditions and with respect for its areas of jurisdiction?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am someone in this place who is on the record about respecting provincial jurisdiction. I believe provinces actually know better than the federal government does when it comes to their own jurisdiction and what works. Again, I respect provincial jurisdiction and provinces know what is best for the people who live in them.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the member talked about this budget including harmful policies. It is because of the NDP that the budget included $13 billion over five years and $4.4 billion a year on an ongoing basis to support dental care.

How can she describe that as a harmful policy?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, what is in the budget is a lot of spending. I mentioned in my speech the RCMP: our municipalities are being struck with millions. Some of my municipalities have millions of one-time, retroactive pay. There are places where there is spending in the budget and there are places where the spending is missing. I think it is imperative the government be prudent on what it spends that money on.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe I clearly heard my hon. colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster say that we needed to remove the gatekeepers who stop home building.

What federal department or federal operation has anything to do with local home building?

I also respect the provinces and I do think that is under provinces and municipalities. I agree that we should remove barriers to home building, but I do not think that resides with the federal government.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think this particular Liberal government has a problem with railroading provinces and provincial jurisdiction, and respecting that. I really believe that if we had a different mindset coming to the table working with municipalities and working with the provinces, we would see a more collaborative approach and things would get done, as opposed to the federal government always wagging its finger and telling the provinces what to do.

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

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to enter into debate to discuss the issues that are impacting my constituents.

I would like to note, before I get into the substance of my debate, how ironic it is that the Liberals often claim that Conservatives are somehow holding up their agenda by simply doing our jobs, and I would like to highlight how yesterday was a clear example of how that is a falsehood in every way imaginable. Yesterday, Conservatives were ready to debate the budget. In fact, we even moved a motion, in a procedural manner, to help ensure we could get to debate the matter. What did the Liberals do? They wanted to dither and delay, and the consequences are that now we have some late-night sittings. I fear that, in the not-too-distant future, we will see time allocation moved, where once again the Liberals will shut down the ability for us to meaningfully debate the important issues, like budget 2023 and, specifically, the bill we have before us today, one of the budget implementation acts.

I will share a few observations before getting into what my constituents have shared with me about this matter. There are big costs and big announcements, but few results and even fewer benefits. The consequences of that are that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are feeling the effects of now nearly eight years of Liberal mismanagement of our economy, Liberal mismanagement of the federal government and Liberal mismanagement of virtually everything the government touches.

More and more Canadians are losing confidence in the ability to receive even the most basic services, the most basic things a government should be able to accomplish. Canadians are losing faith in those institutions. Instead of the government being able to focus on things like governing, instead of it being able to focus on things like signing a deal with public servants that is two years late, we see the Prime Minister, time and time again, embroiled in scandal.

My advice to any Liberal in this place is to cut that guy loose. He is damaging their credibility to accomplish anything and is damaging and eroding the trust Canadians need to have in their institutions.

When we look at budget 2023, the big picture is not that rosy. We see the fiscal and economic outlook of our country increasingly discouraging for so many. Nowhere is that more clear than in the fact that we are likely going to see a recession. The definition of a recession is a contraction of the GDP over two consecutive quarters. That is the economic definition of what a recession is.

I would expand that a little to include what I would call a “functional” recession. If we take into account the per capita GDP, Canada would have been in a recession for many of the last quarters, certainly the last years, with a few exceptions as we saw rebounds from COVID. It certainly was not just because of COVID. The economy was not doing well prior to COVID. Even though the government pumped out hundreds of billions of dollars of cash, deflating the value of the Canadian dollar, we are seeing Canadians who are not getting ahead.

We see a deficit of $40.1 billion, and the budget will not be balanced for years and years. We see a massive deficit, to the point where the debt-servicing costs, if one can believe it, are greater than the deficit itself. Canadians are needing to borrow to even be able to keep up with the extreme spending of the Prime Minister, who, I suspect, does not know how to balance a budget in his own life, but certainly not that of the government.

We see $43 billion in net new spending. We see $63 billion in gross new spending. The impact per Canadian household is absolutely astonishing, as is the debt, which is rising to well over a trillion dollars. The consequence is that it is not the government's debt. The Prime Minister may have that illusion. In fact, he said during the COVID pandemic that the Liberals took on debt so Canadians would not need to.

Here is a reality check for the Liberals: It is Canadians who carry that debt. The consequences of that have hit the pocketbook of every single Canadian, and the failure to recognize that has devastating consequences on Canadians. The impacts of this budget and the overall fiscal mismanagement are certainly severe.

It is interesting to look at the polls over the last while. Generally, when big dollars get spent in Ottawa, there is a bump in the polls. We have not seen that. Some would suggest it is because of the Prime Minister's scandalous behaviour, and some would suggest it is because of some of the absurdity that members opposite often spout out, but I suspect that Canadians are getting wise to the fact that, time and time again, the Liberals are just tired and have no new policies.

In fact, we see that they have nothing new to offer, by the fact that one of the keynote commitments in this budget is not even a new rebate or a new benefit for Canadians, but is, rather, simply a renamed one within the increase for which we have ensured an expedited passage through the House because we see the value in Canadians having a few extra dollars to be able to afford things like groceries or home heating. The irony is that they simply renamed the GST rebate as the grocery rebate. They are functionally acknowledging that Canadians cannot afford their groceries. The reality is that the Prime Minister and the Liberals have created economic circumstances in which Canadians are suffering in ways that are absolutely astounding.

I had the honour of having dinner with some beekeepers from my constituency. Although I cannot reference whether they are or are not present here, it was an honour to talk about some of the issues our nation is facing and to hear from individuals who are facing the consequences of some of these things.

Like many in this place, I ask my constituents questions on a regular basis, whether that is through town halls or surveys and different things like that. I would like to read into the record, in the time I have left, some of the responses I received from a recent mail-out. I got about 700 or 800 responses, so it is a pretty good representation of the folks in rural Alberta. These are regular, hard-working folks who received my survey, which went out, on paper, to every household in my constituency, plus a whole bunch of emails I was able to send out as well.

Let me say that the picture is not very rosy when we see the consequences of the Liberal economic mismanagement. There were 97.5% of people who said that inflation has directly impacted them, and close to 90% of people have seen their grocery bills grow by $100 or more on a weekly basis. That so-called grocery rebate, the renamed GST rebate because they could not even come up with a new idea, is not even close to covering what Canadians are paying. There were 89.2% of my constituents who told me that their utility bills have grown by $100 or more every month.

Let us get into the just transition. I have a suspicion that the members on this side probably know how my constituents would feel about this. When I asked my constituents, 94.3% of respondents said no, 2.5% of respondents were uncertain, and 3.2% said they supported the just transition. Only 3.2% of those in east central Alberta support the Prime Minister's attempts to take over the energy sector.

There is a whole host of other things. One of the questions I asked was about the need to ensure that fiscal policy is a priority within government. Two-thirds of constituents said that it needs to be a priority and that they do not see that under the management of the current Prime Minister. We are seeing huge costs that are of not even a little benefit, but are pain being inflicted upon Canadians. I would note as well that, in the back of this omnibus budget bill, which the Prime Minister, in another broken promise among many, said he would never introduce, we see that the Prime Minister is unilaterally extending the equalization formula.

Once again, the elitism demonstrated by the Prime Minister is devastating the unity of this country. The number one job of any prime minister should be to unify this country, yet the current Prime Minister has done nothing but divide it for his personal political gain, and the consequences are devastating.

I would simply conclude by saying—

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, what an absolute load of revisionist history that was. The member said that the economy was not doing well even before COVID. We had the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and we still do, by the way. We had an AAA credit rating. We had the lowest unemployment rate since we started recording it in the 1960s. To suggest that the economy was not absolutely booming in Canada before COVID is absolutely ludicrous, but I am not surprised to hear it from that member.

What I find even more interesting from Conservatives is that they seem to be really hung up on the idea that we are branding a GST rebate as a grocery rebate. Who cares what we call it? At the end of the day, the Conservatives are voting against it. They are voting against Canadians' getting more GST back to help them with the rising costs that have been affected by global inflation.

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

Madam Speaker, that member is unequivocally incorrect. Conservatives allowed that measure to be expedited, so he should apologize and retract that statement, because it is untrue. If we want to talk about revisionist history, it was the finance minister on those Liberal benches who said, only last year, that we would never see an increase to the debt-to-GDP ratio in this country. What happened? Obviously, they were either untruthful or they did not understand the economic reality. Canadians can judge for themselves. When it comes to the reality Canadians face, they were not doing well before COVID, they suffered during COVID, and they continue to suffer now. For the Liberals to suggest otherwise is untrue.

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

Madam Speaker, our emotional colleague gave a very interesting speech.

He told us that Canada is not yet in a recession because the GDP is going up. He is inventing some sort of recession that he calls a “functional” recession, where he tells us the per capita GDP is going down. That means, in his opinion, that the Canadian population is growing too quickly.

First, if we receive too many immigrants, it is likely a sign of economic success. Then, according to the calculation he pulled out of thin air, is he not saying that he thinks Canada's immigration targets are too high?

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

Madam Speaker, let us look at the facts. Canadians are suffering, and here is the reality: The Liberals have destroyed confidence in so many aspects of our institutions, including the immigration system. We see that there are longer lineups than ever. Now that there is a general strike on, I shudder to think how many people are trying to pursue a better life, people who want to become Canadians and are going through the lawful process but are being denied that ability because of the government's mismanagement. Nonetheless, we have the government also encouraging lawbreakers, encouraging what is called “irregular immigration”, which affects the member's province specifically, as well as all border provinces across the country.

I think it is rich that the government claims to be standing up for the middle class when, in reality, it is diminishing it and diminishing the prosperity Canadians, including new Canadians, should be able to attain.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about the fiscal and economic outlook of our country, but also about how Canadians are struggling, and I want to raise one issue that impacts seniors in particular. I was disappointed, because the budget made no mention of pharmacare. Right now, one in five Canadians is not taking the medicine they need, because they cannot afford to pay for it. This disproportionately impacts seniors. Seniors are skipping their doses, cutting pills in half and ending up in the hospital because they cannot afford essential medication.

The member also spoke about reducing government spending. The national single-payer pharmacare program would save government money. The annual savings would be incredible. Within a few years, it would save an estimated $5 billion per year. It has been over two decades since the Liberals promised Canadians pharmacare, so does the member agree that the government should stop putting the profits of big pharmaceutical companies ahead of what Canadian families need, and deliver single-payer universal pharmacare?

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

Madam Speaker, I have two points. First, the irony of a member of the socialist New Democrats suggesting that somehow there is something wrong with the budget they have said they support no matter what happens, outside of a few rather vague commitments made in the so-called “confidence and supply agreement”, is somewhat rich.

The second point is that we have a Prime Minister who has refused to take seriously his obligation to work with the provinces to ensure that the provinces can deliver the health care Canadians expect. We have seen that time and time again, and now we are seeing it with a unilateral extension of the equalization formula as a little side item in the budget bill. The reality is that Canadians deserve better, certainly better—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and honour to rise in this place, even when it is time to speak on yet another poorly prepared Liberal budget, as I am here to do tonight.

Budget day used to be the most exciting day of the year in the House of Commons, but it fell flat. It was ridiculous. The finance minister stood up, green dress, saying everything is fine in Canada. Well, this just in: It is not fine in Canada. To the contrary, this country is in massive trouble and a difficult economic position. Canadian families are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet, and businesses are struggling every day just to keep their doors open because of the carbon tax, which is one of the reasons I am hearing in my province of Saskatchewan.

I will agree that 2022 was a year of high inflation, massive deficits, a rising cost of living and tax hikes, and 2023 looks like it will be much of the same. I remember that not a long time ago, the finance minister said we would have deficit inflation. The member for Carleton, in the House, for over two years, signalled there was going to be massive inflation. The member for Carleton was right. When we continue to spend and spend, as this government has done, we are going to get inflation trouble, and that is what happened in 2022.

We are in an economic crisis that has impacted Canadians across regions and all age groups. As we have mentioned in the House a lot, one in five Canadians is skipping meals. The average rent in this country has nearly doubled in the last eight years. The down payment needed to buy a house has now doubled, and inflation continues to drive grocery prices higher and higher. For young Canadians, the dream of starting a family or even owning their own house is getting further and further out of reach.

For many families, there is a growing reliance on food banks, and I see it in my city of Saskatoon. More and more families each month, unfortunately, arrive at the food bank looking for food to tide them over for a paycheque or at the end of the month. We have never seen the numbers so high in my city. Saskatchewan is the economic engine right now of this country, yet we have many families visiting the food bank in my city. It is really tough right now to put gas in vehicles or even sign kids up for sports. Many seniors living on fixed incomes are having to choose between filling the fridge and paying the rent.

We had a constituency week two weeks ago. I have the largest number of seniors facilities in Saskatchewan. That is right: Saskatoon—Grasswood is number one in Saskatchewan for seniors facilities. I spent a lot of time visiting them over the two-week period, and everything is going up: food, rent and heat. In fact, at one facility, which I will not name, during the round table, seniors told me that rent was going up $15 a month. Last year, that facility did not raise the price of rent, but it had to raise it this year, in 2023, by $15. For many, that is a drive-through trip at Tim Hortons. However, these seniors were stressed out over the $15 extra they are going to be paying next month on their rent. That speaks volumes about what has happened in this country.

We emerged from a financial crisis in 2007-08 with a stronger economy than any other country in the G7. Our economy was growing steadily because it was competitive. We were aggressively exploring international trade. We had a government focused on fiscal restraint. However, we have lost that. We have lost our competitiveness.

Just today, a story in a newspaper in Saskatchewan said that Vital Metals has halted construction of rare earths at the University of Saskatchewan. That is the same facility where, about six weeks ago, the Prime Minister was gladly sharing photos. He was there at Vital Metals. Well, now it is shut down. This is the sort of economy we are losing not only in Saskatoon and Saskatchewan, but certainly across the country.

What happened? What changed between 2015 and now that has led to the massive economic problems we see? Well, I think we can all point to 2015, when the Liberals came to power in October. Do we remember the early promise that they would just have small deficits that would be gone within three years? What has that turned out to be? It is massive deficits blown right out of the water.

We are eight years into the Liberal government's reign, and it has added more debt to the books than any other prime minister in the history of this country for over 150-plus years. It has blown that out in eight short years. Fiscal restraint, as members know, has been thrown right out the window, has led to record levels of inflation and has certainly driven up interest rates.

It was interesting listening to the finance minister as she was preparing for the budget, because a month before she made the announcement that everything would be fine and the Liberals would haul in their spending and control it, she was talking to the banks in the country. They all said she needed to reel in spending, so we were prepared for that. Wow, did Canadians get a surprise when she announced the budget that day in this House.

What does the finance minister propose to do to fix the problems her government has created? Unfortunately, it is more of the same, as we found out the day the budget came out.

This year, the minister proposed to tack on another $43 billion to the debt, with no path at all to balance the budget. When the Liberals came to Parliament as government in 2015, they said that after three years they would balance everything. However, eight years in and they have not even come close to balancing the budget.

The finance minister also proposed to continue to raise taxes, including the carbon tax. By 2030, which is seven years away, the government's two carbon taxes could add 50¢ per litre to the price of gas. Diesel in this country is roughly about $1.80 and is going to be over two dollars again this summer. Then we will all sit here and bark about why food prices have gone up. Well, it is because of the transportation costs the government is imposing with its carbon tax. As we have seen from coast to coast, the carbon tax is adding to everyday expenses.

What should we do? Well, any plan should focus on three pillars. On this side of the House, for the last eight years, we have talked about lowering taxes, tackling high inflation and removing the government gatekeepers that make it more difficult to get business done here in Canada. We have seen that. I just mentioned that Vital Metals is closing today in Saskatoon.

We need to lower taxes. At a time when so many Canadians are already struggling to make ends meet, the obvious first step is to make sure they have more money in their pockets. Then they can pay down their debt and maybe enjoy a vacation, something the Prime Minister casually goes on every two or three months. Normal Canadians are cutting back on vacations. In a recent survey, we heard that six in 10 will not be taking a vacation this summer as it is simply too expensive.

This year, a family of four is going to spend over $1,000 more on food. A family will also pay between $402 and $847 because of the carbon tax, even after the rebate. The government says that it will all be revenue-neutral, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer knows too well that in my home province of Saskatchewan it is not revenue-neutral.

We are concerned in this country. We are concerned because of the out-of-control spending and the growing deficit we are seeing in this country of $1.22 trillion. I cannot add that up fast enough for every household. The average Canadian household share is now $81,000. How are we going to get this down? I think that is the biggest area of concern for the next Conservative government, because Canadians want to get the debt down and are looking forward to a new Conservative government to show them the way.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, in my colleague's speech, there were several instances where I think he shared with all of us in the House and with Canadians misinformation, perhaps, or was not clear on the facts.

There was one in particular where the hon. member referenced the idea that the Prime Minister goes on vacation every three months. With all of the research the hon. member has done, can he please share with us, in detail, and with his constituents, given that the Prime Minister's schedule is public, what vacations the Prime Minister has gone on? There should be four in the last year. Can he name all four vacations the Prime Minister has gone on?

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

Madam Speaker, the Aga Khan's island is one. He has gone to Tofino when he should not have done that. He just went to Jamaica for $9,000 a night, which he should be paying back out of his own pocket. He has not admitted to that in the House.

The Prime Minister, for the last week, should be paying $81,000 for his recent trip. He will not do it. It was a friend of the family for 50 years. That way, he does not have to pay for any rental on a $9,000—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, he only named two vacations and one was in 2016. Could he actually answer the question?

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

That is debate.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

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

Madam Speaker, it was a pleasure to listen to my colleague. We thought he was covering a hockey game, his voice is so pleasant to listen to. That being said, I thank him for his concern for the middle class.

I would like him to talk about an issue that is far from trivial but is not properly addressed in this budget; we are talking about measures for an air transportation security charge, which is going to be passed on to the consumer. The problem is that for us, even airplanes are no longer reliable. Air Canada no longer covers Abitibi—Témiscamingue and the regions in Quebec. There is a real problem with respect to air travel into rural communities.

What does my colleague think of this situation? What is the reality in Saskatoon? Should there be real reform to ensure that every rural destination in Canada is properly served?

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

Madam Speaker, yes, it is a big concern in western Canada with Air Canada. It seems to have pulled out. We only have two flights a day, hopefully, from Saskatoon to Toronto and from Vancouver to Saskatoon. It had many more. It is down to four flights for the Diefenbaker airport. That is all it does. We are concerned because Saskatchewan is the economic engine of this country right now.

For the mining companies, like Cameco, NexGen and others, for the university, for the rare earths and for agriculture, everything I have talked about, we desperately need more flights in and out of Saskatoon. We are not getting that. It is the same for Regina. We talked about it as a caucus in February, but what we are seeing is that Air Canada is leaving western Canada, and Westjet is trying to fill the void.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague brought up the carbon tax a number of times. In my riding, the soup and salad bowl of Canada and home to the Holland Marsh, we are seeing onions come in from Egypt and Morocco. I talked to farmers and they tell me we are losing our competitive edge on pricing now with the carbon tax.

In my riding, we have no choice but to dry our beans and our onions with propane. We cannot even get natural gas lines in with infrastructure spending.

I am wondering if my colleague could comment further on the carbon tax and how it is affecting our agriculture.

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

Madam Speaker, we have lost our competitiveness in this country. It worries me. I am worried for vegetable farmers in the member's area, who are trying to get workers in to help out with planting and the harvest. We are about two to three weeks away from planting in my province of Saskatchewan. We are the breadbasket of the world right now, but the carbon tax is killing every farmyard in my province. Food prices are going up because of the carbon tax, and it will continue to go up and put tremendous stress on every food bank we have in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise this evening to debate Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

I would like to start by wishing my daughter, Julia, a very happy birthday yesterday. She brings us much joy.

The budget was tabled about a month ago. We have already voted in principle on these measures, but this bill is a chance to debate in more detail about the legislative changes needed to carry out the initiatives outlined in the budget.

The most impactful part of this budget is the full funding for dental coverage for all Canadians making less than $90,000 who do not already have coverage through an existing plan. This would change the lives of millions of Canadians.

I keep hearing stories from friends and constituents who grew up without dental care because their families simply could not afford to go to the dentist. One friend phoned me soon after she heard about the new dental care plan. She is retired now, but grew up painfully shy after having many of her teeth pulled out as a child because of the lack of regular dental care. That shyness changed her life and personality so much that she still avoids social gatherings. She was very emotional when she told me how much the new dental plan would really make a difference to the lives of Canadians of all ages, but particularly to those of young Canadians. Her example is a clear case of how the lack of dental care is the single visible mark of poverty for Canadians. This dental care program will change all of that forever.

This is an addition to our public health care system that New Democrats have been calling for ever since Tommy Douglas brought universal health care to our country in the 1960s. It would not have happened without the NDP using its power in the current minority government to force the Liberals to act. Both the Liberals and Conservatives voted against dental care in the last Parliament when former MP Jack Harris introduced dental care legislation in this very chamber.

The other missing piece in our national public health care system is pharmacare. Right now, Canadians can go to a doctor for free, but if they are prescribed medication for their condition, they have to pay for that themselves. Millions of Canadians cannot afford their prescriptions and end up in emergency rooms, putting pressure on the critical care part of our health care system, which is already overloaded. A public pharmacare program would provide free prescription medications to all Canadians, while saving us a minimum of $4 billion a year. It is a no-brainer. The Liberals have promised to bring in framework legislation for pharmacare by the end of this year, so it is really concerning there is no mention of it at all in this budget, not a peep.

There is good news in this budget about investments in the clean-energy economy. Significant tax credits will spur development in growth in this critical area. Thanks to the NDP, those tax credits will be tied to good jobs with good union-scale wages. Too often governments give out millions of dollars to big companies only to find that the funds went to executive bonuses and a boost in shareholder dividends. The strings attached to these incentives will ensure that workers are at the centre of the shift to a new clean-energy economy.

I used to work at the University of British Columbia, so I know first-hand how valuable investments in higher education can be. They are essential in this new knowledge economy. This budget has some help for post-secondary students. It will increase the Canada student grants by 40%, up to a maximum of $4,200.

However, the government totally missed the mark by not including anything to help graduate students who are living in poverty. Grad students work full time in their studies. It is their job. Many grad students across Canada are funded by scholarships from the federal government. These students are our best and our brightest, and these scholarships have remained at the same dollar figure and same level since 2003, for 20 years. Masters students are now trying to live on $17,500 per year. It is below the minimum wage. It is below the poverty line.

Students and researchers have been campaigning for over a year to change this. They had big demonstrations here in Ottawa last summer. They appeared before House of Commons committees. The science and research committee recommended that the government not only increase the amounts of individual scholarships, but also increase the number of scholarships. This would help us compete in the information economy and help us stop the brain drain of these young researchers moving to other countries that properly value their talents.

The students were profoundly disappointed when this budget had nothing in it for them. Students and researchers across the country will be staging a big walkout on May 1 to highlight this lack of recognition from the government and this lack of respect. They will not give up until the government agrees to pay them enough so they can live above the poverty line while they generate the innovations that Canadian companies need.

Canadians pay some of the highest interchange fees on credit card payments in the world. This is a real hardship for small businesses that increasingly rely on credit card transactions. New Democrats have been calling for reduced fees for years, for decades. Jack Layton was big on this point. We want to put us on the same level as other countries.

In my role as small business critic, I have talked to Visa, Mastercard, Moneris, the banks, Aeroplan and other players. I know it is a complicated issue, so I was very happily surprised to see that the budget announced real action on this. The lowered fees will save small businesses an average of 27%, which is over $1 billion over five years.

We have been hearing a lot about labour issues in recent days with the job action by the federal civil service. The ability to withhold labour in the face of unfair pay and work conditions is the only power organized labour has. Unfortunately, companies have often chosen to bring in replacement workers when faced with striking workforces. This flies in the face of the right of workers to strike and creates divisions within communities and between neighbours.

The NDP has been trying to get anti-scab legislation passed in this place for years. I remember one of the first private members' bills in 2016, when I was a rookie here, was anti-scab legislation brought forward by one of my NDP colleagues. Unfortunately, the Liberals and Conservatives voted against that bill, as they have for every other piece of anti-scab legislation. Again, I am happy to see that the NDP has used its power here to force the Liberals to bring forward federal anti-scab legislation.

The big disappointment on the labour front in this budget is the lack of any real employment insurance reform. One thing the COVID epidemic quickly taught us was that most Canadian workers are not covered by El. Only 40% are covered. We desperately need a new El system to protect workers for future job losses. If the predictions of some economists for a recession in the near future are correct, those job losses may be just around the corner. We must be ready to protect Canadian workers if that happens.

As I said earlier, while the NDP supports this budget, it is not a budget that an NDP government would table. That is clearly shown on the revenue side of the ledger. Every year Canada forgoes billions of dollars in taxes through legal tax avoidance by Canadian corporations and wealthy individuals. Every year the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The government has made baby steps to reverse the trend that has been going on for decades.

In this budget, the government changed the alternate minimum rate from 15% to 20.5%. That will raise the amount that wealthy Canadians must pay no matter what tax deductions they declare. It will recoup about $3 billion over five years, and 99% of that increase will come from people making more than $300,000 per year.

What we need is a wealth tax that will force super-wealthy Canadians to pay their fair share. What we need is legislation that eliminates the option for Canadian companies to hide their money in offshore tax havens. What we need is an NDP government and a real NDP budget.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay for highlighting some really important measures in the budget this year.

Given that this week is National Tourism Week, and I have the honour to work very closely with my colleague on the all-party parliamentary tourism caucus, I wanted to highlight some things in the budget that relate to tourism. There are some major investments being made in supporting local events, in attracting large events like conventions to Canada, and many measures that will make it easier to travel within Canada. This includes at airports to make sure that passengers are able to be compensated more easily if there are issues with delays or cancellations.

Could my colleague speak more to the importance of tourism and how the budget this year is going to help this critically important sector right across the country?

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the work the member does with the all-party tourism caucus.

I come from a tourism riding as well. It is a big part of the economy in South Okanagan—West Kootenay. There are some things in the budget that would really help tourism. There is increased funding to Destination Canada.

However, when I talk to hotels and restaurants, all the businesses in my riding that depend on and grow with tourism, they say that what tourism really needs is a bigger, more available labour force, and what that labour force needs is more housing. There is very little in this budget on housing. That is at the core of so many of the things that are holding the Canadian economy back.

I would simply ask the government to be more bold with housing investments that would allow us to bring in more workers to create the wealth—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated my NDP colleague's speech. He talked about the widening gap between the rich and the poor in Canada.

The Gini coefficient indicates that, quite clearly, in the Liberal government's time in power, there is a wider gap between the people who are rich in this country and the people who are, as they would like to say, trying to join the middle class, although the middle class is the middle at the end of the day. Anyway, between the bottom and the top, that gap is widening because of measures put in place by the Liberal government.

One of the issues in this budget is, of course, the flow-through tax, the increasing flow-through shares available for critical mineral companies. That is targeted at rich Canadians.

Would my colleague consider, in an NDP budget that he supports the government on, withdrawing that huge tax break for the rich in Canada in order to develop critical minerals?

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

Madam Speaker, I would say first off that the gap between the wealthy and the poor or less well-off Canadians has been growing for the last 40 years. It has been growing over multiple Conservative and Liberal governments. It is not a new phenomenon. It has happened ever since we started believing in trickle-down economics. Until we realize that does not work, that gap will continue to grow.

As for investments in critical minerals, that is something we have to do. It is something we have to encourage. However, what the NDP is concerned about is the wealth to individuals generated by that, to wealthy Canadians, should be taxed at a rate that does not make them uncomfortable but is their fair share of the tax. Too many people are—

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

For the last question, the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

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

Madam Speaker, last fall, I stood in the House and I asked a Liberal member if it was not time to eliminate fossil fuels. He said yes, in 2023, it is all going to stop, fossil fuels will no longer be subsidized. That is a promise that the Liberals made.

Unfortunately, in the budget, that is not the case at all. All sorts of direct and indirect assistance is still be provided for fossil fuels to companies that are already making astronomical profits. In 2022, Exxon Mobil made $56 billion in profits, Shell made $40 billion, adjusted to $36 billion, Chevron made $36 billion and BP made $27 billion.

There is a housing shortage in Canada, yet we continue to send billions of dollars to billionaire companies. I do not know what my colleague thinks about that.

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

Madam Speaker, this is something the NDP has been calling for, for years. It is something the Harper government promised to the G20 to do years ago.

The Liberal government has not even come up with a definition of what a fossil fuel subsidy is, what an inefficient subsidy is.

We see that the cost of the Trans Mountain pipeline is now at $30 billion. People complain about how much dental care—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns regarding the budget implementation act, 2023, No. 1. This type of bill obviously concerns me as the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, and I will explain why.

First of all, I find it hard to understand why such a fundamental segment of our society, the people who built our identity and to whom we owe so much, is once again being ignored in the measures announced in this 430-page tome. The government has thought of amending 59 laws, as well as tax regulations, and yet it has not provided anything for seniors, who are increasingly marginalized. This is totally unacceptable. It is crucial that budget bills be carefully scrutinized and that citizens be given the opportunity to voice their concerns, which does not appear to be happening. How else can we explain that the government has completely ignored seniors?

With that in mind, let me explore some of the issues that many of us have raised and that motivate our party to vote against Bill C-47.

This is not the first time that changes have been made here by the Liberal government through this process, but there is something pernicious about going about it this way. First, where is the transparency? Where is the predictability that people so desperately need to make decisions that affect their lives? It is simple. There is nothing in the bill for seniors, housing, long-term support or health care funding. That much people understand.

The bill also creates infrastructure for agencies that are not accountable to Parliament to manage the billions of dollars the government intends to invest in the green economic transition. No one can make me believe that there are not people who will just smell the money and not really care where that money goes.

I did manage to find some measures that are of particular interest to me, and I want to highlight them. After talking repeatedly about farm succession and the plight of our agricultural producers, one measure is worth mentioning, namely removing the uncertainty surrounding the taxable capital gain on intergenerational transfer of small businesses. This is a decades-long battle that I was part of and that many other colleagues, long before me or with me, were able to fight.

The text of the bill deals with a variety of issues related to agriculture in Canada, and I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to speak to the nuances that the government must consider if it wants to serve the interests of many ridings, including my own.

Nearly 50% of the land in Abitibi—Témiscamingue is undervalued. We still have a long way to go to ensure that our agricultural land is valued and used to feed the people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Quebeckers, Canadians and others. We must first ensure that we work on classifying agricultural land through a fund dedicated to the safeguarding of agricultural land. Such funding would allow Quebec and its municipalities to begin this important, or even critical, process.

Then, to encourage recultivation, subsidies comparable to those offered for reforestation must be introduced. This funding would allow our grain producers to increase their production, for example, and would allow our cattle producers to create new pastures for raising their livestock. Above all, these subsidies would be a more important lever for our young farmers by making it easier for them to access land. With this simple measure, our farmers would be able to put more of their products on the tables of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Quebec, Canada and the rest of the world, in addition to ensuring the sustainability of our villages and our rural communities as well as real and sustainable land use.

It is also important that the program to plant two billion trees be amended to exclude devalued agricultural land from the areas that are targeted by the program for tree planting. In my riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, the people who cleared that land are often still alive.

The government also announced $333 million dollars over 10 years for the dairy innovation and investment fund to help producers reduce the amount of solids non-fat that is sold for animal feed or disposed of and to increase their revenues.

The Bloc Québécois welcomes that compensation but strongly maintains that no amount can compensate for the breakdown of the supply management system and that the government should pass Bill C-282 to protect the system during future negotiations. In that regard, I want to thank most of my colleagues for supporting this bill.

With regard to the higher prices for nitrogen fertilizers because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the government is currently proposing to add $34.1 million over three years to the on-farm climate action fund to support the adoption of nitrogen management practices by eastern Canadian farmers. The Bloc Québécois finds this measure to be ineffective and even ridiculous and believes that the government should not be proposing such measures while imposing a 35% tax on fertilizer. Furthermore, it is important that the government make cash available to our farmers. Almost a year ago, I gave a speech calling on the government to set up an emergency account, similar to the one we had during the pandemic, to help our farmers, who have likely been the hardest hit by input and fuel costs.

According to a study by the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA, farmers are in such dire straits that one farm in 10 could go out of business within 12 months. That is serious. UPA's president for my region was quoted in the newspaper Les Affaires. I recommend that my colleagues read the article. It said that the increase in interest rates and in the cost of gas, inputs and fertilizer are taking a toll on farms' profit margins, which are already very narrow and, in some cases, non-existent. Furthermore, higher insurance premiums and stricter requirements imposed by insurance companies, which want changes made in very short time frames, are resulting in significant costs. For that reason, the government must create an emergency business account for our farmers.

I do want to point out that the budget does increase the interest-free portion of loans granted under the advance payments program from $250,000 to $300,000. However, once again, the government is focusing on producers' debt rather than their cash flow or the possibility of providing additional income.

There are measures for mining. One of the interesting measures in the budget is the tax credit for the development, extraction and recycling of critical and strategic minerals. The problem is that there is no mention of it in Bill C‑47, the first budget implementation bill. Is this going to be a repeat of what happened with the mineral exploration credits? As far as I know, none of the measures presented in last year's budget were implemented. The money for mineral exploration is therefore impossible to access. Is the same thing going to happen when it comes to applying these credits for businesses that recycle minerals, for example?

Abitibi—Témiscamingue is home to the only copper smelter in Canada. The smelter is working to reduce its greenhouse gas and arsenic emissions, and the new 30% tax credit could help it speed up its work. Furthermore, I know from my study at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology that we need to figure out how to boost metal recycling in Quebec and Canada, given that only 10% of the electronic devices recycled in Rouyn‑Noranda come from Canada.

In addition, our region currently has the only active lithium mine in Canada, in La Corne. Sayona Mining is an important player for the Abitibi—Témiscamingue region, and its willingness to process the resource close to the source is noteworthy.

Although the government is providing additional funding to the critical minerals centre of excellence, I still believe that it is essential that this centre have a presence in the mining regions. It needs to forge strong ties with our universities, such as the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témicamingue, and our colleges, such as the Industrial Waste Technology Centre, or CTRI, and the Cégep de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue, especially considering the Abitibi-Témiscamingue mining innovation zone project that is being developed in our region.

This mining innovation zone project could play a cutting-edge role in the mining industry in Quebec and Canada. It is immensely important in the sector, which is located near very large Canadian mines such as Agnico Eagle.

When representatives of Glencore appeared before the committee, they also mentioned this point and how important it is to the Quebec, Canadian and global mining ecosystem. The entire battery industry would benefit from having part of the critical minerals centre of excellence in Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Finally, the budget mentions the government's efforts to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples by providing $4 billion over seven years for urban, rural and northern housing. I welcome this. However, there is no new funding for on-reserve housing despite the urgent need. Once again, in my region, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, housing is a very important issue.

We have had a housing shortage for quite some time. Even before the pandemic, we were having difficulty building enough housing to meet demand. Rising interest rates are hurting construction and hampering our economic development. It is increasingly difficult to attract workers. I really do not want to see my region become a fly-in, fly-out community.

In closing, where is the money for housing in this budget? It is likely in the same place as the money for the most vulnerable seniors aged 65 and over, which is to say, nowhere.

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

Madam Speaker, with regard to affordable housing, does my colleague want to see more housing co‑ops? I know that there are many housing co-ops in Quebec. My colleague is from a rural riding. What would the solution be with respect to housing co-ops in a riding like Abitibi—Témiscamingue?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Milton for his interest. Yes, the co-op model is really great.

I am going to stray from the topic of the budget. We had an interesting problem with the Coopérative d'habitation Boréale. The reality of co-ops in rural areas is that we cannot have 200 or more units, as is the case with other co-ops. With roughly eight units, there is relatively the same proportion of units as there is in Montreal and Rouyn-Noranda, all things considered. However, CMHC has difficulty adapting budgets to the reality of regional co-ops. Changes are definitely required in that regard if we want to improve our rental capacity. Yes, the co-op model is part of the solution, but we must lower prices. The way to do that is to boost supply by building housing.

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

Madam Speaker, the NDP obviously has a nuanced view of the budget. There are some good things in it, mainly because we forced the Liberals to include them. Take, for example, the dental care plan for seniors and teenagers and the doubling of the GST tax credit, which will help those most in need. There is also the anti-scab legislation that is coming. We are going to force the Liberals to introduce it, even though they have always voted against that type of legislation.

One of the points that my colleague raised and that the NDP is also raising is that there is nothing in the budget about an EI reform, which many groups and unions in Quebec have been waiting for for many years. What would my colleague like to see in an EI reform that would meet the needs of workers in his community?

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

Madam Speaker, the matter of EI reform has been very important to me ever since I got into politics. A few months ago, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and I marched with the unions that were calling for EI reform. I went to see the picket lines in Rouyn-Noranda. I almost posted on Twitter that the member was not there, but I held back.

This issue is essential to me. I want to rise in the House to call for EI reform. It is unacceptable that so many workers who paid into the system all their lives so that they would have a social safety net are not eligible. That is completely outrageous. Things need to change. It is a matter of dignity.

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

Madam Speaker, if a country fails to preserve its food security and to value and support the people who make that food security possible, then no one will. At the end of the day, that country is only hurting itself.

We need farmers three times a day. Can my colleague offer one or two solutions for alleviating the burden on our farmers, including when it comes to the fertilizer they ordered before the war between Russia and Ukraine and have paid dearly for?

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

Madam Speaker, it is terribly shocking to see who are the real victims of the measures that had to be taken. These economic sanctions against Russia in the context of the invasion of Ukraine had economic repercussions that rippled all the way to our local farms.

The reality for farmers has changed, especially in Abitibi West, where fuel distribution networks do not reach naturally. With the massive increase in costs, one farmer told me that he used to pay $30,000 for diesel fuel, but his budget this year is up to $70,000. His bottom line and his survival are at stake. He had 200 head of livestock, which he will have to reduce to 125 because he can no longer afford to keep up an average-sized farm. He has to reduce the size of his farm.

All this is because the government's measures are not adapted to the reality of remote regions, and that is definitely a problem. Insurance costs will have to be adjusted to this reality. An emergency account will need to be created that will help our farmers access cash flow when they need it.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank all who will be listening and my husband at home, who I know stays up late. It means we are 52 years old, when it is 10 to nine and I am calling it “late”.

I really want to start this speech off by looking at where we are, looking at an Auditor General's report that just came out a month ago, and looking at how we have to move forward. I want to start by reading into the record the report called “Global Affairs Canada is unable to show the value of Canada’s international assistance in support of gender equality”. I want to read a bit of this report into the record so that we can understand setting this up. Really what I am looking for is accountability, transparency and fiscal responsibility, some things we have not seen from the government.

It reads:

A report from Auditor General Karen Hogan tabled...in the House of Commons concludes that Global Affairs Canada was unable to show how its implementation of Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy had contributed to improving gender equality in low- and middle-income countries. The department is unable to [see] the information contained in its files to report on the value derived from the approximately $3.5 billion spent yearly on bilateral development assistance projects or to provide Parliament and Canadians with a complete picture of the outcomes achieved for women and girls.

I am going to go to another part where it also found that Global Affairs Canada did not meet two of its three spending commitments under the feminist international assistance policy:

The department fell short on funding projects that directly supported the empowerment of women and girls or that were located in sub‑Saharan Africa, where the benefit in terms of reducing poverty and advancing gender equality is typically higher.

The reason I am bringing this forward is that it kind of sets the stage for where we are with the government. As we are looking at the budget, I put on the lens of the shadow minister for women and gender equality and youth, looking specifically at what the government is indicating in its budget. Knowing the Auditor General's report, I think we need to start looking at what is going on with the government.

As I look at the 2023 budget, this is something the government has indicated as part of its foreign aid feminist international assistance policy goal for 2030. We are talking about the government continuing to give out money, but we expect results, we expect accountability and we expect that when we ask how money has been spent, it would be able to show how the people in those areas have been impacted.

However, we have none of that information. I see a budget that says the government is going to go do all these wonderful things, but I do not see any of the tangible results, and that is why I absolutely oppose so many different things in the budget. I do not think the government understands fiscal responsibility, and that continues to be one my greatest challenges.

I have heard many people talk about the food bank. I think one of the saddest stories I heard was from a person from the food bank in our area who shared with me that another person who had gone to the food bank owned a home in our area that cost $800,000. However, this man was not able to put food on the table. There are many reasons, but I look at the fact that this man, who had purchased this home for his family, unfortunately was not aware of the variable or fixed interest rates.

I have a real problem with the fact that there was no customer service to help this person, who came to Canada and purchased a house, understand those things. There are lots of concerns there, and I do not want to point the finger, but at the same time I am finding that when this man had purchased a house for $800,000, he was able to do so because he came from a two-income family with a six-figure income. Subsequently, his family could not meet the goals of paying for their mortgage any longer.

Under the government, we have seen inflation go up so much. For example, a person had a mortgage that they paid biweekly. At one time, and I believe it was probably in April of last year, the principal, taxes and everything totalled $753. After everything going on with inflation, when they went back to the bank to renew their mortgage, their new mortgage rate was at $1,050. That is a substantial increase for anybody who is paying that type of money.

I want to also look at so many different things here. I submitted an OPQ a few weeks ago. I want to look at government accountability. I submitted an OPQ on March 2, and the question was, “With regard to the federal government’s funding of Gymnastics Canada being frozen in July 2022: (a) what was the original reason the government froze this funding; and (b) despite allegations of abuse and maltreatment within the sport still being unsettled, has this funding been reinstated and, if so, (i) on what date, (ii) for what reason?”

I would like to let everyone know it has been reinstated, but I do not know for what reason.

I want to read the response from Canadian Heritage on this:

...as a result of safe sport issues in the sport of gymnastics, Sport Canada froze funding to Gymnastics Canada and imposed the condition that Gymnastics Canada become a program signatory to Abuse-Free Sport, including the services of the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, to allow Canadian gymnasts to be able to access the independent safe sport mechanism and other support services offered.

Part two of this, though, is probably the most concerning thing that I have ever seen and, hopefully, I can have somebody share this with me. Part (b) says, “funding to Gymnastics Canada was reinstated on November 14, 2022, as the organization had met the condition of becoming a program signatory to Abuse-Free Sport on October 18, 2022.” Why do I find this really crazy? It is because of the timeline. We are talking about a timeline where I know that on November 22, many parliamentarians were able to view something called “Broken”. It was the story from Gymnastics Canada talking about the number of young athletes who had gone through issues. We have had over 600, closer to 700, signatories talking about Abuse-Free Sport.

The reason I am bringing this up, as I said, is the timeline. On November 14, the minister reinstated this funding. On November 22, we highlighted that abuse was still happening in Gymnastics Canada. At that same time, the status of women committee started to study the abuse in sport and started to see that there was a rampant issue that was happening across not just gymnastics but multiple sports here in Canada.

The government talks about OSIC and how it is going to work, and I wish I believed it. They said they signed on and they are all good. That just does not meet the mark for me because they signed on, but they are the same CEOs who allowed this abuse to continue. We know that over the last number of years, they have never reported the complaints properly and that these perpetrators remain in the sport, not just in gymnastics but other sports.

The government did not invest a single extra dollar in this after all of the allegations had been going on. The funding was put in in 2022. We know there needs to be a lot done. Why did the government not look at what we need to do next? Why is it looking at OSIC and saying it is all good, it is fine and as long as it signs this, it is not going to worry any further? Hopefully I can get some answers to that question.

I also want to talk about women and gender equality in the workplace. We know, according to statistics, the participation rate decreased by 28% during the pandemic. If we look at any mom, any sister, any daughter, any woman and many men as well, it was a very difficult time as women were wearing many hats: as daughters, trying to take care of their elderly and as parents, trying to teach their children the things they had missed at school because they were at home. These are huge concerns for me.

The government is not attacking some of the key issues. The government will talk about a $10-a-day child care program. I am going to let everyone know how that is working out in St. Thomas, Ontario. Currently, one of the early learning centres, probably one of best places parents can find if they want great child care, cannot find employees. Although parents will be able to get approximately $10-a-day child care, spaces are not available in our communities because there is no labour force for this.

We always see that the government really likes to put the cart before the horse. It should make sure that it has the young men and women who will be working in these programs going through the education process, ensuring that they will be able to take these jobs that the government is promising to parents and that their children will be cared for. These are some major issues.

I have talked about food bank usage. We have seen across this country, across the board, that middle-class families are walking into food banks needing their help right now. We know with the sports abuse that the government put money in, but it is actually doing nothing about it. We have seen with the foreign feminist policy that the government can throw $3.5 billion out there and it does not matter where the money falls, no one is going to be accountable. I would really like the government to start being accountable.

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

Madam Speaker, first I have a couple of quick corrections. It is not business as usual at Gymnastics Canada. A lot has changed. It has committed to an independent cultural review road map, the CEO has resigned, contrary to what my colleague said, and it is now in fact a signatory to OSIC and Abuse-Free Sport. These are the changes that we demanded. These are the changes that MPs from all parties demanded to see at Gymnastics Canada, and we are grateful to see that those changes are under way and progress is being made. Also, contrary to what the member said, in the budget there was $13 million for Sport Canada to develop a compliance unit so that we can continue to monitor the activities from that direction.

There was not a word about the $13-billion announcement for Volkswagen from this government, which the member attended recently. It is about creating green jobs, it is about creating the green economy of the future and investing in decarbonization electrification. Why was there not one passing mention on this budget implementation act about a $13-billion investment in—

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

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to ensure that this member of Parliament who looks over the sports file realizes that this was signed on November 14, and I am referring to gymnastics. It was not until close to March 2023 that the CEO actually resigned, so perhaps those facts are really important because it was not because of OSIC that he resigned. It was nothing to do with that, so let us look at that.

I would like to say I am one of the biggest champions for our community and I will continue to fight for prosperity in my community. That is my job as a member of Parliament. Although the Prime Minister likes to come and try to use me as a pawn, I am sorry but he is not winning there.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I appreciate in particular for her excellent interventions, notably on safe sport issues. She is a woman of commitment and what she said about gymnastics is a great example of that.

I would like to draw a parallel with restoring funding to Hockey Canada. I get the impression that the minister gave a bit of a blank cheque, in opposition to what she wanted. In fact, maybe we were the ones giving her the blank cheque. When she establishes structures, when all the elements are ultimately her responsibility and need to be accountable to her, that does nothing to change the culture of out-of-court settlements. She might even say that she is comfortable with the measures announced by Hockey Canada. Although I salute the Cromwell report and the will to go there, after four months, it cannot be said that a board of directors truly changed anything.

Is it somewhat the same situation in the world of gymnastics and is she prepared to give the minister this blank cheque?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member referred to Hockey Canada and we saw that with no accountability; not even after the London police reinvestigated. We have not seen anything. They have just once again signed over to Hockey Canada, saying that all is fine. We have seen the exact same thing with Gymnastics Canada. I would like to see accountability.

At the end of the day, when our children go to play sports, they must be safe. We need to ensure that coaches are well trained, that they have criminal record checks and that they have not abused a person in another province and then gone to coach the same sport in a different province. That is what we have seen happen here in this country. There has been zero accountability and these national sports organizations are continuing to let this go. I will continue to fight for athletes just as this member has done.

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

Madam Speaker, tonight we are hearing a lot about fiscal responsibility from the Conservatives. That is nothing new, and we are not surprised. However, they never seem to mention the fact that the Harper government ran deficits eight of the nine years it was in power, and it was not until the ninth year that it balanced the budget. Even then, it was because the government sold off the GM stock that it had bought during the auto crisis.

If the member really wants to eliminate the deficit, what is she going to do? Is she willing to go out and collect more revenue by stopping subsidies to oil companies or taxing billionaires? If not, what public programs and services does she intend to cut?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting because I do not think I have ever talked about cutting programs. We are talking about investing in things that are actually going to be accountable. I have talked about where the current government just continues to throw out money with band-aid approaches. When we are investing, we expect results, we expect fiscal responsibility and we expect there to be key indicators that are telling us how this money is spent and how it is actually improving the lives of Canadians. We are not talking about cutting. We are making sure that when we spend we actually spend wisely.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today, as always, here on the territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation. To them I say meegwetch.

We are here tonight to debate Bill C-47. Bill C-47 is not the budget. The budget is a different document. It is related, of course, but Bill C-47 contains those legislative changes that are necessary in order to have the measures in the budget, not all of them but some of them, move ahead.

The measures in the budget that are simply allocations of funds that do not require legislative changes will not be found in Bill C-47, and so I find myself strangely in the position, having studied Bill C-47, of thinking I might vote for it, even though I could not possibly vote for the government's budget. The budget has much in it that I could not support, such as increased subsidies for fossil fuels disguised as carbon capture and storage, and the use of fossil fuels to create hydrogen, thus taking what should be a green fuel and making it a fossil-fuel source again. However, the budget implementation act is not that. Let me go over what it is.

The budget implementation act is 429 pages in four parts. The longest part, part 4, has 39 different divisions. They are wide-ranging and cover many different things. In that, let me confirm that this is an omnibus bill, but it is not an illegitimate omnibus bill. It is nothing like Bill C-38 of spring 2012 when the previous administration under Stephen Harper destroyed 70 different acts in one bill with changes that had not been forecast in the budget. That was an illegitimate omnibus bill. This one is a reasonable omnibus bill, because in order to implement the budget, multiple things need to be changed.

For instance, part 1 of this very long bill deals with the Income Tax Act and such things as creating a deduction for tradesmen's tools and going on to divorce and that separated parents can open up a joint registered educational savings plan for their children. There are such things, as we have heard about, related to the new program to cover dental care and changing the tax rules so that CRA can disclose personal information about Canadians so that they can get their dental care. Part 3 deals with air traveller security changes. I could go on and on, because it is 429 pages. By division 39, at the end of the bill, we have changes to the Canada Elections Act to deal with the protection of personal information. This is a wide-ranging bill. It even touches on foreign policy. This next one is good, and I think Conservatives would want to vote for it too. At division 5 of part 4, we remove Russia and Belarus from the most favoured nation tariff treatment.

I want to devote the time I have remaining to talk about one of the longer sections, which relates to issues I have been working on for years and some of which I was ecstatic to see. This deals with division 21, the oceans protection plan.

The budget itself has two references to our oceans. They are both found on page 135, and they are remarkably brief. One says that we are going to protect Canada's whales. Now, this is basically a dressed up repackaging of new money to such departments as Fisheries and Oceans, Transport Canada, Environment Canada and Parks Canada for what the budget claims will be continuing to protect endangered whales and their habitats. That is just fine and dandy, but that is not in the budget implementation act, which is just as well, because I have rarely been as furious, disillusioned or angry.

I am absolutely distraught by the government's April 20 decision to approve this terrible project that goes against the interests of endangered species.

On April 20, what did the government do just in time for Earth Day? It approved a disastrous project that likely spells the extinction of the southern resident killer whale, our Fraser River chinook salmon and numerous other species, including the western sandpiper. It is a project called Roberts Bank on the Fraser River estuary. It will result in basically covering in concrete over 70% of that flood plain habitat. It is an outrage. It is not in the budget implementation act, but it puts the lie to the budget is going to have a section that protects whales. Right. It is hypocrisy writ large. I see other friends from British Columbia nodding. We know. This is an outrage.

The next part of the budget that deals with oceans is, I think, where we see most of the over 60 pages in the budget implementation act, for what is called the division that deals with the oceans protection plan. That probably relates to this one line item of cleaner and healthier ports. Budget 2023 proposes to provide $165.4 million over seven years to establish a green shipping corridor program to reduce the impact of marine shipping on surrounding ecosystems, and there is more to it.

What do we find in the budget implementation act and how is it relevant to what I just read? I have to say there is a lot in here that is just playing catch up with time passing. This bill deals with things such as oil-sourced pollution. Where there is pollution caused by a vessel, we are increasing how much the shipper, the owner of the ship, might have to pay. I do not think it is enough, by the way. It has changed from what was said in the Marine Liability Act, which is already on the books. Believe it or not, in respect of claims for loss of life or personal injury, it was a $1-million limit. This budget implementation act moves it to a $1.5-million limit and so on. That is one specific area.

There is another specific area that I want to mention briefly because I really think it is important. At page 241 of the budget implementation act is a section which says that under the Marine Liability Act, in terms of costs that the vessel owner and company must be responsible for, under the Hazardous and Noxious Substances Convention, they will now be required to compensate indigenous peoples for economic loss in relation to hunting, fishing, trapping or harvesting rights under section 35 of the Constitution. It is a better recognition of indigenous rights.

There is much here but I do want to concentrate on what was, for me, what I have been hoping for, for some years. Ironically, about a week before the budget implementation act came out, I wrote to the Minister of Finance, Minister of Transport, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister of Environment to ask if we are ever going to see any measures to implement the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. Are we ever going to see the promised vessel remediation fund? Is it going to be in the budget implementation act? Surprise, it is. It is found at section 430, page 277 for anyone reading the budget implementation act at home. I have to wonder about their lives if they are reading the budget implementation act at home, especially if they are reading it out loud to their children. It will certainly put anyone to sleep.

It is very exciting because we passed the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act four years ago, in March 2019. We were excited on that day that we got it done. Most people here who do not live in coastal areas would not know what a hazard it is to have an abandoned vessel, somebody's old sailboat. They are fibreglass. If somebody owns them and they are moored in the harbour, moored in navigational lanes, getting rid of them is really hard.

In Atlantic Canada, it is not so hard, because over the course of the winter any abandoned boat will be smashed to bits and gone by spring, but if someone lives along the coast of the Salish Sea or along British Columbia's coast, the boats are there almost forever. In a time when we have the horror of people who are inadequately housed, many people who are homeless will move onto these vessels and live there. They are unsafe.

Once we got the act passed, we thought we had solved the problem, but then the government refused to act. I have constituents who say there is an abandoned vessel and ask if we will do something. The Coast Guard, DFO and Transport Canada all pass the buck and do not move the vessel. The problem is they do not have the money, they say.

Now we have this new fund. Details will come out on how it is going to work in regulations, but I could not be more pleased that we now have a vessel remediation fund and additional powers for the Minister of Transport. There are other related measures in Bill C-33 which we have not yet debated in this place but maybe, just maybe, the budget implementation act, at long last, will allow us to implement the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act.

With that I will close.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the speech of the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I did not get that far into the budget implementation act. I may be 25% of the way through.

The member and I had a conversation earlier about the funding for the Great Lakes and Lake Simcoe, Lake Winnipeg and the Fraser Valley. For freshwater resources, $650 million over 10 years is only $65 million a year.

The Deputy Prime Minister promised $40 million for Lake Simcoe four years ago. Again this is inaction on behalf of the government.

I wonder if she could comment on the insignificant funds for freshwater resources across Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. On page 134 of the budget, there is the heading “Protecting Our Freshwater”. The waters mentioned include the Great Lakes. My goodness, the Great Lakes alone require an enormous investment.

Lake Winnipeg right now is one of the largest freshwater lakes in the world and it is dying. It will take much more than the total amount for all these bodies of water to figure out how to protect Lake Winnipeg, which is now dealing with runoff of nitrates and phosphates causing really toxic algae blooms. Lake of the Woods, St. Lawrence River, Fraser River, Saint John River, Mackenzie River and Lake Simcoe are also listed. The Mackenzie River is now a recipient of toxic tailings from the oil sands going downstream into the Northwest Territories.

The $650 million over 10 years is a wish and a prayer.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for particularly mentioning the wrecked and abandoned boats program measures. As a coastal MP in B.C., I really appreciate the importance of those measures. It is really frustrating to see the scourge of some of those ships and what those do to coastal communities.

I want to ask her about a different part of the budget implementation act. In B.C., the issue of money laundering has been put in the spotlight through the Cullen commission. There are major vulnerabilities within our federal regulations and legislation that have been enabling this.

This budget implementation act, in addition to the new legislation we introduced on beneficial ownership, takes some really important steps forward that were actually mentioned in the Cullen commission. I was hoping my hon. colleague could speak to the importance of that.

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

Madam Speaker, hearing my hon. colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country speak reminds me that when I speak of the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, I really should give a shout-out to a colleague who worked in this place, the former MP for St. Margarets, Bernadette Jordan. She went on to be minister of fisheries, but when she was a private member and a backbencher, she brought forward a motion that was unanimously supported and which led to the act.

On money laundering, this is one of the things that is actually in the budget implementation act. It is found at division 3 of part 4. I completely support these measures. It is long overdue to bring in measures that allow beneficial owners to be completely transparent and allow us to get at money laundering. We have been a haven. We are a hot spot for money laundering. This is not what we want to be famous for in Canada. We are the best of the best if one is a crook who has dirty money. That is not what we want, and I hope this will work in Bill C-47.

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

Madam Speaker, this budget is interesting in some respects. On the environment, however, I think my colleague and I agree. There are serious shortcomings.

Let us talk about one of the investments being made, specifically in carbon capture facilities, which are currently not at all efficient. They send more GHGs into the atmosphere than they are able to capture.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the effectiveness of these facilities and what other means could be used, such as tree planting and plant filtration, to address these challenges.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.

It is true that the budget does not contain sufficient effective measures to fight climate change. Instead, it includes measures that will actually undermine our efforts to protect our climate.

Time is running out. It is not too late, but time is running out. We need to do more.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House and, today, to speak on behalf of the hard-working people of Flamborough—Glanbrook, whom I serve. This time, I am speaking about Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

I would like to focus on three areas in my speech today. First, there is the out-of-control inflationary spending and deficits that are driving up the cost of living and interest rates for people in my riding and across Canada. Second, there are the tax increases that are being piled on at a time when Canadians can least afford it. Third, there is the desperate need in this country to have homes people can afford.

First, the $46-billion bonanza of new spending in the budget is on top of the billions in wasteful spending that we have seen in the last few years from the government. Certainly, it makes for great photo ops for government ministers and MPs, but all this spending is adding inflationary fuel to the already raging affordability fire. Gone are the fiscal anchors and guardrails.

What does this mean for people in my riding and across Canada? I will paint a picture for us of what is happening at kitchen tables in suburban communities in my constituency like Waterdown, Binbrook or Mount Hope. For context, this is a five- or six-hour drive from this place, both literally and figuratively removed from the Ottawa bubble that the out-of-touch Liberals live in here.

I know this from the hundreds of conversations I have had with constituents in the past few months, particularly the last couple of constituency weeks, when I had a number of meetings across the riding. These are typically young families, often new Canadians, who have moved to fast-growing suburbs of the Hamilton area at the western end of the GTA. They have done so, over the last five to seven years in particular, in search of a home in which to raise their children. A detached family home is attainable for these couples, who often have two incomes, in these communities.

Certainly, the prices in Toronto or Mississauga, where these people have come from, are far more out of reach. They have come here in search of more affordable living. They feel fortunate because at least they got into the market before the prices skyrocketed.

There are others they speak to in their peer groups who have good jobs but cannot even contemplate saving up enough for a down payment, particularly when that has doubled since the Liberals took office. Moreover, they do not have the means to qualify for the million-dollar-plus mortgage that would be required, given the average cost of housing in the area.

These families and individuals are really worried right now. A lot of them are at the point where their five-year mortgages are coming up for renewal. Interest rates, of course, have gone up. Some of these people have seen their renewals cause their mortgages to double or be hundreds of dollars, maybe even a thousand dollars, more of their monthly budget. That is a real punch to the gut.

This comes at a time when they are also dealing with credit card bills that are mounting. This is because, far too often, there is more month left at the end of the money. They have also just gotten their natural gas and home heating bills and noticed a significant increase not just in the cost of natural gas but also in the line items, with the carbon tax and then the tax on top of the carbon tax, the HST, on their bill. There was an article in the local weekly paper about this recently. This has been another hit to their budgets.

They are also often commuting to work. Filling up their tank is now taking a bigger bite of their household budget. Of course they are feeling squeezed.

We know that groceries are up almost $1,100 for the average household in Canada. Often, it is more. The carbon tax has been added and increased for home heating, groceries and, of course, driving a vehicle. That is all expensive. There are no savings for these individuals to dip into.

This is the reality at the kitchen tables across the GTHA and across the country. There is worry. There is concern. We have also heard, from recent polling, that six in 10 people are looking at cancelling their summer vacation plans because of this.

That is why this Liberal budget is so disappointing. It really makes matters worse. It has more inflationary spending, more deficits, more money wasted and billions of dollars in contracts to high-priced consultants. Certainly, the Auditor General found billions in COVID supports that were sent to people like prisoners and dead people.

All this inflation means more dollars chasing fewer goods. It is driving up interest rates, which are really the cruellest tax of all. The budget makes matters worse by not getting this inflationary and wasteful spending under control. When we are on track to spend almost as much or more on interest on the national debt than on transfers to the provinces for health care, as we are now, we know something is very wrong.

As my hon. colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets pointed out in his speech on this bill last Friday, every prime minister since former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, who was responsible for the original debt-and-deficit binge of the 1970s and 1980s, ran operating surpluses. That includes Mulroney, Chrétien, Martin and Harper.

We are now back to operating deficits. Canadians are paying the price, with 40-year high inflation and now eight interest rate hikes over the past year. It is no wonder young families, seniors on a fixed income and new Canadians trying to make a fresh start in our blessed country are sitting worried at their kitchen tables.

If inflation and interest rate hikes were not enough to handle in this cost of living crisis, taxes are also up in this budget. This is an incredible thing during the worst cost of living crisis that Canadians have seen in a generation.

We know the carbon tax went up on April 1. That is increasing the cost of three essentials: home heating, gas for vehicles and groceries. It is also increasing an unmanageable tax burden on our farmers, the ones who produce our food.

Fortunately, members on this side of the House supported Bill C-234 from my hon. colleague from Huron—Bruce to remove the carbon tax from farm fuels, the heating and cooling of barns, and farm production. We hope the Senate passes it quickly.

Farmers feed our cities. Canada feeds the world. It is especially important now in the time of Putin's illegal war against Ukraine that Canada be there to feed the world. We should be encouraging this world-class and world-leading agriculture in our country and the agri-food industry in every way possible, not taxing it to death.

The excise tax also went up on April 1, despite a motion from this side of the House to pause that increase this year. Canada already has among the highest excise taxes in the world on wine, beer and spirits. We certainly have some outstanding wineries. There is one in my riding. There are many just down the road in Niagara. There are some cideries and craft breweries. They are being punished by this escalator tax. In fact, this is hampering their competitiveness. That is a shame.

I am running out of time, so I want to touch very briefly on the third area where I think the budget is failing, which is bringing in homes that people can afford. For new Canadians and young people, the dream of working hard, staying focused on goals and achieving home ownership is fading. It is really sad to me that nine out of 10 people who do not have a home today have given up on the dream of home ownership.

We have seen under the Liberal government that down payments and mortgage payments have doubled. How is it possible to get into the market? I am the grandson of Dutch immigrants who came to Canada with nothing from war-torn Europe after World War II. They built a better life for their families by doing exactly that. They worked hard. They built a modest, middle-class life through hard work and sacrifice.

After eight years of the Liberal government, the dream that Canada is the land of hope and opportunity is no more. We know the CMHC said that Canada needs to build 3.5 million more homes to reach the projected number to restore affordability.

We are in a time when the cost of living crisis is ravaging many Canadian households. They need better than what is in the budget implementation act. Families are struggling, and 1.5 million or more are going to food banks. They need better. Our economy needs better.

Conservatives stand ready to deliver and unleash Canada's great potential for everyone.

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

Madam Speaker, I may be mistaken, but I believe I heard the member say that Conservatives ran surpluses under Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper. That statement could be no further from the truth. As a matter of fact, between Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper, there were only two surpluses in the entire time both prime ministers were around. The first was on the heels of Paul Martin and the surplus he left for Brian Mulroney. The second came in 2015 at the expense of slashing veterans services and selling shares of GM at bargain prices.

Once again I am learning a new revisionist history given to us by the Conservatives. No Conservative prime minister in the last three decades ran a surplus, with the exception of the two I just mentioned. Perhaps the member can inform the House as to where he is getting his data from. It is clearly not based on the reality of what actually happened.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the member for Kingston and the Islands was not listening closely, as often happens. I said operating surpluses, not a surplus overall, which is true. That was articulated last Friday by my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets.

I would further note that the current government inherited a balanced budget from the previous government and has squandered it extraordinarily. We are all paying the price for that.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke at length about the fact that Canadian households have difficulty finding housing. That is a huge problem. He quoted the excellent study by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation showing that Canada needs to build 3.5 million units of all kinds in the next 10 years.

The Conservatives speak of fiscal virtue and reducing the deficit, but investments will have to be made in some areas. For example, Quebec needs 1.1 million housing units in the next 10 years. The private sector will build 500,000, but, one way or another, the government will have to participate in the construction of 600,000 more units in the next 10 years. We will have to spend on programs that work, which is not the case for the Liberals' programs at this time. The big national housing strategy provides $78 billion over 10 years. A little over 100,000 housing units have been built in five years. That is a disaster.

How will the Conservatives solve this problem?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course housing is a huge need. As I cited, the fact that nine out of 10 young people and new Canadians in particular have given up on the dream of home ownership is incredibly sad in a country as rich as Canada, where for the entirety of our history, people have come to build a better life.

My friend referenced statistics from the CMHC, particularly with respect to his province. I would note that our approach is to remove gatekeepers and red tape, which are adding hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of building homes. Thus, we can get those homes built to top up the supply for people and, obviously, increase the affordability of housing in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the question about housing. The member for Flamborough—Glanbrook just squeaked in the word “affordability” at the end. The real problem with building more houses is that we are not building more affordable houses.

I just had a housing round table in Penticton, and the city representative talked about how the city is building more housing units every day than it has ever built in history, but it has fewer affordable houses every day. That is because, naturally, the housing units that are being built are bought up by the people who can afford them. That will not bring prices down; it will make prices go up. Therefore, I would echo what the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert said, which is that we need to get the government involved in building hundreds of thousands of units of affordable housing.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when there is a shortage of 3.5 million houses, we need every type and size of house, whether a single, a semi-detached, a quad or the like. I know there have been investments into affordable housing under the previous government in my home community. My predecessor announced many of those in conjunction with the members of his party in their respective ridings. Obviously, that is something we will continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a bill that is nothing less than miraculous, because it resurrects the woolly mammoth. This is not about an elephant, but about a woolly mammoth.

Like the mammoth, Bill C-47 is gigantic. Like the woolly mammoth, whose wool hides the dust, pollen and flowers to the great pleasure of scientists, Bill C‑47 hides many surprises within its lines, and they are not the best surprises.

There are a few interesting measures, especially for tourism. However, a few of these measures have serious flaws that create some unfairness. Exceptionally, I am going to let the government boast about what its budget accomplishes. I am going to focus my speech on the major omissions.

The list of the omissions is quite long. There are no new investments in housing—even though it is more than just necessary, it is urgent. There is no increase to old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74. There is complete silence on the tax injustice affecting surviving spouses whose children receive an orphan benefit. There is nothing about improving the EI program. There is nothing about implementing anti-scab legislation. There is nothing about health transfers to make up for the federal disinvestment over the last 30 years, despite Quebec and the Canadian provinces having made that demand.

Certain elements are included in the budget, but good luck combing through the mammoth's wool to figure out who they will really impact or benefit. For example, I am thinking about greenwashing, the fiscal imbalance and the confirmation of King Charles III as Canada's head of state.

I will focus on only some of the points. Each of the points I will raise has a connection to the slogan “Investing in People”.

Very few people know about the reality I am about to describe, but it is heartbreaking. When a couple has children and one of the spouses unfortunately dies, the surviving spouse loses not only a life partner, but also the father or mother of the children and the person who helped financially. There were two people paying the bills, and now there is only one. What few people know is that the orphan's benefit that the children receive, if any, is considered income. If they are minors, this income is added to the surviving spouse's income. Thus, the surviving parent has to pay more taxes and receive fewer benefits because the government considers that the income of the orphans should be taxed to the surviving parents, which puts these people in a more financially difficult situation than they were already facing.

This is an injustice that has been known for years, and yet no federal government, Liberal or Conservative, has provided a concrete solution. The Liberal slogan about investing in people seems to imply, in this case, that the government has figured out how to take more money from people who are already in one of the most difficult situations life can throw at them.

Speaking of difficult situations, let us talk about lockouts imposed on workers by certain employers. This is the case for longshoremen at the Quebec City port. For the past six months, in Quebec City, longshoremen see scabs pass under their noses and do their jobs in their stead. It is frustrating and appalling for these workers for different reasons.

First, in Quebec, legislation prohibiting the use of scabs by companies dates back to 1977, the year of my birth. That was 46 years ago. We say that Quebec is visionary, progressive and ahead of Canada in many respects and our anti-scab legislation is one such example.

Currently, two bills have been tabled and we are waiting for them to be added to the agenda. The first was introduced by my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville and the second by the member from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who will have to make a choice sooner or later between all the bills he has introduced, since he will only be able to debate one of them.

Despite repeated requests from unions and workers, the government is not budging. There is nothing in the budget to address this, not even cross-country consultations to ensure that everyone agrees. There is nothing.

What does this mean for the people of Beauport—Limoilou, for those who live in proximity to ports in Quebec and Canada and what does this have to do with the budget?

It is important to note that the scabs do not have the same training as the longshoremen. Because they do not have the appropriate training, they are sometimes putting their lives at risk. There are more dangers to their health and safety but also to the health and safety of the other port employees. Does someone need to die crushed between the dock and a boat before the government will take action?

That does not make any sense. We need to recognize our longshoremen's expertise. The fact that these scabs do not have the same training increases the risk of handling errors. Such errors could lead to the release of volatile products, such as nickel or the red dust that made the headlines for years in Beauport—Limoilou, during transhipment.

In short, the environment and air quality are at risk in this situation because the federal government is 46 years behind the Quebec government in banning companies from using scabs. We have a government that claims to be proactive on environmental issues and to be investing in people, but the reality is that it is doing nothing on either of those fronts. Once again, the Liberals' slogan of “investing in people” actually seems to mean that the government is refusing to invest in workers and their rights or in environmental protection for the people in my riding.

I want to come back to the mammoth I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. I was saying that there were things hidden in its wool, and one of them is the fiscal imbalance. The government has announced a $41‑billion deficit, but what it is not saying is that it is making big announcements without being able to spend the money it announces. As a result, $38 billion went unspent in 2020‑21, and roughly the same amount went unspent in 2021‑22. These two amounts combined not only erase the current deficit, but result in a surplus of tens of billions of dollars.

Some will say that is good news, but it is not, because while the government is squirrelling away taxpayers' money into its coffers, taxpayers are not receiving the services they are entitled to. Seniors 65 to 74 are not seeing their pension go up so that they can afford decent housing, food, drugs and so on. Keeping these tens of billions of dollars in the coffers is preventing desperately needed social housing from being built. Keeping these tens of billions of dollars in the coffers is preventing Quebec and the Canadian provinces from getting the health transfers they have been calling for for decades.

This is what we call the fiscal imbalance. The federal government fills up its coffers with tax money from Quebeckers and Canadians, yet services that fall under Quebec and provincial jurisdiction suffer because their taxpayers' money is not being handed over. This imbalance is so great that Canada will have paid off all of the debt it has accumulated since 1867 in less than 30 years, while most Canadian provinces will be unable to balance their budgets. Canadian federalism is cannibalizing the very foundation of the country created in 1867.

In this case, the Liberal slogan “investing in people” actually seems to mean that the government is forgetting about workers who lose their jobs, seniors, people who need decent, affordable housing, and people who need health care.

Speaking of the Constitution, the mammoth budget bill is hiding something else under its woolly coat. It confirms that Charles III, King of England, is the head of state of Canada. There was not a word about that in the speech. Have the Liberals considered the fact that 56% want to abolish the monarchy? No, they have not. Is this what they mean by meeting needs and investing in people? I am not sure.

This budget will not go down in history as being the most effective for the people, particularly the people of Quebec. This budget once again opens the door for the federal government to interfere in areas that are not under its jurisdiction, while failing to properly look after those areas that are. It is like a neighbour who comes over to tell me how to clean my house, but who suffers from a compulsive hoarding disorder.

To sum up, there is an elephant behind this mammoth budget. The elephant in the room is that only Quebec independence will allow Quebeckers to manage their own taxes in order to truly meet their needs.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I am sorry, but I will be asking my question in English.

It is late, and I am a little tired. The member spoke eloquently about issues facing workers and the need for anti-scab legislation. I know that our government is committed to delivering on that promise.

Will the member work with us to achieve those goals and vote for that legislation when it comes to fruition?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House since 2019. Since then, we have been saying that we will work together and collaborate on anything that is good for Quebec. If it is not good, it is not good; we will improve it, if possible.

That said, there is another mammoth in the room for workers. It is a blue whale. It is EI reform, which we are still waiting on, even though the program is over 50 years old.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for her thoughtful intervention.

I do agree with some points about the budget. One part, where the budget does not spend enough, or early enough, is on indigenous housing. It allocates $4 billion, starting in 2024, but it would be over four years and spread across Canada.

Could the member share her thoughts on how we need to prioritize indigenous housing in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, for years we have known that the first nations housing situation is extremely difficult and that nothing is being done. Almost nothing is being done about clean drinking water. In northern Quebec and Canada, the permafrost is melting, but nothing is being done to stop homes from sinking into the ground, although we know how to prevent this. The saddest thing is that first nations cannot even decide to build their own homes. The Indian Act requires that they receive authorization from the patriarchal federal government.

There are some things that must be changed in the budget concerning the consideration that first nations and Inuit people deserve.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the budget, the debt-to-GDP ratio continues to increase because of the current government's choices. Part of the debt consists of a credit for Quebeckers' pensions. It is included in the calculation of the debt. It is a credit accruing to the government.

Does my colleague believe that it is fair to include Quebeckers' pensions in the calculation of the national debt?

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

Mr. Speaker, people in Quebec pay taxes just like those in the rest of Canada do. They also pay for the Canada pension plan. Why is that considered a debt? That is an excellent question, because the money adds up.

As I was saying in my speech, there is a difference of tens of billions of dollars between the announcements that are made and the money that is actually spent. It all adds up. In less than 30 years, the fiscal imbalance will have cannibalized the budgets of the provinces, especially that of Quebec, but also those of the nine others, while Canada will have paid off all of the debts it has accumulated since 1867. That is rather outrageous.

Everyone should be aware of that, and something should be done about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for speaking at length about the importance of anti-scab legislation. Yes, Quebec was a leader in that regard. Thanks to an NDP government, British Columbia also has this type of legislation. We are pleased to force the Liberals to introduce a bill in that regard. They said that they would do it in 2023. I know that, in the past, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP have both introduced federal anti-scab bills.

I am wondering why my colleague thinks the government is dragging its feet on this and why it has not already introduced such a bill. We have been waiting and waiting, but the longshoremen in her riding cannot wait any longer.

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

Mr. Speaker, a bill has already been introduced by the Bloc Québécois. My colleague will have to make a choice, since there are two bills on this subject. That said, I have a single phrase to offer, and it is in English, unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately for my colleagues: follow the money.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I were to give any advice to a Canadian who wanted to understand where our country is financially right now, and perhaps understand the credibility of the performance of the current Liberal government, I would tell them to not read the most recent budget. Instead, what I would encourage them to do, would be to just read the one from last year and perhaps some of the independent audits that have been done on the government's financial performance.

It was just last year that the Liberals said they were finally getting tough on spending and on the country's budget. They said they were going to balance the budget in five years. They said the deficit would go down, and they used some pretty big firm words about fiscal anchors and red lines. Here we are a year later, and they broke every single one of those metrics.

After eight years of Liberal government, and after all those years of budgets, Canadians are fed up with the broken promises, and they are fed up with the doubling down by the Liberals and the NDP on the same failed approach that created the mess we are currently facing in this country with government spending, the cost of living and the inflationary pressures Canadians in every part of this country are facing in every aspect of their lives.

It is important that, when we talk about a budget, we understand and define why we are here in the first place. With many of the measures the government would try to take credit for, the reality is that they are forced to introduce them because of the problems they created. We have a 40-year high in inflation, and we still have food costs that are at double-digit increases year by year. Housing prices have doubled. What is absolutely painful for millions of Canadians on top of that is the fact that rent has doubled. Now, as interest rates have skyrocketed at a near unprecedented level, we are seeing mortgage payments doubled in this country.

If we add up the Liberals' budgets, their strategies and their plans, there is one clear conclusion: Every time the Liberals and NDP touch something, they spend record amounts, and they make the problem worse.

The interesting thing is that in the lead-up to the budget, there was a tiny part of me that was a little naive and thought maybe the Liberals finally and truly got it. It was the finance minister who went out in the days leading up to it, after years of our leader saying that, when the government drives up debt and deficits and prints half a trillion dollars over the course of a few years, it adds to and creates inflation. The Liberals denied it, and finally in the lead-up to the budget, they admitted it. They said they needed to rein in their spending and get their fiscal house in order to make sure they were not inflaming inflation further. This was a little ironic after two years of them denying it.

However, when the Liberals tabled the budget, the finance minister did not even listen to what she had said the week before while out on a tour previewing the budget. The deficit went up. There is over $40 billion in new spending, debt and deficit this year alone. It was supposed to go down, but it went up. There is new spending of $4,200 per family.

The Auditor General has said several times that the government will try to claim it had to add and double. The Prime Minister and the Liberals had to add more to our national debt in eight years than every other previous prime minister combined because of COVID, yet it was the independent Auditor General who called them out and said there were billions upon billions of dollars in increased spending because the Liberals cannot control their budgets. There was $15 billion found that was deemed fraudulent. The response from the government was that it was not worth going after.

If someone got a bill from CRA for $79.82, they had better make that payment by the end of the month, or the CRA is going to start coming after them and mailing them repeatedly until they pay, yet the Liberals let $15 billion out the door and tell Canadians that it is not even worth it. That is the reason the financial mess is happening here in Ottawa. After eight years, Canadians believe there is not a shred of fiscal responsibility left on that side of the aisle.

I want to talk tonight about interest rates. They are going up after the government, the finance minister, the Prime Minister and the governor of the Bank of Canada all said that they would not. They actually worried that, because they were spending so much, they were going to have deflation and not inflation. Not only were they wrong, but we have 40-year highs in inflation and some of the fastest increases in modern times.

Here is the thing that I want to let Canadians know when they understand what this budget is all about and how it is painful to our economy and to households in multiple ways. When interest rates go up, what many Canadians see is the pain of mortgage payments.

When the Liberals came into power in 2015, the average mortgage payment in this country was about $1,400 per month. Now, because of the mess they have created, interest rates have gone up and mortgage rates have gone up. The average right now for a mortgage in this country for a Canadian family or individual is $3,100 a month. Rent for a one-bedroom unit only a few years ago, when the Liberals came into power, was $973. Now, the average for a one-bedroom unit in this country is over $1,700 per month. At the same time, when the price of gas, the price of food and every other metric of a family budget is going up, families are now forced to find hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of dollars more per month to keep a roof over their heads.

However, the double whammy of interest rates that I want to highlight is that there is another part. The government has a mortgage debt of sorts, which is our national debt. It has now bloomed to $1.2 trillion. That is $81,000 in debt for every Canadian household in this country. Our debt, as I mentioned, has doubled in the last five years, but there is a problem where interest rates are a gut punch to taxpayers in two ways. I talked about people's family budget and how it is impacting them, but as a taxpayer, the cost to service our national debt is skyrocketing as well.

Just two years ago, the payments for the interest on the national debt were $24.5 billion dollars. That is just the interest payments and not paying it down in any way. It is a serious, major payment. This year, in the Liberals' own budget, because they have added so much to our debt and because they have allowed and caused interest rates to go through the roof with their inflationary spending, we will spend nearly $44 billion this year on just servicing the interest on our national debt. That is a major step in the wrong direction.

I will say this tonight, and not only to the government but, shamefully, to the NDP: Not only are they going along with the budget, but they are also adding more deficit and more debt. They are increasing taxes. The carbon tax is going up. There is more money coming off of people's paycheques at the end of every month. They are making the problem worse, not better. The NDP continues to prop the Liberals up every single step of the way, and not just in financial policy that is bad for this country, but also in the cover-ups of the numerous ethical scandals the government is facing.

I am proud that, on this side of the aisle, we have a leader and a party proposing ideas about capping spending with dollar-for-dollar savings. For every dollar of proposed new spending, we would find a dollar of savings. When the number of housing starts in this country is the lowest of the G7, when it is costing so much and we are getting further behind, we need to remove gatekeepers and tie federal money to infrastructure funding and the amount of housing units being built. We need to scrap the carbon tax, which would make life more affordable and lower the cost of living in every part of this country for every Canadian.

Enough is enough. After eight years, it is time for a change, and I am anxious to get out there and let Canadians know what that alternative is.

The House resumed from April 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak today about the 2023 federal budget, in particular the budget implementation act. This budget is a testament to the dedication and commitment of our government to the people of Canada. We have listened to the needs and concerns of Canadians and have worked tirelessly to create a budget that reflects our shared values and aspirations.

I want to share, in particular, some initiatives that would benefit the residents of Brampton, since I am the member representing Brampton North. As one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada, Brampton has unique needs and challenges. Our government recognizes this and has taken steps to address them in this budget.

We know that in Brampton, health care is a growing need of the population, and it is sad to say that the Brampton community has been underserved for many years. I can speak to my own experiences with having difficulty finding a family doctor. With the networks people think a member of Parliament has, one would think it would be easy. It makes me believe that my constituents really stand no chance and have a very difficult time being seen on a routine and regular basis. This is one of the reasons we have incredibly long waits in our emergency rooms, which we have been seeing across the country. However, as a representative and long-time resident of Brampton, I know we have been seeing this in our community for years and years now.

With the investment we are making in health care, it is my hope that when funding is completely received by the provincial governments, they put it to use in making sure they reduce waiting lines in ERs. We have, in particular, carved out a part of our budget to address that, and I really hope the Government of Ontario takes that seriously and gets right to work to reduce those wait lines. Waiting in an ER for 18 hours is the norm in Brampton, and when people started seeing it across the country, it made news stations everywhere else. However, it is the norm we are used to, and it is a shame.

I looked into this a bit, and we provide our health care transfers at the federal level based on population and some other factors across the provinces. We hand that money over to them in trust that they will divide the pie as fairly as possible down to the regions and municipalities. However, that was not done here. I hope the province is listening, will take this concern seriously and will make sure that Brampton gets its fair share.

There is almost $200 billion over 10 years, including $46.2 billion in new funding, for the provinces and territories. That is huge. We have never seen that type of funding and investment by a federal government in health care, and I think it is so important.

I spent some years living in the U.S., and oftentimes the grass looks greener on the other side and we think that perhaps we should have a system similar to that of the U.S. because we could get seen faster. However, I can tell members that it is not a pretty picture there either. It is extremely complex, having the insurance plans that it has. It is also extremely complex trying to figure out how to navigate all of that and whether one would even end up being covered.

Here, people go in and pay nothing other than maybe the parking fee or a cable bill, which is very minor, at a hospital, and they can have an operation of any magnitude. This is what we take pride in here in Canada and what we want to continue to see in this great country. One of the things I used to always say to my American friends and colleagues is that it is a sense of pride, and I want that sense of pride to continue with Canadians.

I know that many have been feeling a little let down by their health care system, but we are there as a federal government to support them and make sure those gaps are covered, especially in the area of mental health. We have seen so many issues arising postpandemic in particular. Even before that, some areas were not addressed. This funding will help address them.

There are other areas of concern for Brampton residents. We have a very young population. We have one of the youngest populations in the country. The average age in Brampton is between 34 and 35, so there are many young families. Oftentimes, these families are the ones that, when we look at income disparity, have the most challenges when it comes to expenditures and the amount of income they are bringing in. This budget helps with affordability. It helps with grocery costs. It helps with day care.

I have been calling around to different day cares in the Brampton community to see what the costs have come down to, and it is wonderful to hear my local day cares telling me that the costs for many families have come down anywhere from $700 to $800 a month per child. Those are real savings.

I know that at times we hear from the Conservatives that a one-time grocery benefit is not good enough. However, it is not a one-time grocery benefit; it is a comprehensive plan that we have put forward. We have so many measures that we are providing for Canadians. Overall, when we look at the Canada child benefit, the day care savings, the top-ups for GST and for seniors that we have done, and the grocery benefit, the savings add up to over $11,000 for an average family per year. That is real money, and it is going to help Canadians get through this challenging time that we are facing globally together.

Another measure that I think is extremely important to many Bramptonians, because they have approached me over the years many times, is dental care for those who could not afford it. Last year, we saw that by the end of the year. We had made a promise, which we kept, to implement a dental health care plan that would provide for children under 12. We have put aside the funding and are doing the hard work that is needed to make sure that this plan continues to expand to seniors, to those under 18, and to those with disabilities. That is a big relief to many people in that community. We are not going to stop there. We are going to continue to help everyone in need, so that families that make an average income of $90,000 or less will be entirely supported by the time we complete the full program of dental care in Canada.

These programs are going to change the trajectory of our country for decades to come. They will change the lives of many.

We are also seeing that many more women are joining the workforce. There are so many talented women. In Brampton, it is not uncommon to have a post-secondary degree yet not be able to find a job. Recently there was a study, commissioned with some support and funding provided by our federal government as well, that showed that South Asian women in particular, as well as other minorities, are some of the most highly educated but most underemployed category of immigrant women in this country. I think it is so important that we make sure they have the ability to balance both family and their careers and put their skills to use. We do not want to waste our talent. Our talent is one of the best things we have in this country, and we need to make sure that it is encouraged and used.

That is why we are seeing so many investments in our country as well, not to mention the clean, green investments in this budget, which I think are going to provide hope for many Canadians. It is going to create a lot of great new jobs. It is extremely exciting, because this is not just a budget for today but a budget that will lead us into the future.

I am excited about the investments that Volkswagen has made and the investments that MDA has made in Brampton. We have new jobs that are being created around battery manufacturing in Brampton as well, good jobs for good constituents in Brampton North. I am grateful to be here today to share some of my thoughts about the budget and my excitement.

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

Mr. Speaker, more Canadians than ever are using the food bank, 1.5 million Canadians a month. The member seems to think Canadians have never had it so good, even though the cost of groceries has never been higher, rent has doubled and mortgages have doubled.

I have a simple question for the member: Under her government's watch, how many more people are using the food bank in Brampton than before?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am by no means saying that life is easy for everyone. I recognize that these are challenging times for Canadians, and not just Canadians but Americans, Europeans and people all around the globe, as we have challenges with our supply chains and inflation throughout the world. Those are challenges that everyone in the world is facing, but Canadians are receiving relief and support from their government. That is incredibly important. We have lifted over 800,000 children out of poverty. Over a million more people in this country are now above the poverty threshold. These are huge numbers, and this is important progress.

We will continue to have the backs of Canadians. We will continue to do what we can to get them through this challenging time so that we can see brighter hope with clean, green jobs of the future and good employment for all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly simple question for my colleague.

Throughout my time in the House, so over the past three or four years, I have been hearing the government voice its concern about the French issue and say that it is very important to protect minority languages in Quebec and Canada.

Yesterday, the government presented its action plan for official languages 2023-2028. This is important. The plan includes investments totalling $4 billion over the next 5 years. However, $800 million, or 20% of these funds, will go to anglophones living in Quebec.

I just want to point out that even the government admits that Quebec anglophones are not under threat. English is not under threat in Quebec. In Canada and North America, English is the majority language.

Why is the government sending $800 million to anglophones in Quebec when they are not under threat?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a good day for languages in our country. Many stakeholder groups gave statements that they were incredibly thrilled that this government has put forward funding to protect our two official languages throughout Canada. It is more than any government has ever given before. It is double what used to be put in.

It was a good day for Canada. It was a good day for French in Quebec and a good day for English in Quebec, too. That is the beauty of Canada. We respect both languages equally. We want to protect French, and that is why the government is making investments. Bill C-13 is another example of our government modernizing things to make sure that French is protected in our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see the commitment in the budget implementation act to the red dress alert, but I want to ask the member whether she shares my concern about the announced cuts of $150 million to women's shelters across the country. That money was provided during the pandemic, when domestic violence rates spiked, and those rates have not gone down, so it is critical that money be provided in a timely manner once again to women's shelters.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand that women's shelters and other organizations that received funding from our government during the pandemic were able to get through the pandemic because our government stepped in at that time, when no one else was there to help them. Just like all Canadians, they were going through a very problematic period. Our government invested $300 million to help support them.

This funding is not being cut. It was a program created for the pandemic, and we have a lot of money in the pot right now to figure out a way to continue to support these organizations. The talks are continuing. The work is going to continue. There will be consultations in the months to come to figure out how we can continue supporting, with the support of the provinces as well, of course, and their operational funding responsibilities for women's shelters.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2023 continues the Prime Minister's record of high taxes and inflationary deficits. The Prime Minister has added more debt than all other Canadian prime ministers combined and has no plan to balance the budget and control his inflationary deficits, which are driving up the costs of the goods we buy and the interest we pay. Canada's federal debt for the 2023-24 fiscal year is projected to reach, and I hope everyone is sitting down for this, $1.22 trillion. That is nearly $81,000 per household in Canada. There is no plan to balance Canada's budget projections. The deficit of 2022-23 is up to $43 billion. In 2023-24, the deficit is projected to be $40.1 billion. The Prime Minister promised a balanced budget in 2019. He continues to make false promises to Canadians.

These Liberal deficits are hurting hard-working Canadians due to the increase of the cost of living. One in five Canadians is skipping meals. I know my colleague said earlier, when she was asked the question about the food banks by my colleague, that food bank usage is up and 8.2 million people are using food banks. That is up 60%, compared to two million people before the pandemic. Food bank usage is at an all-time high. One in seven employed Canadians is using a food bank, and seniors' food bank usage is increasing at the highest rate of all other age groups. According to CTV, “service providers in Sault Ste. Marie are noticing a growing number of seniors are relying on food donations.”

Canadian seniors call my office daily. They share their struggles in trying to mitigate the Liberal-made cost of living crisis we are currently living in. Seniors are having to use their overdraft to keep heat in their home and food on their table. Unfortunately, budget 2023 continues to leave Canadian seniors out in the cold. In a 255-page document, only half of one page is dedicated solely to supporting our seniors. Seniors are telling this government that they are struggling, but they are not being heard.

The Liberal government claims that seniors have never had it so good. The Minister of Seniors consistently refers to outdated statistics and failed Liberal policies that have not helped the well-being of seniors. Statistics on Canadian seniors have not been updated since 2020, when many seniors were relying on the temporary pandemic CERB payments. The government is not listening to how seniors are struggling. Statistics Canada has determined that the poverty level for seniors is currently based on the cost of living in 2018. Since 2018, the cost of living has skyrocketed and grocery prices have increased. The price of heating a home and driving a car has increased. How can the government possibly judge the current well-being of seniors based on the cost of living in 2018? The government needs to listen to what seniors are saying right now, and unfortunately, according to this budget, it is not.

Budget 2023 has announced a new grocery rebate, an underwhelming effort to try to mitigate the cost of living. The Liberals' grocery rebate will give a senior citizen a one-time payment of $225 to cover the rising cost of food that their inflationary deficit helped cause. However, “Canada's Food Price Report 2023” predicts that a family of four will spend up to $1,065 more on food this year, $598 more than the $467 they will receive from the rebate. I do not know, but that does not sound like good math to me. CBC reported that, for struggling families and seniors in Windsor, the new grocery rebate is just a drop in the bucket. June Muir, president of Windsor-Essex Food Bank Association, said that the amount of money is not going to make much of an impact. This grocery rebate will not solve the cost of living crisis that has already driven many Canadians over the edge.

To make things worse, the Prime Minister's carbon tax increase of 14¢ per litre on April 1 is making it more expensive for Canadians to heat their homes and get to work. By 2030, this tax could add 50¢ per litre to gasoline. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the carbon tax will cost the average family between $402 and $847 in 2023 even after the rebates. Sheila, a senior in Winnipeg, had to use her overdraft this winter just to pay her expenses so she could heat her home and stay warm.

Budget 2023 states, “Our seniors have made Canada what it is today”. Canada's seniors paved the way for our nation's prosperity, but after eight years of the Liberal government's inflationary spending and tax hikes, the government has put a damper on the legacy seniors worked so hard to build.

After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, the dream of home ownership has died for young and new Canadians. Nine out of 10 people who do not own a home say they will never own a home. CMHC data for January showed that new housing starts were at the lowest level since 2020. It is down 52% in Toronto and 14% in Vancouver. Canada has the lowest number of housing units per thousand residents of any G7 country. The number of units per thousand Canadians has been falling since 2016. This is due to the sharp rise in population growth. According to CMHC, Canada needs 3.5 million more homes than projected to restore affordability.

Under the Liberals, the down payment needed to buy a home has doubled. The minimum down payment on an average home has gone from $22,000 to $45,000 across Canada. Budget 2023 has no plan to get the gatekeepers out of the way and get more houses built to restore affordability. What is the government's plan for first-time homebuyers? It is the new, tax-free first home savings account to allow Canadians to save up to $40,000. However, in our current, Liberal-made cost of living crisis, how will Canadians be able to save this amount of money? According to a recent survey by Angus Reid Institute, 40% of Canadians say recent challenges have forced them to draw money from their savings accounts, which they had put away for emergency purposes, and 35% say they have deferred contributions to their RRSP and TFSA accounts. The average rent in Canada today is $2,200. There is also an 11% increase in grocery prices and a 14¢ increase to a litre of gas. How can Canadians possibly afford to save money in their bank accounts with all the price increases on basic needs?

First-time homebuyers have given up on ever owning a home. The dream has become a nightmare due to the cost of mortgages and inflation. This has been caused by the Liberal government's wasteful spending of taxpayer money without considering the burden it created, which Canadians now have to bear. Average mortgage payments have more than doubled in eight years, from $1,400 to over $3,100. When the Prime Minister first took office, someone needed 39% of their average paycheque to make a monthly payment. Today, it is 62%.

Budget 2023 also introduced a new, refundable multi-generational home renovation tax credit, which would provide up to $7,500 in support of construction of secondary suites for seniors and for adults living with disabilities. I am in full support of seniors and persons with disabilities having the opportunity to live in their homes longer. However, $7,500 could not possibly be enough to renovate a home, due to the inflationary cost of materials skyrocketing. Furthermore, we have no labour that can complete these projects. How will families be—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I am just making sure everybody gets to participate so they can get their thoughts in.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the member did not start her speech off very well. When she talked about seniors, she tried to give the false impression that the government is not there for them.

Virtually from day one, this government has been there for seniors. We can talk about the substantial increase to the GIS. We can talk about legislation and one of our very first actions, which was to reduce the age of retirement from 67, something the Conservatives had put into place, to 65. We can talk about the direct supports during the pandemic and the one-time payments. We can talk about the 10% increase for those aged 75 or more. Within this budget, we find the grocery rebate, which she made reference to, but she did not talk about the dental plan, which we are expanding to include seniors. We have lifted literally hundreds of thousands of seniors out of poverty. How does that contrast with the Conservative regime of Stephen Harper and its blatant disregard and disrespect for Canada's seniors?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask what good the dental plan is when my seniors cannot even afford to pay for gasoline to go to the grocery store to buy groceries. They cannot afford groceries. The rebate does not offset the cost of the carbon tax, heating or medical expenses. The member is talking about dental, which is great, but seniors cannot afford to eat, so they are not going to have dental problems.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about housing, a subject on which we agree.

A few weeks ago in committee, I questioned a witness about the Century Initiative, which seems to have inspired the government to increase the number of immigrants to Canada to a minimum of 500,000 a year.

When I questioned the witness, I asked if any thought had been given to the French language and to the need for housing. The answer was that the only consideration had been the economy.

If the government insists on reaching its targets without considering the social aspects involved, what will happen to the budgets and needs of Canadians and of Quebeckers, in particular?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, time and again, we have said that we need to build more affordable homes. The hon. member is absolutely correct. We cannot allow 500,000 new immigrants to come to this country and provide them with the false promise that they will be able to have homes for their families, when we are not building them. We need to turn that around. We need to make sure we get rid of the gatekeepers and get those homes built so that, when new immigrants come, they can contribute to our society and make Canada free again.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I often find, in this place, that we really try to find solutions to the many problems Canadians face. The member pointed out several important issues that, from my perspective, require addressing. However, one of the biggest aspects the New Democrats have called for is the idea of an excess profits tax, and I would love for the member to comment on that. We often hear the Conservatives talk at great lengths about how corporations are taking advantage of Canadians, and I agree. However, I also agree with the solution, which is that, just like the Conservatives in the United Kingdom have done, we need to introduce an excess profits tax. What are the member's thoughts with respect to an excess profits tax, especially in the age of COVID, when we have seen record profits driving up inflation?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we need to understand that Canadians are working to ensure they provide for their families. However, as long as the Liberal government continues to recklessly and foolishly spend money, scandal after scandal and trip after trip, those tax dollars are going to increase, which means Canadians will have less money in their pockets to support their families. When are the Liberals going to take their own advice, balance the budget, and ensure that Canadians can live the free life we promised them when they came to this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member tirelessly champions seniors. It was mentioned that seniors are now more likely to be visiting food banks to be able to eat.

Just two weeks ago, the Minister of Agriculture announced Canada's first food policy, and the food policy is going to be to fund food banks. Having Canadians dependent on government to fill their rice bowls is our first food policy. What does this tell the member about the government's intention to make life more affordable for Canadians?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I volunteer at some food banks, and this is what I have been hearing: They are desperate, because they have to turn people away. There are people going from food bank to food bank so that they can get enough food to feed their families. We need to stop this foolishness. We need to start having more money for hard-working Canadians so they can support their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, unlike Émile Zola who, a hundred years ago, wrote an open letter accusing all the intellectual and government elites of his time of racism, I will turn the camera around and accuse myself.

I accuse myself and admit that I am guilty of being naive when it comes to political and public life. I am naive. When I went into politics three years ago, I thought that we would have intelligent debates in Parliament, in the House. I thought that the people elected across Canada, people with experience, people with a past, people who had worked on important issues, would come to Parliament and debate. I thought that, if I presented an argument, someone would come up with a counterargument, someone else would then present another counterargument, and that the process would result in brilliant bills—in short, the truth. I thought that we were going to come up with bills that would benefit Canadians, that people would look at us and say, “Wow, these are extraordinary people who are passing really effective bills that meet the specific needs of all Canadians and that are improving our country and ensuring we are going in the right direction”.

That is what I thought. Imagine how naive I was. I thought that was how democracy works in Quebec and Canada. I thought that that was how things worked, that we would work together and collaborate to get to the truth for the common good. That is what I thought. Imagine how naive I was and how my balloon burst after my three years here, when I saw how badly we fail to meet Canadians’ needs and, especially, how we have to keep repeating the same things day after day. I really was not expecting that.

In my past life I used to repeat lines as part of my work. I have a background in theatre. I played Molière’s Le Malade imaginaire 250 times. I repeated all my lines 250 times. When you work with Molière, there is always something new to discover. There are always truths hidden behind the lines. This broadens an actor’s horizons, since they can improve their performance every evening. In Parliament, however, all of us in the opposition strive to make speeches. We work in committee, we try to be wise. We conduct studies, we think hard every day to tell the government, the supposed decision-makers, what they should do and the measures they should put in place. We are close to the community, in our respective ridings. We see what is happening on the ground. Unfortunately, we have to repeat ourselves.

I say this because what I am going to say today is something I have said hundreds of times before in the House. I will have to repeat myself again today. It is sad, because these are important issues. For example, what is missing from this budget and this bill? Housing.

As my colleague said so well earlier, we need a game plan to build 3.5 million housing units in Canada in the next 10 years. This does not come from an extreme leftist group advocating for social housing, it comes from Scotiabank and the CMHC. These are the challenges we face.

We expected to see housing treated as an important concern in the budget. Most people devote 30%, 40% or 50% of their income to housing. There are even 80,000 households that spend 80% of their income on housing, and that is just in Quebec. That in itself is scandalous. Imagine someone earning $1,000 or $2,000 and having to spend $800 or $1,600 on housing. How would they eat? How would they send their children to school and pay for their school supplies? We are not even talking about recreational activities.

With such major concerns, with the bar set so high, with all the things we have repeated here and that organizations across the country have been repeating, we would expect the government to address the issue in the budget, to tackle this challenge and propose robust measures. Out of 250 pages of various measures in all sorts of areas, how many pages in the budget are devoted to the 3.5 million housing units we need over the next 10 years?

There is only one page. There is one short page about the most important issue of our generation. That is scandalous: a single short page on one of the most fundamental issues of our era, along with the fight against climate change and the language crisis. That in itself is scandalous.

Instead of addressing the issue, from what we learned yesterday, they are allocating $800 million over the next five years to protect the best protected linguistic minority in the history of humanity, the anglophone community in Quebec. This community represents only 8% of the population, but the power of English is quite evident in Quebec, Canada and North America. However, the government will be sending $800 million to the community over the next five years.

I advocated for 20 years for the survival of the French language in Quebec. That is one of the reasons I went into politics. The survival of the French language and culture in Quebec is one of our greatest challenges. Since I got here, I have heard a lot of promises. They say they recognize the symmetry between English and French in Canada, that they know it is important, that they know that French-language communities across the country are in peril, that they know that French in Quebec is also threatened, that they will get down to it and come up with a bill with teeth.

Now the government comes up with Bill C-13 and, yesterday, with a plan to invest $800 million. Anglophones in Quebec have three universities. They have as many hospitals and television stations as they need. They have access to all music on Spotify, and to more movies than they can watch. There is no housing for the most destitute in this country and no investments to make a difference in this budget, but the government’s excuse is that it has invested in recent years. It is unacceptable that we are failing to address this crucial issue. I just cannot believe it.

Right now, I am touring Quebec to document the crisis, to see what is happening on the ground. The things I am hearing are appalling. In Trois‑Rivières, a victim of domestic violence is sleeping in a car with her two children. How can we allow that? How can there be only one page about housing in the budget?

In my riding of Longueuil, there are 17 people living in a three-bedroom apartment. What country are we living in? Is this a G7 country, or is it some country in the Middle Ages? I cannot get over the idea of 17 people living in a three-bedroom apartment. There are no measures in the budget for these 17 people in their three-bedroom apartment. There are no measures to help that victim of domestic violence who is living in her car with her two children.

This budget is a disgrace, a disaster. It does not meet the needs of Quebec and Canadian society today. It is misguided. It fails to target the most important issues, and that is extremely unfortunate.

Maybe I am being too naive. Still, however much I do not like it, I will keep repeating these truths until the government finally understands what and where the real needs are in this society, here and now.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I want to issue a reminder that using props is against the rules. In this case, it was a page from a document. I would like the member to go get the piece of paper that he used as a prop and threw on the floor.

Then we can continue with questions and comments.

Thank you very much.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I will not use any props as I ask my hon. colleague a question.

I know that it is not all fun and games here in the House, but things do get done. One of the things that gets me down is when members exaggerate.

The government announced $31.2 billion as part of the national housing strategy. That was in the previous budgets. This funding will be available until 2028. There is a measure in the strategy to assist people in urgent need of housing, such as victims of violence.

Instead of repeating misinformation, could this well-known member from Quebec occasionally admit that progress is being made? It is not always easy, but progress is being made. A lot of progress was made with the national housing strategy.

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

Mr. Speaker, is it not against the rules to accuse another member of spreading misinformation in the House?

My speech was completely accurate. My colleague is talking about women who are victims of domestic violence. Every day in Quebec during the pandemic, women who are victims of domestic violence were being turned away from shelters because there were no resources available. There were not enough spots.

In Quebec right now, there are 45,000 households waiting for low-rent housing. These are people who cannot afford housing. These are the hard facts. I do not know what my colleague is talking about. I do not know what planet he is living on. Right now, the housing crisis is one of the most serious crises of our time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert on his spirited speech. In my province of British Columbia, the birth rate continues to decline, just like in Quebec.

Would more births in Quebec help fix the language crisis? How can we encourage Quebeckers to have more babies?

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

Mr. Speaker, encouraging Quebeckers to have more babies is a trap. They will not have more babies. Let us be honest, people in the west are not having babies. One way or another, we need to encourage francophone immigration to address the language crisis throughout Canada and Quebec. It is extremely important. People are not having babies.

Unfortunately, in Quebec, society is anglicizing naturally. This is happening naturally. I talked about it in my speech earlier. We need a substantial francophone immigration policy because there is not going to be another baby boom, unfortunately.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the area I represent has over 300 years of francophone culture. The citizens I represent there are now going to be able to get dental care, and we have some of the highest rates of child poverty in the country. What would the member have to say to those people if we were to not do a budget that includes child care or access to dental care for children, persons with disabilities and seniors, in particular, given that we have some of the highest rates of poverty? I would like to hear what the member has to say about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it needs to be said: We always get the impression that the NDP is in the wrong Parliament. There is a party in Quebec called Québec Solidaire that is proposing this type of measure. It is working out quite well because when we talk about dental care, that is part of Quebec's responsibility for health care.

Obviously, I am not against dental care, because it is extremely important. What we keep saying is that Ottawa does not run any hospitals, it does not pay for any doctors and it does not train any nurses. It does not have the authority to talk about these jurisdictions. If it wants to create dental care programs, the government should send money to the provinces, and the provinces will take care of it.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the one disappointing thing about the previous member is that he did not tell us where he gets his shirts, and that is something this House needs to know. I hope, some day, he will tell us.

I rise today on the budget, and I would like to start by talking about some important news that happened last week. I represent the community of St. Catharines, which has been an automotive community for the better part of a century. There is a General Motors factory in our community. It has been a long-time employer in the community, and this week's announcement about the new gigafactory in St. Thomas is exciting for southern Ontario for many reasons.

[An hon. member]

Thirteen billion.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we got elected in 2015, there was a dark cloud over the auto industry. The previous government really did not pay enough attention. We saw factory closings in St. Thomas, with thousands of workers laid off. We saw closings throughout the manufacturing sector. We saw a lot of factories close in Niagara, automotive or otherwise.

I had GM pensioners come to me in the early part of our first mandate worried whether the St. Catharines plant would stay open, after serving the community and being an employer of members of our community for a century. It is a shocking thing for a community, to be worried about something that has been at the heart of it for so long. I tip my hat, not only to this government, but also to the provincial government, for focusing on the auto industry and understanding it is a priority for the province and a priority for southern Ontario.

The Volkswagen announcement would mean 3,000 direct jobs and 30,000 indirect jobs. Those would be jobs throughout southern Ontario, the rest of Ontario and even into the neighbouring provinces as well. There was a heckle that it is going to cost billions of dollars in federal and provincial investments, but it is an investment. That investment will be paid off in less than six years, and it is for a plant that will be there for decades, a plant that will produce 400 billion to 500 billion dollars' worth of economic activity. I am going to say that again. This will be $400 billion to $500 billion, not million, in economic activity for a region that has seen so many factories move away and so many factories close.

Conservatives will say that they stand up for workers, but I ask where the action is on that. It has become awfully quiet. The heckling has stopped, but at the end of the day—

[Frank Caputo]

Where were you for Alberta workers?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the heckling has started again, and it is for Alberta workers. They ask about Alberta workers. Unemployment is high. I know the hon. member is excited about automotive workers. What is good for Ontario is good for Alberta. What is good for Alberta is good for the rest of the country as well.

The hon. member knows that oil is a commodity, and the price of oil will dictate the economy, so it is a global thing. I know he pretends the Prime Minister is in charge of that, which is an incredible thing to suggest to his constituents. It is kind of silly, and it really shows he really does not comprehend how the global economy works, which is truly disappointing for a member in a party that claims it speaks for business.

To hear these heckles, it is clear he does not know how business works and does not know how the economy works. That being said—

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member used unparliamentary language. If the member is going to talk about people personally, he can keep it parliamentary.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I would like to say that everything was nice and quiet until someone asked for some heckling.

The hon. member for St. Catharines has the floor.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not specifically point anyone out until the hon. member stood up to accept that he did not understand what he was talking about. As the old saying goes, it would be best to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt, so I am happy to have him stand up.

It is truly disappointing that the hon. member would try to heckle me over 33,000 jobs. The Conservative member for the region was there. I am sure she is excited about the prospect of tens of thousands of jobs in southern Ontario. I know the premier of Ontario, who is a Conservative, gave her a shout-out for her work in her constituency, but it is disappointing to see the leader of the opposition stand against auto workers, the automotive industry and southern Ontario.

We have seen investments, and not just in Volkswagen in St. Thomas. We have seen them at automotive plants such as Honda, Toyota, General Motors and Ford. We have seen new announcements in places such as Windsor, London, Niagara and Oshawa, which some had feared would close. These are places that we thought were on the way out, which are now excited about the future, and are there for the future.

To cash in on the green economy and green jobs, we need to have an environmental plan. That is what the hon. members on the other side do not understand. They do not understand that we need a climate plan. The last election they ran on a carbon tax. At the end of the day, they have now changed their minds, going back to saying it should be free to pollute whenever and however one wants. That is how they go about things. They have tried it three elections in a row and can carry on to continue in the same way in a fourth election.

A company such as Volkswagen, after looking at Canada, realized that this is a country that is serious about climate and a province that is serious about climate. That is how we attract these jobs. Our workers, whether they are in Ontario or Alberta, are serious about doing better for their environment. We can see with our own eyes that the climate is changing.

We can bury our heads in the sand, or we can do better. We can get good-paying jobs. We can advance the middle class in our country, or we can say, “Oh, don't worry about it. We'll just stick with the old ways and see those factories close.” That is what they did in the previous 10 years they were in office. They threw up their hands and said they do not care.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard another heckle. We reduced emissions. I always love that we reduced emissions, but they take credit for the Kathleen Wynne closure of coal plants in Ontario. One thing they do is quietly celebrate Kathleen Wynne about that. I appreciate the heckle on that point.

Again, this is optimistic for St. Catharines, and it is optimistic for southern Ontario. It is going to see workers continue and generations, moving forward, who will have great-paying jobs in this sector. That is how we build the middle class.

I would also like to speak about dental. This is something else the Conservatives are opposed to, providing free dental care to kids and seniors, even though they themselves get a government-funded dental plan, as we do on this side of this House. They would deny that to Canadians.

There was a weird comment by a previous member who suggested some seniors are having difficulty buying groceries, so a dental plan would be a waste, which is a shocking thing to say. I guess the Conservative viewpoint on this would be, if someone is having trouble eating, they do not need teeth, which is wild.

Before I was elected to office, my favourite job, which was also one I did not get paid for, was the chair of Quest Community Health Centre in St. Catharines. We had a volunteer dental clinic where a volunteer dentist would come and do work on vulnerable members of our community. It was incredible to see the results. People who had been in pain for years, for decades, would use the emergency room to take care of their dental pain. We all know that there are ER crises across the country with long wait times, but people were smiling for the first time.

The Conservatives see it as a waste, which is disappointing. How does one get a job if one cannot smile? It is the right thing to do, but let us look at it as an economic plan. They can be opposed to alleviating suffering. They can be opposed to making people feel great being able to smile, but it will help them get jobs. It will help them get back into society.

This is something worthwhile. It is something this budget and this government stand up for, but we do not see it on the other side.

The Conservatives say that they stand up for the vulnerable, that they stand up for workers, that they stand up for their constituents, but time after time, when the rubber meets the road on these points that actually help Canadians, they are nowhere to be seen. Though they have been heckling me on issues that matter to Canadians, they are nowhere to be seen when the votes happen and it is time to help Canadians. The Conservatives have nothing except bumper sticker slogans, and that will never help Canadians.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reference a remark that the member made about my comment.

Could he please explain to me why Sheila has to live from overdraft to overdraft, paying 21% just to heat her house and to buy groceries? The dental care plan is not going to help someone who cannot eat. That was my reference, not that it is not a good idea. I am saying that we need to allow people to have more money in their pockets and less taxes.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is wild. She did not correct her comment that she does not need dental care, that she is having trouble. That she does not need to no have pain and that she does not deserve to have a smile is beside the point.

This is from a member who represented a party that was going to increase the age that people could collect OAS and GIS, from age 65 to 67. This is from a party that voted against increases to OAS, that voted against increases to GIS, that voted against cutting taxes on the middle class so we could raise it on the wealthiest 1%. It is a party that votes against dental care for seniors.

It is absolutely shocking that the hon. member would stand and want to correct her comments when they are flawed to their core.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the Volkswagen plant. We have been after a national auto strategy for a long time in this place. The original plan was with Dr. David Suzuki, my then friend and former MP Joe Comartin and the CAW, and now Unifor, back in 2006. To be fair to this agreement with Volkswagen, it is a pretty solid deal, because most of it is loaded with the production taking place as opposed to going in without any expectations.

However, I do want to correct one thing. When General Motors and Chrysler were struggling a few years back, the Conservatives at that time, with the late Jim Flaherty, said that they could not pick winners or losers at first. Later on, they made an agreement to save General Motors and Chrysler, which now Stellantis. Had we not sold the shares to General Motors, we would have made money off the loan that was provided at that time.

I would like the member to provide a little more details about the Volkswagen investment. To be fair, the minister has done a decent deal with regard to this, ensuring that the money is tied to the facility and the development of that facility, as well as the production of materials, including batteries and so forth. If we do not have that type of production, we will be a rip-and-ship nation, like we are for softwood lumber.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right that the government stepped up, as did the government in the United States, to save General Motors. However, having lived in Windsor for three years and being from Niagara, we can probably sit down and go on for far too long about the number of factories that closed and how manufacturing was impacted and forgotten. Even though in that one moment it was saved, we did not see that desire throughout the course of the Conservatives' mandate.

I agree with the hon. member that this is a good investment. This will go on for years. It is not front-end loaded so the company can walk away or not produce the batteries it says that it will make.

However, I would like to expand briefly on his analogy with respect to ripping and shipping, as we have done for centuries in our country. We will produce in Canada the critical minerals that will then go into the battery plant. We will take advantage of this. I tip my hat to the Minister of Innovation as Canada has now become the number two place to do business with regard to batteries in the world in a short period of time. We see where the future is going to be, we see where the puck is going to be, and the hon. minister is there.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague stated, we keep repeating the same thing, but, there is no mention of regional flights in Bill C‑47.

Regional flights are out of reach. There has been a considerable increase in the price of fuel, and the price of flights continues to increase. Bill C‑47 would significantly increase the air travel security charge for both international and regional flights.

I want to talk about airports. When talking about regional flights, we must first talk about regional airports, and I would like to talk about the Val‑D'Or airport in particular. We have been asking for money for this airport, but have had no response from the minister. We keep repeating the same thing.

This airport is important for aviation safety. It is a hub for northern Quebec, and keeping it operating smoothly is actually a matter of life or death. There is nothing for the regions in this budget.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very specific question about her region. The only thing I can say is that the airlines are private entities. I know the opposition likes to point to the government and say that it is our fault that flights are delayed, that this and that is our fault. These are private companies across the country—

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

Who regulates them?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, though we do not control the weather, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the members heckling me seem to suggest we do, it is important for the private sector to step up. There are labour shortages across the sector, which is something at which I hope the minister is looking.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. I would like it if people could just have a nice discussion on what is going on, but I would also suggest to folks that extra heckling is a little too much sometimes.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. I want to suggest to folks that if they get a little too excited, it is really nice outside. They can go outside and say hi to their friends or take a walk. It is sunny. Maybe they can grab a glass water or something like that.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the federal government's budget and to report on behalf of working families, seniors and small businesses that I represent in New Brunswick Southwest.

I will join other Conservative MPs in voting against the budget implement act. We do so because the Liberal budget will make life more difficult and more expensive for Canadians.

Liberal MPs measure success by how many tax dollars are being spent. They say that the number of programs in this budget is what matters, yet Canadians know and understand why more federal assistance is needed. It is because the government's overall management of the economy is failing. Under the Liberals, Canadians are becoming poorer.

The Liberal government is raising taxes every year on households and businesses. It is a government that spent so much so quickly that inflation roared back, raising consumer prices throughout the economy on households and businesses, making it harder to get by and harder to compete.

As a result, Canadians are experiencing a cost of living crisis. It is especially painful on families, pensioners on a fixed income as well as modest and low-income workers. Canadians do not approve of massive inflationary spending. The Conservatives understand this. We recognize that out-of-control debt financing and taxes only hurts the country and it hurts Canadians. However, this is the Liberal plan.

As well, I should note that Conservatives do not approve of the Liberal-NDP coalition that barters tax dollars for confidence votes so the Prime Minister can govern as if he won a majority, when he did no such thing.

We know the Prime Minister has no willingness to be fiscally responsible. Nor is he even skilled at overseeing the government. The Liberals have increased spending on the public service, the running of the government, by 50%, yet today, federal workers are out on strike in the largest job action in at least 40 years. I have to say that it takes a special sort of incompetence to accomplish both these things, to both ramp up spending, spending more than $22 billion on the operation of government, and yet be in a position where taxpayers are receiving less but paying more.

Even while the Prime Minister drops the ball on big items and the cabinet passes these, the Liberal backbench cheers them on. Worse, taxpayers see a leader of a government who does not even care about ethics.

My constituents are certainly aware of the Prime Minister's extravagant spending habits and posh vacations. As struggling Canadians forgo basics and seniors make a choice between groceries and rent, the Prime Minister is choosing between visiting Jamaica and New York. Given his access to the pocketbook of Canadians, he chooses both. What is a $6,000-a-night hotel room in London when taxpayers cover it, or taking a Caribbean vacation when the $80,000-price is covered by a Trudeau Foundation donor? Canadians work hard and many cannot get ahead, yet the Prime Minister has never had it so good.

Earlier this month, the Prime Minister was in my home province to tell New Brunswick families that they should also spend without worrying about the consequences of more debt. At a town hall in Moncton, the Prime Minister explained how borrowing money, as his Liberal government is doing, was just like using a credit card. He actually encouraged New Brunswick families and all Canadians to use their credit cards to pay for things like tuition and home renovations. He said, “If you’re using your credit card to go back to school, or if you go into debt to build an expansion on your house, then you’re going to be able to sell your house for more.”

Our Prime Minister is so out of touch, he is urging Canadians to borrow at interest rates as high as 28%, without any consequences, he says.

It is the same thing he told Canadians about inflation. Inflation will stay low. Homeowners took him at his word and took out variable mortgages with rates that have now gone through the roof. It is really making life difficult for millions of Canadians.

This is exactly how the Government of Canada is governing our nation's finances. Borrowing at 28% does not build wealth. It is a recipe for economic hardship. If someone borrows at 28%, their debt will double in three short years. That is what the Prime Minister is urging Canadians to do.

The projected interest on Canada's debt is going to hit $44 billion this year. That is money we just pay to bondholders. It does not fund a single social program. It does not help hire another RCMP officer. It does not help equip our military. It is money that is going up and is being paid off overseas.

It is $10 billion more than the estimates the government provided in the last fiscal economic update, and it will hit $50 billion in four short years. That is the spiral the government has us in. We have rising interest rates because of its debt-fuelled spending, twinned with inflation that is making a bad foundation wholly unstable.

Nowhere in this budget is there a viable strategy to control spending, or offer a plan or an outline to balance the budget. Instead, the total debt will top $1.2 trillion this year. Speaking of doubling debt, that is precisely what the Liberal government has done in eight short years. It has run up more debt than all governments in Canadian history combined. That has us on the road to fiscal ruin.

It gets worse. It does not just end with spending. The Liberal carbon tax increased to $65 per tonne of emissions this year, resulting in higher prices for gasoline, home heating, food and almost everything in the Canadian economy.

Liberals like to point to higher gas prices as something that is caused by the war against Russia, and there is no doubt that war has caused hardship, pressure on supply chains and rising energy prices.

I point to my riding, which neighbours the state of Maine. If someone crosses into Maine and fills up their tank, after the exchange rate, gas is 50% more expensive per litre in New Brunswick than it is in Maine. That is 100% due to energy taxes on gasoline. It has nothing to do with Russia. It has everything to do with how the government is taxing energy to make life more expensive and make life more painful for Canadian families.

The Liberals are going to triple the carbon tax, raising it from $65 to $175 per tonne by 2030. This will be a body blow to the middle class and working families. It will make our manufacturing sector uncompetitive with the United States.

I can already hear the Liberals' reply that the carbon tax is for a clean environment, but the carbon tax is not an environment plan. It is the largest tax plan in Canadian history.

Conservatives do not believe in punishing families for buying groceries or punishing workers for driving to work. I have a few stats that are worth mentioning. If the government likes to talk about its big numbers, let us talk about some items that Canadians are facing every day.

Canada's Food Price Report this year predicts that a family of four will spend up to $1,065 more on food, which is $598 more than the $467 rebate they will receive from Ottawa.

I was happy to vote for that motion to return dollars to Canadians. The difference is I believe taxes should come down as a principle. Liberals only cut taxes when they are in trouble politically. They have driven up the cost of living in this country and, as a result, they are looking for rescue plans everywhere they can find them.

However, their fundamentals are such that this problem is not going to change. We will continue to see Canada go down a dark economic road until we turn things around. We need to limit the taxes on families and businesses, get our spending in order, and begin to make and build things here in Canada that do not require gobs of subsidies and government regulations.

This is why we are voting against the budget and this is why the Liberal government must be replaced as quickly as possible.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the speech by my colleague with great interest when he talked about the importance of reducing the cost of living for Canadians. I reflect on some of the things that our government has done, including working with every single province to implement affordable child care. I would love for the hon. member across the aisle to explain to Canadians and to us why he and his party and voted against and continue to work against $10-a-day child care in this country.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are becoming tiresome with their one answer to the affordability crisis. The affordability crisis in this country is not just for families with children who are facing struggles. It is about pensioners. It is about small businesses. It is about families throughout this economy, whether they are on a fixed income, whether they are earning a low or modest wage. The government needs a better answer to that as opposed to just ringing on about day care and its plan on that. This is the problem: Any senior who comes into their office is going to talk about the struggles they have in making ends meet.

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

Mr. Speaker, I found my Conservative colleague's speech very interesting. It was really a typical Conservative speech, where the member rants and raves about debt. The Conservatives are saying that the federal government spends too much, that Canada is going into debt and that things are going to be hell for our children.

It is true that the government has done nothing but run deficits since it took office. We agree with that. However, the long-term projections tell a different story. Because of its fiscal capacity and minimal responsibilities, in a few years, the Canadian government could end up with no more debt, while the provinces go bankrupt. That is an acknowledged fact.

I would like to know whether my colleague can recalibrate his speech based on that information. It seems as though his speech was all about the federal government's finances being in a catastrophic state when, in reality, it is the provincial governments' finances that are in dire straits because the federal government is not helping them and is keeping all the money for itself.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, those comments are typical because these policies work. When we reduce taxes, we see that there is more economic activity in Canada.

In terms of debt, the provinces also need to act responsibly. In my home province of New Brunswick, Premier Blaine Higgs cut spending, and the province is in a very good position. It is the same elsewhere in Canada. The provinces are working hard, but they are running into problems because of the carbon tax and the fact that the federal government is infringing on their jurisdictions. The government spends too much and imposes too many taxes. That is hard for Canadians.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from my home province of New Brunswick made a comment about trying to support pensioners and of course on this side of the House we do. We increased the CPP contributions and yet our Conservative friends continue to rail against this. I also heard a lot about the carbon tax. Now in New Brunswick we have the federal backstop where we will be having those quarterly payments going to help with affordability measures and yet once again they are against this.

I am trying to understand. Do we really want to help constituents here, or are you really just looking for issues where there are not any? I really think it is time that we get on board with pollution pricing in New Brunswick because it is a good thing for them and it is a good thing for environmental projects like supporting indigenous communities and schools. Would you repeal those if you had the chance?

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Remember to speak through the Chair.

The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Would we repeal the carbon tax, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely. The member knows well that the reason Blaine Higgs is no longer administrating the Liberal carbon tax is because it is ruinous to families, so he is out of the game. He does not want anything to do with this Liberal carbon tax, just like now eight out of 10 provinces.

Let me point out something this member says. She says she is for a green economy but opposes nuclear power. Her colleague from Saint John—Rothesay scolded her because if they want power that is carbon-dioxide free, just like other Liberals are realizing, they need to embrace nuclear. The member is an outlier on that and her own Liberal colleague from New Brunswick called her out on that because this fantasy world of high taxes and no energy is just going to result in a ruinous economy and a ruinous country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget.

I represent a riding with one of the highest child poverty rates in the country. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have consistently left parts of the country like mine, northern Manitoba, behind, preferring to stand with their billionaire friends than communities like the one I come from, and communities in our region. I think in many ways this budget reflects that.

We have seen the slow pace at which the Liberals move when it comes to helping people versus the zeal that comes with standing with the billionaire class. Liberals have been in power for eight years, and it took New Democrats to force them to expand health care services and finally move to provide dental care services for millions of Canadians. New Democrats have made this call for years and now many seniors and young people will finally get access to the dental care they need.

We also know Canadians are struggling to put food on the table for their families in a way we have not seen in a generation. The reality is the current government is not doing enough. We know the GST rebate that will be sent to families will provide immediate relief for Canadians, and that is also something that is there because of the work of New Democrats. Let us be clear. If Liberals had it their way, none of these supports would have been included. While there is still more work to be done to deliver for the working class, if it were not for elected New Democrats in Parliament this budget would have been much worse.

Let us talk about what is not in the budget. New Democrats forced the government to help people, but we know there is so much more that must be done. Without this pressure by New Democrats, this budget would not have provided Canadians any sort of help, and they should know that New Democrats will always fight to get results for them.

One area that is very concerning is the lack of urgent significant investment in indigenous housing. The $4 billion over seven years for a co-developed urban, rural and northern indigenous strategy, starting in 2024-25, is not enough. We know that Liberals did not even want to put this much money in the budget, and it is outrageous that the money will only start flowing in the next fiscal year. Indigenous communities, first nations and Métis communities, like the ones I represent, need action now. The infrastructure gap facing first nations is at least $30 billion, and we suspect that number is much higher. The $4 billion over seven years is barely a drop in the bucket and will not do enough to end the inhumane conditions the current government, and governments before it, have forced indigenous peoples to live in.

When we talk about the housing crisis facing indigenous communities, let us be clear as to what we are talking about. In places like Shamattawa, Cross Lake and Tataskweyak, we are talking about dilapidated, overcrowded homes, with 12 people or even more to a house, with holes in the walls, mould in the corners and heating that does not work in some of the harshest climates in the country. If members of the House think that the amount of money in this budget for indigenous housing is sufficient, it is because they have never set foot on a first nation.

It is shameful that the government had to be pulled kicking and screaming to make even these small investments, and I challenge any sitting member who defends the indefensible to come to northern Manitoba, to visit Nunavut, to visit first nations in northern Ontario. The money is barely a drop in the bucket. It is no surprise coming from the Liberal government. It could not even budget for indigenous housing in its platform. It literally had no money for indigenous housing, the most extreme housing crisis in our country, in its platform. When people show us who they are, we should believe them.

The current government will continue to pay lip service to these commitments and do less than the bare minimum. Yes, it might say all the right things, throw in the word “reconciliation” a few times, but I have suspected for a long time that when it comes to indigenous peoples the government is satisfied making Canadians in cities feel comfortable, rather than making the real systemic change that would allow indigenous peoples and indigenous communities to actually have the right to secure and safe housing. We need real systemic change.

A great example of how the government is satisfied to tinker around the edges without materially improving the lives of people is how they are dealing with the Canada Infrastructure Bank, a Crown corporation.

To rewind a bit, over a year ago, I proposed legislation that would help communities like the ones I represent, first nations, Métis and northern communities, to access over $35 billion to take on the devastating impacts of the climate crisis in their communities. The Canada Infrastructure Bank, since its inception, has been an abysmal failure for Canadians but a success for the billionaire class. In our bill, we worked to fix that, and a lot of our solutions actually made it into this budget.

We called for the Canada Infrastructure Bank to prioritize the needs of northern and indigenous communities. At the time, the Liberals voted against that, but it is now in the budget. We called for the Canada Infrastructure Bank to prioritize funding projects that help us deal with the climate crisis. At the time, the Liberals voted against it, but it is now in the budget. We also called to end the corporate giveaway led by the Canada Infrastructure Bank by removing its privatization capacity. The Liberals voted against it. Curiously, this did not make it into the budget.

We see this repeatedly throughout the budget any time we deal with corporate profits. In 2021, as the richest companies in the country had record profits, they managed to push their tax rate lower, avoiding $30 billion in taxes.

The government knows about these loopholes. We have called on it numerous times to close them, because the reality is that the problem is getting worse. As Dr. DT Cochrane from Canadians for Tax Fairness pointed out, in the decade before the pandemic, “Canadian corporations claimed about eight cents of every dollar as pre-tax profit.” In 2021, that number was 12¢, which is unsurprising. Every time a for-profit corporation gets a hold of a dollar, it is compelled to siphon as much profit as possible.

What is equally unsurprising is that the Liberals refuse to do anything about it. If New Democrats were in power, we would bring in an excess profit tax to make sure that billionaires pay their fair share. It really highlights the issue with the Liberal Party and its repeated, utter refusal to do anything that upsets the status quo or upsets the capital class and the Liberals' rich and powerful friends.

This is why we are unsurprised that the budget is woefully inadequate when it comes to combatting the climate crisis. For the 2023-24 period, only $14 billion is allocated to climate-related spending efforts. This is insultingly low when compared with the 2% of the GDP we need to address the scale and magnitude of the climate emergency. Most of the spending in the Liberal budget is in the form of tax breaks and subsidies to corporations rather than direct investments in proven emissions reduction projects.

If we could solve the climate crisis through tax breaks to wealthy corporations, it would have already been done. Members can believe me on this: That is literally Liberals' only solution, which they try again and again.

We need to be real. The climate crisis is nothing to take lightly. Canadians need a plan that will funnel funds into publicly owned sustainable energy projects to reduce our carbon emissions in the long term. Such investments could be made in public transit, renewable energy projects and infrastructure that makes sense and protects our communities. What we have instead is the continued billion-dollar giveaway to big oil.

Why are the Liberals more concerned with preserving subsidies for big oil, which made record profits this year, than investing in a sustainable, green economy that will save lives? The government has always said the right things when it comes to the environment. It is an expert at greenwashing. Unfortunately, the government has always done the complete opposite. Continued support for the oil and gas sector hinders our progress towards a sustainable, low-carbon future.

I want to be clear on this: A New Democrat climate policy would involve investing public money in public carbon emissions reduction plans, such as public transit, decarbonized energy grids and renewable energy alternatives. This would be done at a much higher rate than is done in this budget, which carries with it an incalculable loss for future generations. The truth is that the current Liberal government lacks the imagination and, most importantly, the political will to seriously tackle the climate crisis head-on.

In closing, New Democrats are proud that we forced the Liberals to make some investments that would make a real difference to the people across the country. However, there is so much more that needs to be done, particularly when it comes to the most marginalized communities—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I know the hon. member did not get all her speech out, but maybe we can finish that up in questions and comments.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the previous speaker was up, I got a little animated, and I went across the floor. I had an issue that I wanted to raise. A more appropriate way for a parliamentarian to raise an issue is to stand on a point of order and go through the Speaker. I want to apologize to the House. I hold myself to a high standard of conduct, and I just want to apologize for going to the edge of the other bench and having my words personally, versus standing on a point of order, which is the parliamentary thing to do.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the member for that point of order. We appreciate it.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Manitoba serves the riding that is probably the most similar to my riding in all of Canada, and so my question for her is actually quite simple.

In a riding like ours, the carbon tax disproportionately affects rural and remote communities; many of these are indigenous communities that we serve in these northern and remote ridings. What I understand is that everything that gets to a shelf in the communities in these northern and remote areas is trucked in, and for anything that is trucked in, the cost of trucking it is being substantially increased by the cost of the carbon tax. The increase on the carbon tax is increasing the cost of everything on every shelf, everywhere in our northern communities. Increasing prices at a time when people have less money is not a recipe for economic success.

The member commented in her speech about the budget being woefully inadequate. With that as the context, my question to the member is simply this: Is she in conflict about supporting the budget, if it is so woefully inadequate?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the commonalities between northern Saskatchewan and northern Manitoba. I think we have to be very real about what is in front of us, and as I said, while there is good in the budget, there is also much more work that needs to be done.

However, I certainly want to speak to the issue of cost of living. We absolutely need government to be part of the solution. What is also clear to me in terms of regions like ours, and certainly communities across the country, is that we are not taking on the companies that are making profits on the backs of some of the poorest communities in the country.

For example, we have the nutrition north subsidy, which has not been reformed in ages, since the Harper government totally reshaped it for the benefit of the Northern Store. The reality is that a lot of communities cannot afford, even with the subsidy, to buy the kinds of healthy foods they need for their families. We need the federal government to be taking a hard look at the nutrition north subsidy and working with northern communities, indigenous communities, harvesters, trappers and organizations that want to make a difference in terms of food security. That is clearly not being done right now.

I would say more broadly that, when we are talking about the cost of living crisis, we also need good jobs in our communities. I come from a mining town where the Harper government signed a deal with Vale, a Brazilian multinational. This deal led to the loss of every single refining job in my community. We lost almost all the value-added jobs, with some of the best salaries, in my hometown. Families left and have never come back.

As such, if we are going to be real about what the government needs to do, I would take a hard look at the history of the way in which the Conservative government made life more difficult for northerners in my part of the country and do very differently. This is something we are not seeing much of from the Liberals. I can safely say that if we were in government, it would be a whole different story.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how helpful it is to speak in hyperbolic terms, and I think that we need to be more collaborative in this House. I take personal offence, given how hard we fight on this side for indigenous communities, at the suggestion that if we support this budget, for those who think it is wholly inadequate, we must never have set foot in a first nations community. That is certainly not true.

We are looking for creative solutions to address the housing crisis in indigenous communities across this country. Does the member support the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, which will help indigenous-led solutions for indigenous financial institutions to leverage funding and ensure that these kinds of infrastructure projects can move forward?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure what to do with comments around personal offence. I respect the member's work when it comes to speaking out for first nations.

A few short weeks ago, 11 first nations in my region declared a public state of emergency because the housing, drug and health care crisis is so bad. If folks are offended by that reality and cannot realize that the Liberals are not addressing it, I am not sure what to say about that. We have to be very real about the crisis in communities, certainly where I come from, in northern and remote fly-in communities. This crisis is not by accident. It is the result of decades of neglect from federal Liberal and Conservative governments. Canada needs to do much better.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise on Bill C-47.

First, I want to thank members here in the chamber and those who are not for supporting Bill C-248, my private member's bill on the Ojibway national urban park, which passed almost unanimously. I thank members for that.

It is good to talk about how this place can work. I have worked, at the industry committee, on a couple of Conservative bills, one from the member of Essex, and I am glad that this Parliament is continuing, because that work will continue. However, if we do not support the budget bill, it is very clear what happens. As I hear from many members from all political sides, what they say in the chamber and sometimes in public is not the same thing as we hear in private. They are glad we are not going to an election for a lot of reasons, and they will talk about that quite openly because the consequence would be losing all private members' legislation.

I have worked with a couple of Conservative members, in particular, on their private member's bill, which are quite good. They are excellent, and a good step forward in making a difference for Canadians. One is on affordability and one is on interoperability with regard to sharing information on farming and other things. Lastly, there is one related to tax incentives, which is important for a number of reasons.

I think it is important to note, as I start to think about why I am supporting this bill, that there are some things I do not like in a bill and there are things I do like in a bill. That has been the same for me in this place for over 20 years for any government that has come forward. It does not matter which one it has been, whether it was Jean Chrétien's when I first got here or, most recently, that of the member for Papineau, the current Prime Minister. There are certain things I do like and certain things I do not like in a bill. However, overall, I am pretty proud of the NDP being able to use this opportunity to get things passed that were defeated in the previous Parliament, whether it is dental care or more housing initiatives.

They are not all of the things we wanted and asked for, and we wanted other things to go with them, but we are 25 members moving this country forward. Also, imagine going through another election during a pandemic with no results and it costing hundreds of millions of dollars. The Speaker would have to go through another election for the Speaker position, and we would have all the rigamarole to get the House back in operating form, for probably a regular scenario like we have here.

I have seen in this chamber other political parties get a lot less or not do anything. I remember that during the Harper minority years, the Liberals supported Harper over 100 times without an amendment. Over 100 times they supported the government de facto, letting it operate as a majority government without any challenges. During that time, Harper brought in the HST, a new tax on consumers, and even taxed hospital parking lots, which are no longer taxed. I could go on with a bunch of things that happened with no resistance whatsoever from the Liberals at that time. We sat next to each other in the old chamber, and I remember asking why they were not doing anything about it. They said they did not want to be bothered right now. We bother because we have to fight for things.

When I got here, there were only 14 New Democrats, and we played our role, as anybody in opposition, in trying to hold the government to account for a lot of reasons, such as making change and so forth. Then, when Jack Layton joined us, there was a real change in where we were. With where we stand today, we want to make propositions as well as be in opposition. That is what Jack instilled in many of the members here today.

With the culture we now work in on a regular basis, we look at this as an opportunity to get what Tommy Douglas wanted. Tommy Douglas wanted eye care, dental care and pharmacare as part of the full package, and that is part of what drove us as New Democrats. It was the understanding that our freedom, our sense of well-being and our health are so critically important, not only to us and our families but also to the economy and society, that they should be the number one things protected. That is one of the reasons Tommy Douglas was voted the number one Canadian, with the population supporting him as Canada's favourite Canadian.

We are now realizing a part of that dream that never came to fruition. It is important to recognize that each province does have some elements of dental care and some elements that are stronger than others. However, this is not across the whole country from coast to coast to coast.

In the area I represent, I have a lot of child poverty and a lot of single mothers. A lot of people, including my own hygienist, do not have dental coverage. These things are wrong because they affect human health, everything from one's heart to wellness to how one feels as a person. This is all preventable.

This is money that goes back in the economy. Yes, it does cost the government money and there is a cost and expenditure there, but it is not a tax cut, which is something the Conservatives and the Liberals have done in the past. In fact, Stéphane Dion was arguing with I think Michael Ignatieff at the time about tax cuts not going deep enough and fast enough.

When there are a lot of U.S. corporations and taxes on worldwide profits, some of our industries send money back to Washington. Instead of doing that, I would rather invest in dental care, as an example, because it saves jobs and lowers the cost of jobs in Canada for foreign investment and other investment.

Earlier in the debate today, we talked about the Volkswagen plant that is coming in. I have been after a national auto policy and I do not want to see one-offs. I would rather see a strategic investment, especially when it comes to batteries and the platinum age of auto, which we are in right now. In the calculations to do the deal here is the cost of labour. When we look at the productivity of Unifor and other labour organizations in the auto sector, yes, their wages and benefits are a little higher, but they also produce significantly more and better than their counterparts.

On top of that, when there are programs with subsidies going to the worker instead of the corporation, we control those subsidies and those subsidies are not going off to other countries. They are staying here and are investing in people. Those people with those subsidies are better off regarding production and making sure we can be economically viable.

There is also the social justice argument, which should be a no-brainer. How anybody in this chamber can accept dental benefits for their own children but deny others the same thing is beyond me. I do not understand how they can come to this place and check that at door every single time. We know we get a privilege benefit from the taxpayers, but we tell them they cannot have that. By the way, we still have not fixed eye care. We do not have that either. That is wrong. We should lead by example, and leading by example means providing things that would be fair and balanced.

Coming from the border town of Windsor, Ontario, in Essex County, where we have to compete against American jobs every single day, I know from talking to executives that they want health care in this country because they know it means a lower production cost for their workers in the United States, Mexico and other places. It means less turnover and less loss of skills and abilities. Especially with an unemployment rate now of 4% to 5% and having a problem attracting workers, this is key. That is what dental care adds to the equation. It will also bring better stability at the bargaining table.

The government needs to get on this and help negotiate a settlement agreement for its workers, because we are not going to see any value in keeping the public service out right now. It is not going to pay off whatsoever, and the government needs to change that.

The point is that, yes, there is a surface cost to paying for Canadians to get dental care for themselves and their families, but it is an investment back in them, our communities and our economy versus a net loss. That is one of the reasons I will support this budget. It is going to complete at least one chapter of Tommy Douglas's dream.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to focus on something pretty fundamental. It is the difference between the budget, which I did not vote for because it failed to address the climate crisis, failed to address mental health issues and puts more money into fossil fuels, and this bill, Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, in which to my surprise, having read 429 pages, I did not find anything I wanted to vote against.

Yes, the change to the Income Tax Act that would allow CRA to share data to allow dental care to happen is part of Bill C-47, but a whole number of budget measures are not mentioned here. I wonder if, as an experienced parliamentarian, the member can help others, in this educational moment, to understand the difference between voting against the budget, which I did, and voting for Bill C-47, which I surprised myself by finding I am going to vote for.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and the Green Party for supporting Bill C-248 since the very beginning and the Ojibway national urban park. They were instrumental in getting that done.

She is quite correct that it is not a double standard, by any means, to do this. It is a challenge. I have seen a game going on for a lot of years where if a member votes against the budget, they vote against everything in the budget. That is not true. There are many things, even with this budget, that the Conservatives would do, the Liberals would do and others would do back and forth. I think that argument is rather tired. It has been used against me repeatedly, but I have been able to get back here. Some have even said that I voted against the bridge, which I have been working on for a long period of time.

I think people are smart enough to know this, so it is not a double standard by any means. I am glad they are supporting it and they can differentiate between the two.

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

Mr. Speaker, when listening to the member, I wanted to reflect on Thomas Mulcair and the type of election platform he provided. However, as opposed to doing that, as I know where the member is coming from and that he has a fairly good understanding of the automobile industry as a whole, my question will be related to the VW announcement. I know he made reference to it a bit earlier today.

The VW announcement is going to lead to the largest factory in Canada. I am talking geographically, in square footage. It will be a huge boost not only to the community of St. Thomas and the area but to all Canadians, as it will increase Canada's footprint in a significant way in the electrical battery industry, whether it is in mining or production.

Could he provide his thoughts on the importance of this particular announcement to the automobile industry and other industries beyond it?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have to decide, for batteries and the electrification of vehicles, as well as other developments that come along with ancillary employment and innovation, whether we are just going to rip and ship raw materials out of this country and send them somewhere else to be produced or do it here. We have done a disservice to our forestry, mining and oil industries by basically being the hewers versus the producers of value-added work.

This value-added work is going to happen at the Volkswagen plant. That is why I support the announcement. I think it was done in a strategic way that gives us the best chances in an industry notoriously good at playing off different jurisdictions, such as countries and even neighbourhoods, quite frankly, within municipalities.

This is also going to help the Windsor region because of the critical mass that will develop between the 401 supply chain. The taxes will come back in droves. It is just like if we had not supported General Motors. We would have lost all of the investment that has recently come in.

This is a tough thing at times. Accountability is the biggest thing we need to see come forward with it.

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

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

My question was for the NDP member who spoke before him, since she talked a lot about housing, but I think my colleague should be able to answer.

As I said earlier, we have an acute housing crisis in Canada. One of the issues we do not hear that much about in the House is the financialization of housing, which is something really important. It refers to large national and international corporations' growing ownership of Canadian rental housing stock. It is thought that corporate ownership has gone from zero to 22% in 30 years. These large corporations could not care less about the right to housing. Their primary concern is making a profit. We have to deal with this.

I would like to ask my colleague if any concrete measures could be taken to tackle this issue.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would never speak on behalf of the member from Churchill. That is never going to happen.

I do want to say that I appreciate the question. I think the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation needs to return more to its roots. We have to look at more not-for-profit and co-operative housing. Those are specific things that I would like to see improved.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in this House and speak to budget 2023 and, more important, Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

The budget this year comes at a time when Canada had the fastest-growing economy in the G7 last year and is projected to be the second-fastest-growing this year and when we have near record-low unemployment rate, having created an additional 865,000 jobs compared to what it was before the pandemic. However, we know those lofty numbers do not mean much for a lot of Canadians who are struggling right now. We have had high inflation since last year, peaking in September at 8.1%. It is now down to about 4.3%, but that has come as a result of the work of the Governor of the Bank of Canada in raising interest rates. We know that many Canadians right now are struggling with the high cost of living.

That is why the budget would make some important investments to help many folks with affordability measures. Key to this is a new grocery rebate, which would help 11 million low-to-modest-income Canadians with up to $467 per couple to help with the rising cost of food. For students right now, as of April 1 of this year, we have eliminated all interest on student loans and we have increased the Canada student grants by 40%. We are also creating a new project and expanding a project to create automatic tax filing for Canadians, because we know it is really important for Canadians to file their taxes so they can get some of the benefits that I was just speaking about.

This budget would also make historic investments in health care: almost $200 billion over 10 years, which would be key for areas like mine, where access to a family health practitioner is a very big challenge. We are also expanding Canada's dental care program for families earning under $90,000. Last year, we started it with children 12 and under. This year, it would be for Canadians who are 18 and under and those over the age of 65. There are also some very important investments that would be made to tackle the opioid epidemic, which has struck B.C. very hard.

There are also some major investments in this budget in creating the good jobs of today and the good jobs of tomorrow. We know the world is rapidly transitioning to a cleaner economy, and that is why this budget would make significant investments in supporting renewable electricity projects right across the country, not just for the private sector, but also working with Crown corporations and provinces to do that.

There are new tax credits for clean hydrogen. I know this is going to be very important for companies in my riding like Quantum Technology, which is involved in projects for the purification and liquefaction of hydrogen. There are also some major investments being made in zero-emissions manufacturing. With the creation of new funds like the Canada growth fund, we would be able to crowd in private capital for projects just like the one that was announced last week with Volkswagen, to create a massive new battery-manufacturing plant in Canada.

Because it is National Tourism Week this week, I would be remiss if I did not mention that this budget would make some significant down payments on the launch of Canada's new tourism growth strategy. There is over $100 million that would go toward the regional development agencies to support local projects. There would be about $50 million going to Destination Canada to attract international events to Canada, and there would be investments made to speed up the operations at airports, including investments in improving the protection of passenger rights.

With that, I will turn to the budget implementation act, which is where the rubber hits the road on a lot of these measures.

I mentioned passenger rights. Right now, we have a backlog of about 30,000 people who are waiting for their cases of delayed flights or cancelled flights to be adjudicated. We would change the process that we utilize for this by switching the onus so that it is not on the travellers to prove that they should be refunded, but on the airline itself to prove that they should not. This would greatly speed up the process and get passengers the refunds they deserve.

As I am a British Columbia MP, there are a couple of areas of this implementation act that are very important to me. The issue of money laundering in B.C. has really been put in the spotlight with the Cullen commission, which the Province of British Columbia commissioned and which delivered its report relatively recently. This report highlights many of the vulnerabilities that we have in Canada in tackling money laundering.

Canada has the dubious distinction of being a haven for this, a process called snow-washing. It is because we have a system without the necessary checks in it and a very well-respected financial system. This budget implementation act would make some very important changes to help us better control this challenge. In particular, it would criminalize the operation of unregistered money services businesses; it would create an ability to freeze and seize virtual assets with suspected links to crime; it would improve the financial intelligence, information sharing and strategic analysis of FINTRAC; and it would create a new offence for structuring financial transactions to avoid FINTRAC reporting. Importantly, a commitment has been made to implement all of the recommendations that are listed by the Cullen commission.

These measures also dovetail to other measures that we are currently debating in this House. We introduced Bill C-42 to create a national beneficial ownership registry so we will know who are the people behind a lot of the numbered companies, which are sometimes using this to evade paying taxes, evade sanctions or do money laundering. Importantly, this system would work very closely with beneficial ownership registries that the provinces are implementing, where the vast majority of companies are incorporated. There is also a commitment made in this budget to work with provinces and territories to look at things like unexplained wealth orders, which would greatly enhance the tools that law enforcement has to be able to locate and seize assets that could be from proceeds of crime.

As I am a coastal MP, there are a number of measures in this budget that I was very happy to see, particularly the new vessel remediation fund and changes to the abandoned boats program. This measure was introduced in 2017 by my former colleague Bernadette Jordan, and it created a fund to clean up boats that had sunk to the bottom of the ocean and were polluting the ocean. This was incredibly important and actually removed a lot of boats from waters around my riding. However, we need to go a step further, because it is much more effective to take those boats out of the water before they sink rather than having to clean them up once they have already sunk.

In the budget implementation act, we are establishing a new vessel remediation fund, which would be boat owner-financed, to provide the resources so we can do some of this very important work. There would be the creation of an allowance for financing of preventative measures, such as voluntary vessel disposal activities, so that vessels at risk of becoming dilapidated, wrecked or abandoned can access funding to repair, secure, move or dismantle and sell them. This is very important because it would save a lot money, reduce the amount of pollution we are seeing in the bottom of our oceans and help a lot of folks I know in my riding, like Don MacKenzie, who, out of the goodness of his own heart, has taken it upon himself to clean these boats up.

I want to talk about something that I think we can all agree on in this House, and that is changes to the alcohol excise tax. As of April 1 this year, the alcohol escalator tax was supposed to increase by over 6%. Through measures that have been introduced in the budget implementation act, we have capped this at 2%. I know this will be a hugely important measure for the breweries in my riding, over a dozen, to be able to provide their products at a cost that is much lower than it would have been. It is really important that we do things like this and support small businesses, which, like all Canadians, are facing rising costs.

The last thing I will mention is that there is a commitment in the budget this year to lower the credit card swipe fees. There is an agreement with Visa and Mastercard to lower credit swipe fees by 27%. This would save businesses thousands of dollars. It is a really important measure to support small businesses in Canada, so they, in turn, do not have to pass on some of the additional costs they would face as a result of those credit card swipe fees.

With that, I would encourage all members of this House to vote in favour of this important piece of legislation so we can make some of these great changes and put them into effect.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague and I share a passion for the environment. Something I was really excited to see as part of the budget was the Canada water agency and protections for our fresh water in the country. Can he comment on how important that is and how it is achieving a commitment we made to Canadians across the country?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, there have been many years of work put into designing this new Canada water agency. We are excited that it is going to be in the Prairies, in Winnipeg.

There are so many different federal agencies in Canada that have some type of responsibility related to water. This would provide an opportunity for all of those different organizations to collaborate in a very meaningful way so we can better address issues like water quality and water quantity, issues we know we are increasingly going to see.

I think it is very important that it is established in Winnipeg because we know the Prairies are facing some of the largest challenges, sometimes with water scarcity and sometimes with flooding. I am very excited to see that in the budget this year. I think it is going to make a huge difference on one of the most important issues related to the environment.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I note that the member did not discuss the deficits that are projected in the budget. If we look through to 2027-28, they project that the combined debt of Canada will be over $1.3 trillion, which is more than double what it was when the government took office. Does he think that qualifies as being fiscally responsible?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is very important that we remain fiscally prudent in this budget, and always. In my province of B.C., we have seen an example of perhaps too much spending. Recently, B.C. had its credit rating downgraded and we have not seen that in Canada. I think that is an important measure to understand the fiscal sustainability of this.

There are some very important investments that needed to be made. I do not know whether the Conservatives would not have made the investments in health care or whether they would not have made some of the affordability measures. It is on the Conservative Party to explain to this House what services it would have cut. Those are areas that I certainly would not support cutting.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's advocacy on the climate crisis, and I also appreciate hearing his comments when it comes to new subsidies that were introduced in this budget for the very sector most responsible for the crisis that we are in. There are at least four, totalling over $3.3 billion in this budget, including new offshore drilling in the Arctic. Can he speak to the influence he can have in this place to move toward ending subsidies like these?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, a commitment has been made as part of the G20 to phase out all fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. We brought that commitment up to the end of this year. We remain committed to doing that. I think it is very important that we do that because we know the world is quickly transitioning to a cleaner economy and there are tremendous opportunities for Canada, as we go forward, to do that. The subsidies we should be providing are the ones that we see in this budget, such as for clean electricity, clean hydrogen and other things.

I would also mention that the measures in the budget for carbon capture are very important, particularly to take some of the legacy emissions already in the air. There is a company in my riding called Carbon Engineering, which is doing direct air capture. We do need to support companies like that because even when we get to net zero, we are going to have to continue to take carbon out of the atmosphere.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about “a line we shall not cross.” Only one short year ago, the finance minister said, “let me be very clear: We are absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline.” It did not. In fact, it went up. She also said, “Our deficits must continue to be reduced”, which they were not. She said, “The pandemic debt we incurred to keep Canadians safe and solvent must—and will—be paid down.” It was not. “This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we shall not cross”, she said. Just last November, the Liberals predicted that the budget would have a $4.5-billion surplus in 2027. Now, they say there is going to be a $14-billion deficit in 2027.

I am stuck on the words “a line we shall not cross”. High-sounding words of integrity they are indeed, but so many lines have been crossed. In 2015, the Prime Minister promised that the budget would be balanced by 2019. It did not happen. This year alone, the government will go another $43 billion into debt. In 2019, the Prime Minister said that the debt-to-GDP ratio would go down. It did not happen. Do members remember his abandoned promise from 2019? He promised to cut mobile phone rates by 25%. It never happened.

The Liberals then said, in 2021, that they would create a $5-billion mental health transfer, which was a major promise of transfer to the provinces. It did not happen. It is not mentioned in the budget at all. Do members remember 2015? The Prime Minister said that the election would be the last first-past-the-post one. It did not happen. In 2019, he said, “we will plant two billion trees”. It never happened. How about the carbon tax and the claim that “Canadians get back more than they pay”? This is not true, says the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. Let us not forget the perennial pharmacare promise in almost every Liberal platform over the last 30 years. In this budget, the word “pharmacare” does not even appear. There is not one mention.

How about the claim that interest rates will remain low, or that we need to be worried about deflation, not inflation? How about the promise of affordable housing or rent? The Liberals have spent $89 billion on a national housing strategy that hardly creates more housing. Since 2015, mortgage payments, down payments and rents have doubled. They promised to help students, but instead cut the Canada student grant from $6,000 to $4,200 a year.

The Prime Minister promised to keep our streets safer, yet violent crime is way up. Another promise, “We will make information more accessible by requiring transparency to be a fundamental principle across the federal government”, did not happen. He also promised to stop money laundering. Canada is now such a haven for money launderers that it has its own name: snow-washing. This is not a badge of honour.

Let us talk about crossing a line. The Prime Minister just appointed, and I cannot believe I am even saying this, as it sounds so ridiculous, the sister-of-law of the intergovernmental affairs minister as the Ethics Commissioner. The minister himself has been charged by the last ethics commissioner.

It is time for Conservatives to cross a line, the line between this side of the aisle and the government side of the aisle. We will cross that line after the next election, members can be sure, when the member for Carleton is the next prime minister of Canada.

Conservatives were looking for just three reasonable things in this budget: lower taxes for Canadian workers, an end to inflationary deficit spending, and meaningful measures to make housing more affordable. None of the three Conservative demands has been met, and there is not a chance that Conservatives will support this anti-worker, tax-hiking, inflationary budget.

Let us talk taxes. Nearly all economists agree that raising taxes during or just before an economic slowdown is absolutely terrible economic policy, yet this government continues raising taxes for ordinary Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer shows that the carbon tax will cost average families way more than the rebate they receive. There is a war on work in this country. Higher taxes mean less take-home pay. Do we know what happens when we punish work? We get less work. Just this year, the Prime Minister raised payroll taxes on workers and small businesses. A worker making about $66,600 will be forced to pay an extra $305.

By increasing the excise tax on alcohol by 2%, Liberals are still raising taxes on the restaurants and breweries that are struggling to survive. Just when service industry workers are trying to get back on their feet from the pandemic, the current government's brilliant plan is to make it more expensive for Canadians to dine out.

Let us talk about inflationary spending. In 2015, the total federal debt was about $600 billion. Today, it has doubled, to $1.2 trillion, which is $600 billion from Confederation to 2015 and $600 billion from 2015 to 2023. That is nearly $81,000 per household in Canada. To make matters worse, this year alone, interest on this massive debt will cost Canadians $43 billion. To put that into perspective, it is almost as much as what the federal health care transfer will be, at $49.4 billion. That is interest, going to pay wealthy bondholders and bankers, that is more than enough to fund the health care transfer. Even with revenues way up, the government is going to borrow another $175 billion between now and 2028, bringing the debt to over $1.3 trillion. The spending in this year's budget is $63 billion higher than it was a year ago. That is $4,200 for each and every Canadian, which is almost enough to house the Prime Minister in the hotel room for one whole night.

The massive federal bureaucracy is costing Canadians in a major way. Here is a troubling statistic: Personnel spending over the past two years increased by 30.9% to $60.7 billion. In spite of that, we now have the biggest strike in Canadian history. That takes a very special kind of incompetence.

It gets even worse. At the same time, expenditures for external contracting have more than doubled since 2015, to over $20 billion, with billions going to wealthy companies like McKinsey and other consulting firms that are totally unaccountable to taxpayers. Never before has a government spent so much to achieve so little. As Canadians are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet, the current government is raking in record revenues. It will receive $413 billion this year, which is up $151 billion from 2015. In fact, Canada's per capita economic growth has been the weakest among the OECD countries, despite all of this spending.

The dream of home ownership has died for young and new Canadians under the current Prime Minister. Nine in 10 people who do not own a home believe they never will. We have the most expensive housing on the planet, higher in some of our cities than in New York, Los Angeles and other major cities. That makes no sense, with only 38 million people living on the second-largest land mass in the world. Young people who have done everything we have asked them to do, such as go to school and work hard, are living in their parents' basements.

Conservatives will make sure that the municipal gatekeepers get out of the way so we can get some homes built. We will sell off 15% of federal buildings for affordable housing and will bring back the dream of home ownership.

Grocery price inflation is in the double digits for the seventh month in a row. Record numbers of people are using food banks. One in five Canadians is skipping meals. The Prime Minister now stands up in the House and brags about all the cheques he is sending for this or that, but the government has no money. It first has to take it from Canadians before it gives it back. Why not leave it where it belongs in the first place? The so-called grocery rebate will not come close to covering the rising cost of food that the inflationary Liberal deficits and tax hikes have caused. The “Canada Food Price Report 2023” predicts that a family of four will spend up to $1,065 more on food this year.

We must bring home a country where people bring home powerful paycheques. Canada must work for the people who have done the work. Conservatives will bring home powerful paycheques, with lower taxes. We will scrap the carbon tax so hard work pays off again. We will bring home lower prices by ending the inflationary debts and deficits that drive inflation. We will make sure that homes are affordable for young Canadians again. That is what Conservatives will do.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the speech by the member opposite this morning. By the sound of it, he was supporting some progressive ideas that he had hoped to see in the budget.

My question is simply this. Can we expect to see, in the next Conservative platform, things like aggressive emissions reduction targets, support for unions and workers, pharmacare and electoral reform? I am curious what his response would be.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that we need to be able to afford to have these things. We have the weakest growth of OECD countries, despite having more than doubled our debt to over $1.3 trillion since the current government took office. We need to grow the economy. We need policies that create more wealth so we can afford the important programs Canadians deserve.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke directly about some of the massive issues facing Canadians. Some of them are the most critical when its come to affordability. We know there are programs that can be funded to ensure that Canadians have a better outcome in their lives, like dental care and pharmacare. We know that Canadians value these programs.

We want to see the Conservatives, however, speak about revenue generation. We know that, for example, an excess profits tax is something the Conservatives in the United Kingdom have done to try to bring into balance some of the big oil companies making record profits and to help finance and give regular people a chance during this cost of living crisis. Would the member agree that a profiteering tax to curb the excess profits of big oil companies, big banks and some of the country's largest companies should actually be done?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, only the NDP could think that raising taxes for Canadians would make life more affordable for Canadians. The reality is that we need to increase the size of our economic output so we can afford the important programs that the member cares about, and I hope he comes along with us to bring in policies that promote economic growth.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. What I found interesting was that he used the word “workers” a lot. It always sounds odd to me, hearing the word “workers” from the mouth of a Conservative, but I suppose it is good to hear, because at least it means they might be somewhat concerned about them.

What has left me wondering, however, is that I do not recall the Conservatives advocating for one of the things that workers want most of all, something the Bloc has also been calling for, which is EI reform in order to make it more generous. I would like to know what the member has to offer workers who need help and support for a period of time when they lose their jobs, especially in this time of high inflation, with costs going up everywhere.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that the current Prime Minister has increased spending on our public service by $20 billion at the same time as increasing spending on external consultants by $20 billion, and he still managed to trigger the largest strike in Canadian history. Yes, I do worry about the workers in this country, but I lay the problems workers have in this country squarely at the feet of the Prime Minister.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is astonishing to me to hear the NDP and Liberal members stand up in the House, with the record-shattering levels of debt and spending they are undertaking together, and call for, in the debate today, more spending.

I hearken back to the Trudeau government of the seventies and eighties and the massive debt and deficits they rang up. This resulted in record cuts to social services, like health, education and all of those different things, in the late nineties, by another Liberal government, precipitated by the massive levels of debt taken on by the Trudeau government of the seventies and eighties. I wonder if the hon. member could reflect on what it was like in the late nineties, when we saw $35 billion cut from health, education and social services transfers in this country.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, in 1995, the most draconian budget in Canadian history was brought in by Liberal finance minister Paul Martin. Why did he do it? It was because he had to. He had to do it because the Government of Canada was broke. It could no longer borrow money. It had hit a wall. The Wall Street Journal was saying that Canada was an economic basket case, because interest rates were high and debt was high, and the Government of Canada could no longer afford to maintain its credit rating or pay for the important programs Canadians required. That is where we are heading today.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by sharing, as I usually do, what I like about the bill we are debating this afternoon, in this case, Bill C-47, which would implement some measures that were in the budget, many that would benefit people in my community.

I would like to share two examples.

The first is dental care, which is part 4, division 29. Bill C-47 takes meaningful steps to advance the new Canada dental care plan specifically by introducing the dental care measures act. The measures in Bill C-47 move toward dental coverage, starting for those who need it most, including uninsured Canadians under 18, people with disabilities and seniors who have a family income of less than $90,000. Those with average annual family incomes under $70,000 would have their dental visit covered by the federal government without any out-of-pocket costs.

Second, there is a provision to lower the criminal rate of interest, which is in part 4, division 34. Bill C-47 would amend the Criminal Code to cut the maximum allowable rate of interest to 35% from 47%, at least for alternative lenders, like EasyFinancial, for example. It is a positive step forward that I support, but, sadly, it does not include all companies like this, specifically, predatory payday lenders. Money Mart, for example, would still be exempt from this new rate cap. However, it is a step in the right direction.

In light of constructive measures like these, I intend on supporting Bill C-47.

I recognize this is in contrast to how I voted on the budget as a whole, which was against. Therefore, I would like share more, with the rest of my time, on why this was the case. In brief, it is because the budget does not meet the moment we are in.

I will start with housing, and the words of the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate, an advocate whose role was created by the federal government. It said, “The newly unveiled Federal Budget is a sorry disappointment. It completely misses the mark on addressing the most pressing housing crisis this country has ever seen.”

Tim Richter from the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness said, “It’s clear that the federal government does not see the scale and urgency of these crises, and have offered no solutions.”

When I look at my community, the housing crisis has and will continue to define us. The number of people living unsheltered has at least tripled since 2018, as encampments continue to grow across our community. When we look at the cost of rent and homes, in 2022 compared to 2005, house prices had gone up 275%, while wages had only gone up by 42%. However, in this budget, there is almost no new investments in housing, and the one investment that was made, an important one in indigenous housing, is back-loaded, meaning the funding will not begin until future years.

There is also nothing to address the commodification of the housing market to move us back toward homes being places for people to live and not commodities for investors to trade. There is so much the federal government can and should be doing on this front.

One example of a sensible, simple measure I proposed is to end the tax exemptions for large, corporate investors, real estate investment trusts and direct the minimum of $285 million of revenue that this would generate to build the affordable housing that we need.

Next is on mental health. I will read the words of Margaret Eaton, National CEO of the Canadian Mental Health Association. She says, “The budget is out of touch with the reality of Canadians’ well-being and their ability to afford mental health services. I believe that the government has missed the mark, and that there will be deep human and economic costs to pay.” I feel the same way, and that is reflected in the stories I hear from people and organizations in my community.

Very specifically, the governing party ran on a campaign that included dedicated mental health funds. In fact, there were $4.5 billion, to be called the Canada mental health transfer, yet there has been some kind of a magic trick, because that has just disappeared in the time since, including again in this budget. At a time when people in my community need that support now more than ever we cannot separate the housing crisis from the reality of the mental health services that people need.

Third, when it comes to reducing poverty, one of the most effective ways to do that is to ensure we lift people with disabilities out of poverty. In fact, we could cut poverty by 40% if we followed through on promises for which the disability community have advocated, and that is to introduce the Canada disability benefit. Again, in this year's budget, the federal government chose not to do it.

We know that when the federal government is serious about moving ahead with a policy, it does not start with legislation in the way it did with the disability benefit; it starts with funding. It is what it did with child care, and it is what it is not doing here. It is unfortunate that we will continue to see people with disabilities living in legislated poverty because of this budget. The governing party chose to not move ahead with that as quickly as it should. Neither did the Liberals introduce an emergency response benefit for people living with disabilities.

When it comes to the arts community, I would like to share another quote with the members:

[Budget 2023] does not offer a vision for how Canada’s arts, culture, and heritage sector can contribute to the fight against existential challenges of our time....We are...disappointed there is no new funding announced...for critical areas like [modernization initiatives]...supporting repatriation...or helping create new Indigenous museums or cultural centres.

This is from the BC Museums Association. It reflects concerns in my community also, including organizations like the KW Symphony and Centre in the Square, which need all levels of government to step up. When demand has not returned to prepandemic levels, we need to be continuing to support arts and culture organizations across the country. Instead, in this budget, if it is not a festival or a federally owned national museum, there is nothing here.

Last, is with respect to climate. I will quote the UN Secretary General, António Guterres, who said, “the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels. Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness.”

Even so, in this budget, at a time when the governing party says time and again it is committing to phasing out so-called unabated fossil fuel subsidies, it has introduced four new ones, including funding for drilling in the Arctic for more oil. At a time when we know we need to move with urgency to address the climate crisis we are facing, does it not make sense that we start by not subsidizing the very sector most responsible for the crisis at a time when its profits are over $38 billion among the five largest oil and gas companies across the country?

Julia Levin, the associate director of national climate at Environmental Defence, said:

Rather than finally delivering on the government’s promise to end fossil fuel subsidies, this budget throws more fuel on the fire by funneling even more public dollars into false solutions that serve to prop up the fossil fuel industry. Carbon capture and hydrogen are great for greenwashing oil and gas, but they won’t deliver meaningful emissions reductions.

She knows as well as I do that this is exactly what we need at this point in this critical decade when we have a chance to keep global average temperatures below 1.5°C.

I want to encourage all my colleagues here to push for measures that would address these significant gaps that I know are priorities, not only for people in Kitchener and in Waterloo Region but right across the country, when it comes to addressing the housing crisis, mental health, lifting up people with disabilities, investing in the arts and addressing the climate crisis that we are in, while also being mindful that there are important measures in Bill C-47 that we all should be supporting.