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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There are 904 motions and amendments standing on the notice for the report stage of Bill C-47. I will get to the points of order after I am finished.

Motions Nos. 690 and 750 will not be selected by the Chair because they could have been presented in committee. Motions Nos. 456 to 683 will not be selected by the Chair because they are repetitive and could have been presented in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined, and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

Motions Nos. 1 to 455, 684 to 689, 691 to 749, and 751 to 904 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 455, 684 to 689, 691 to 749 and 751 to 904 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting the short title.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 60.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 61.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 62.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 63.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 64.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 65.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 66.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 67.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 68.

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 69.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 70.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 71.

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 72.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 73.

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 74.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 75.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 76.

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 77.

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 78.

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 79.

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 80.

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 81.

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 82.

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 83.

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 84.

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 85.

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 86.

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 87.

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 88.

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 89.

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 90.

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 91.

Motion No. 90

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 92.

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 93.

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 94.

Motion No. 93

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 95.

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 96.

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 97.

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 98.

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 99.

Motion No. 98

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 100.

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 101.

Motion No. 100

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 102.

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 103.

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 104.

Motion No. 103

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 105.

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 106.

Motion No. 105

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 107.

Motion No. 106

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 108.

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 109.

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 110.

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 111.

Motion No. 110

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 112.

Motion No. 111

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 113.

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 114.

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 115.

Motion No. 114

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 116.

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 117.

Motion No. 116

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 118.

Motion No. 117

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 119.

Motion No. 118

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 120.

Motion No. 119

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 121.

Motion No. 120

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 122.

Motion No. 121

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 123.

Motion No. 122

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 124.

Motion No. 123

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 125.

Motion No. 124

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Motion No. 125

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Motion No. 126

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Motion No. 127

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 128

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

Motion No. 129

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 131.

Motion No. 130

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 132.

Motion No. 131

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 133.

Motion No. 132

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 134.

Motion No. 133

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 135.

Motion No. 134

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 136.

Motion No. 135

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Motion No. 136

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 138.

Motion No. 137

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 139.

Motion No. 138

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 140.

Motion No. 139

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 141.

Motion No. 140

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 142.

Motion No. 141

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 143.

Motion No. 142

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 144.

Motion No. 143

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 145.

Motion No. 144

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 146.

Motion No. 145

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 147.

Motion No. 146

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Motion No. 147

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 149.

Motion No. 148

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 149

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 151.

Motion No. 150

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 152.

Motion No. 151

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 153.

Motion No. 152

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 154.

Motion No. 153

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 155.

Motion No. 154

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 156.

Motion No. 155

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 157.

Motion No. 156

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 158.

Motion No. 157

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 159.

Motion No. 158

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 160.

Motion No. 159

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 161.

Motion No. 160

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 162.

Motion No. 161

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 163.

Motion No. 162

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 164.

Motion No. 163

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 165.

Motion No. 164

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 166.

Motion No. 165

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 167.

Motion No. 166

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 168.

Motion No. 167

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 169.

Motion No. 168

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 170.

Motion No. 169

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 171.

Motion No. 170

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 172.

Motion No. 171

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 173.

Motion No. 172

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 174.

Motion No. 173

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 175.

Motion No. 174

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 176.

Motion No. 175

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 177.

Motion No. 176

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 178.

Motion No. 177

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 179.

Motion No. 178

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 180.

Motion No. 179

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 181.

Motion No. 180

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 182.

Motion No. 181

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 183.

Motion No. 182

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 184.

Motion No. 183

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 185.

Motion No. 184

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 186.

Motion No. 185

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 187.

Motion No. 186

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 188.

Motion No. 187

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 189.

Motion No. 188

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 190.

Motion No. 189

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 191.

Motion No. 190

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 192.

Motion No. 191

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 193.

Motion No. 192

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 194.

Motion No. 193

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 195.

Motion No. 194

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 196.

Motion No. 195

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 197.

Motion No. 196

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 198.

Motion No. 197

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 199.

Motion No. 198

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 200.

Motion No. 199

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 201.

Motion No. 200

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 202.

Motion No. 201

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 203.

Motion No. 202

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 204.

Motion No. 203

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 205.

Motion No. 204

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 206.

Motion No. 205

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 207.

Motion No. 206

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 208.

Motion No. 207

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 209.

Motion No. 208

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 210.

Motion No. 209

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 211.

Motion No. 210

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 212.

Motion No. 211

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 213.

Motion No. 212

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 214.

Motion No. 213

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 215.

Motion No. 214

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 216.

Motion No. 215

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 217.

Motion No. 216

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 218.

Motion No. 217

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 219.

Motion No. 218

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 220.

Motion No. 219

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 221.

Motion No. 220

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 222.

Motion No. 221

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 223.

Motion No. 222

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 224.

Motion No. 223

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 225.

Motion No. 224

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 226.

Motion No. 225

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 227.

Motion No. 226

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 228.

Motion No. 227

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 229.

Motion No. 228

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 230.

Motion No. 229

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 231.

Motion No. 230

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 232.

Motion No. 231

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 233.

Motion No. 232

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 234.

Motion No. 233

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 237.

Motion No. 234

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 238.

Motion No. 235

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 239.

Motion No. 236

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 240.

Motion No. 237

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 241.

Motion No. 238

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 242.

Motion No. 239

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 242.1.

Motion No. 240

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 243.

Motion No. 241

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 244.

Motion No. 242

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 245.

Motion No. 243

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 246.

Motion No. 244

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 247.

Motion No. 245

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 248.

Motion No. 246

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 248.1.

Motion No. 247

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 249.

Motion No. 248

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 250.

Motion No. 249

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 251.

Motion No. 250

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 252.

Motion No. 251

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 253.

Motion No. 252

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 254.

Motion No. 253

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 255.

Motion No. 254

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 256.

Motion No. 255

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 257.

Motion No. 256

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 258.

Motion No. 257

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 259.

Motion No. 258

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 260.

Motion No. 259

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 261.

Motion No. 260

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 262.

Motion No. 261

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 263.

Motion No. 262

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 264.

Motion No. 263

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 265.

Motion No. 264

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 266.

Motion No. 265

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 267.

Motion No. 266

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 268.

Motion No. 267

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 269.

Motion No. 268

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 270.

Motion No. 269

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 271.

Motion No. 270

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 272.

Motion No. 271

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 273.

Motion No. 272

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 274.

Motion No. 273

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 275.

Motion No. 274

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 276.

Motion No. 275

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 277.

Motion No. 276

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 278.

Motion No. 277

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 279.

Motion No. 278

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 280.

Motion No. 279

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 281.

Motion No. 280

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 282.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

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

moved:

Motion No. 281

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 283.

Motion No. 282

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 284.

Motion No. 283

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 285.

Motion No. 284

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 286.

Motion No. 285

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 287.

Motion No. 286

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 288.

Motion No. 287

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 289.

Motion No. 288

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 290.

Motion No. 289

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 291.

Motion No. 290

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 292.

Motion No. 291

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 293.

Motion No. 292

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 294.

Motion No. 293

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 295.

Motion No. 294

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 296.

Motion No. 295

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 297.

Motion No. 296

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 298.

Motion No. 297

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 299.

Motion No. 298

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 300.

Motion No. 299

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 301.

Motion No. 300

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 302.

Motion No. 301

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 303.

Motion No. 302

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 304.

Motion No. 303

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 305.

Motion No. 304

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 306.

Motion No. 305

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 307.

Motion No. 306

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 308.

Motion No. 307

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 309.

Motion No. 308

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 310.

Motion No. 309

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 311.

Motion No. 310

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 312.

Motion No. 311

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 313.

Motion No. 312

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 314.

Motion No. 313

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 315.

Motion No. 314

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 316.

Motion No. 315

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 317.

Motion No. 316

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 318.

Motion No. 317

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 319.

Motion No. 318

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 320.

Motion No. 319

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 321.

Motion No. 320

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 322.

Motion No. 321

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 323.

Motion No. 322

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 324.

Motion No. 323

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 325.

Motion No. 324

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 326.

Motion No. 325

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 327.

Motion No. 326

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 328.

Motion No. 327

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 329.

Motion No. 328

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 330.

Motion No. 329

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 331.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne is rising on a point of order.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the Table has received notice from all parties that they agree to dispense.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I suggest that we make sure the Table gets that information.

Just to clarify, once the agreement has been made among the parties, even though it is after 6:30 p.m., a motion to move forward on this would probably be in order. If somebody could move that motion, it would be beneficial.

Just to make sure that everything is in order, let us pause to make sure the text reflects the agreement that has been had among the parties this evening.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 7:14 p.m.)

(The House resumed at 7:18 p.m.)

Sitting Resumed

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

We have a point of order from the hon. deputy government House leader.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we ask for unanimous consent that the remaining motions be deemed moved by the member for Calgary Forest Lawn and seconded by the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

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

moved:

Motion No. 330

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 332.

Motion No. 331

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 333.

Motion No. 332

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 334.

Motion No. 333

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 335.

Motion No. 334

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 336.

Motion No. 335

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 337.

Motion No. 336

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 338.

Motion No. 337

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 339.

Motion No. 338

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 340.

Motion No. 339

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 341.

Motion No. 340

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 342.

Motion No. 341

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 343.

Motion No. 342

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 344.

Motion No. 343

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 345.

Motion No. 344

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 346.

Motion No. 345

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 347.

Motion No. 346

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 348.

Motion No. 347

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 349.

Motion No. 348

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 350.

Motion No. 349

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 351.

Motion No. 350

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 352.

Motion No. 351

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 353.

Motion No. 352

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 354.

Motion No. 353

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 355.

Motion No. 354

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 356.

Motion No. 355

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 357.

Motion No. 356

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 358.

Motion No. 357

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 359.

Motion No. 358

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 360.

Motion No. 359

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 361.

Motion No. 360

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 362.

Motion No. 361

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 363.

Motion No. 362

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 364.

Motion No. 363

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 365.

Motion No. 364

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 366.

Motion No. 365

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 367.

Motion No. 366

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 368.

Motion No. 367

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 369.

Motion No. 368

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 370.

Motion No. 369

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 371.

Motion No. 370

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 372.

Motion No. 371

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 373.

Motion No. 372

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 374.

Motion No. 373

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 375.

Motion No. 374

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 376.

Motion No. 375

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 377.

Motion No. 376

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 378.

Motion No. 377

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 379.

Motion No. 378

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 380.

Motion No. 379

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 381.

Motion No. 380

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 382.

Motion No. 381

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 383.

Motion No. 382

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 384.

Motion No. 383

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 385.

Motion No. 384

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 386.

Motion No. 385

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 387.

Motion No. 386

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 388.

Motion No. 387

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 389.

Motion No. 388

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 390.

Motion No. 389

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 391.

Motion No. 390

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 392.

Motion No. 391

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 393.

Motion No. 392

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 394.

Motion No. 393

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 395.

Motion No. 394

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 396.

Motion No. 395

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 397.

Motion No. 396

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 398.

Motion No. 397

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 399.

Motion No. 398

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 400.

Motion No. 399

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 401.

Motion No. 400

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 402.

Motion No. 401

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 403.

Motion No. 402

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 404.

Motion No. 403

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 405.

Motion No. 404

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 406.

Motion No. 405

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 407.

Motion No. 406

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 408.

Motion No. 407

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 409.

Motion No. 408

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 410.

Motion No. 409

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 411.

Motion No. 410

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 412.

Motion No. 411

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 413.

Motion No. 412

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 414.

Motion No. 413

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 415.

Motion No. 414

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 416.

Motion No. 415

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 417.

Motion No. 416

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 418.

Motion No. 417

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 419.

Motion No. 418

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 420.

Motion No. 419

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 421.

Motion No. 420

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 422.

Motion No. 421

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 423.

Motion No. 422

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 424.

Motion No. 423

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 425.

Motion No. 424

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 426.

Motion No. 425

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 427.

Motion No. 426

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 428.

Motion No. 427

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 429.

Motion No. 428

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 430.

Motion No. 429

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 431.

Motion No. 430

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 432.

Motion No. 431

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 433.

Motion No. 432

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 434.

Motion No. 433

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 435.

Motion No. 434

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 436.

Motion No. 435

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 437.

Motion No. 436

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 438.

Motion No. 437

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 439.

Motion No. 438

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 440.

Motion No. 439

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 441.

Motion No. 440

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 442.

Motion No. 441

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 445.

Motion No. 442

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 446.

Motion No. 443

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 447.

Motion No. 444

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 448.

Motion No. 445

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 449.

Motion No. 446

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 450.

Motion No. 447

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 451.

Motion No. 448

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 452.

Motion No. 449

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 453.

Motion No. 450

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 454.

Motion No. 451

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 455.

Motion No. 452

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 456.

Motion No. 453

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 457.

Motion No. 454

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 458.

Motion No. 455

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 459.

Motion No. 684

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 460.

Motion No. 685

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 461.

Motion No. 686

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 462.

Motion No. 687

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 463.

Motion No. 688

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 464.

Motion No. 689

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 465.

Motion No. 691

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 466.

Motion No. 692

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 467.

Motion No. 693

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 468.

Motion No. 694

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 469.

Motion No. 695

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 470.

Motion No. 696

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 471.

Motion No. 697

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 472.

Motion No. 698

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 473.

Motion No. 699

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 474.

Motion No. 700

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 475.

Motion No. 701

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 476.

Motion No. 702

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 477.

Motion No. 703

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 478.

Motion No. 704

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 479.

Motion No. 705

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 480.

Motion No. 706

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 481.

Motion No. 707

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 482.

Motion No. 708

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 483.

Motion No. 709

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 484.

Motion No. 710

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 485.

Motion No. 711

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 486.

Motion No. 712

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 487.

Motion No. 713

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 488.

Motion No. 714

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 489.

Motion No. 715

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 490.

Motion No. 716

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 491.

Motion No. 717

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 492.

Motion No. 718

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 493.

Motion No. 719

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 494.

Motion No. 720

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 495.

Motion No. 721

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 496.

Motion No. 722

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 497.

Motion No. 723

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 498.

Motion No. 724

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 499.

Motion No. 725

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 500.

Motion No. 726

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 501.

Motion No. 727

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 502.

Motion No. 728

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 503.

Motion No. 729

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 504.

Motion No. 730

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 508.

Motion No. 731

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 509.

Motion No. 732

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 510.

Motion No. 733

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 511.

Motion No. 734

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 512.

Motion No. 735

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 513.

Motion No. 736

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 514.

Motion No. 737

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 515.

Motion No. 738

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 516.

Motion No. 739

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 517.

Motion No. 740

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 518.

Motion No. 741

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 519.

Motion No. 742

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 520.

Motion No. 743

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 521.

Motion No. 744

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 522.

Motion No. 745

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 523.

Motion No. 746

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 524.

Motion No. 747

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 525.

Motion No. 748

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 526.

Motion No. 749

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 527.

Motion No. 751

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 528.

Motion No. 752

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 529.

Motion No. 753

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 530.

Motion No. 754

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 531.

Motion No. 755

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 532.

Motion No. 756

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 533.

Motion No. 757

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 534.

Motion No. 758

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 535.

Motion No. 759

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 536.

Motion No. 760

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 537.

Motion No. 761

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 538.

Motion No. 762

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 539.

Motion No. 763

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 540.

Motion No. 764

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 541.

Motion No. 765

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 542.

Motion No. 766

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 543.

Motion No. 767

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 544.

Motion No. 768

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 545.

Motion No. 769

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 546.

Motion No. 770

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 547.

Motion No. 771

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 548.

Motion No. 772

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 549.

Motion No. 773

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 550.

Motion No. 774

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 551.

Motion No. 775

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 552.

Motion No. 776

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 553.

Motion No. 777

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 554.

Motion No. 778

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 555.

Motion No. 779

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 556.

Motion No. 780

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 557.

Motion No. 781

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 558.

Motion No. 782

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 559.

Motion No. 783

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 560.

Motion No. 784

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 561.

Motion No. 785

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 562.

Motion No. 786

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 563.

Motion No. 787

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 564.

Motion No. 788

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 565.

Motion No. 789

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 566.

Motion No. 790

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 567.

Motion No. 791

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 568.

Motion No. 792

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 569.

Motion No. 793

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 570.

Motion No. 794

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 571.

Motion No. 795

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 572.

Motion No. 796

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 573.

Motion No. 797

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 574.

Motion No. 798

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 575.

Motion No. 799

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 576.

Motion No. 800

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 577.

Motion No. 801

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 578.

Motion No. 802

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 579.

Motion No. 803

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 580.

Motion No. 804

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 581.

Motion No. 805

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 582.

Motion No. 806

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 583.

Motion No. 807

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 584.

Motion No. 808

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 585.

Motion No. 809

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 586.

Motion No. 810

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 587.

Motion No. 811

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 588.

Motion No. 812

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 589.

Motion No. 813

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 590.

Motion No. 814

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 591.

Motion No. 815

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 592.

Motion No. 816

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 593.

Motion No. 817

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 594.

Motion No. 818

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 595.

Motion No. 819

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 596.

Motion No. 820

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 597.

Motion No. 821

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 598.

Motion No. 822

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 599.

Motion No. 823

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 600.

Motion No. 824

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 601.

Motion No. 825

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 602.

Motion No. 826

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 603.

Motion No. 827

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 604.

Motion No. 828

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 605.

Motion No. 829

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 606.

Motion No. 830

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 607.

Motion No. 831

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 608.

Motion No. 832

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 609.

Motion No. 833

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 610.

Motion No. 834

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 611.

Motion No. 835

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 612.

Motion No. 836

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 613.

Motion No. 837

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 614.

Motion No. 838

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 615.

Motion No. 839

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 616.

Motion No. 840

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 617.

Motion No. 841

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 618.

Motion No. 842

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 619.

Motion No. 843

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 620.

Motion No. 844

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 621.

Motion No. 845

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 622.

Motion No. 846

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 623.

Motion No. 847

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 624.

Motion No. 848

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 625.

Motion No. 849

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 626.

Motion No. 850

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 627.

Motion No. 851

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 628.

Motion No. 852

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 629.

Motion No. 853

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 630.

Motion No. 854

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 631.

Motion No. 855

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 632.

Motion No. 856

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 633.

Motion No. 857

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 634.

Motion No. 858

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 635.

Motion No. 859

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 636.

Motion No. 860

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 637.

Motion No. 861

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 638.

Motion No. 862

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 639.

Motion No. 863

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 640.

Motion No. 864

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 641.

Motion No. 865

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 642.

Motion No. 866

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 643.

Motion No. 867

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 644.

Motion No. 868

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 645.

Motion No. 869

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 646.

Motion No. 870

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 647.

Motion No. 871

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 648.

Motion No. 872

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 649.

Motion No. 873

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 650.

Motion No. 874

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 651.

Motion No. 875

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 652.

Motion No. 876

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 653.

Motion No. 877

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 654.

Motion No. 878

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 655.

Motion No. 879

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 656.

Motion No. 880

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 657.

Motion No. 881

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 658.

Motion No. 882

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 659.

Motion No. 883

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 660.

Motion No. 884

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 661.

Motion No. 885

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 662.

Motion No. 886

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 663.

Motion No. 887

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 664.

Motion No. 888

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 665.

Motion No. 889

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 666.

Motion No. 890

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 667.

Motion No. 891

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 668.

Motion No. 892

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 669.

Motion No. 893

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 670.

Motion No. 894

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 671.

Motion No. 895

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 672.

Motion No. 896

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 673.

Motion No. 897

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 674.

Motion No. 898

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 675.

Motion No. 899

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 676.

Motion No. 900

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 677.

Motion No. 901

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 678.

Motion No. 902

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 679.

Motion No. 903

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 680.

Motion No. 904

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 681.

Mr. Speaker, as Tupac once said, “All I'm trying to do is survive and make good out of the dirty, nasty, unbelievable lifestyle that they gave me.” More Canadians I talk to today feel like that is exactly the position the current Liberal government has put them in: a dirty, nasty, unbelievable position because of its overspending.

We used to have something called a Canadian dream here in Canada. After eight years of the current Liberal-NDP government, that Canadian dream is dead for so many people. I will tell members why. It is because Canada is now seeing one in five Canadians skipping meals, and we are seeing 1.5 million Canadians going to food banks in a single month. Two in five Canadians are borrowing money from friends and family just to put food on the table, and nearly a third of Canadians are struggling just to get by.

When we talk about what the Canadian dream used to be and what it used to represent, now we see that the dream is gone for many newcomers and those living here who are just struggling to barely get by. These are not statistics of a country that is prospering or one that people can look forward to moving to, but that is the reality after eight years of the current government's failed policies.

Members might ask why Canadians are feeling this way. As Thomas Sowell once said, “The real goal should be reduced government spending, rather than balanced budgets achieved by ever rising tax rates to cover ever rising spending.” Having a government that has added more debt on the backs of Canadians than all governments before it combined is what plunged Canadians into the worst cost of living crisis in history.

Inflation has ravaged our country and Canadians for a very long time. On top of that, we have a Liberal government that does not stop raising taxes. People are already being pile-drove by the cost of living crisis because of out-of-control spending, which made interest rates go up as well. Then the Liberals pile more taxes on Canadians. We see two payroll taxes; an excise escalator tax; carbon tax 1.0, which went up; and a second one that the Liberals are going to introduce to make gas, groceries and home heating even more expensive.

I will take members back to a few months ago, in November. Do they remember when the finance minister fooled us all? She said she had an epiphany. First, she finally admitted that deficits fuel inflation. That is what she said. She also said she was going to be careful. She said she did not want to throw more fuel on the fire of inflation.

Even in her fall economic statement, the minister fooled us once again. She showed in the fall economic statement that she would have a balanced budget by 2027. She said there would be no more deficits. She even had it down in writing for Canadians to see. It took until just six months after that for her to do a massive flip-flop and say she was just kidding and that not only is she not ever going to stop spending money, but her inflationary deficits will never end. She said she will never balance the budget. She turned on her own word and threw a $60-billion jerry can of fuel on the inflationary fire that she started in the first place.

Member should remember that the finance minister is the one who said that deficits fuel inflation. Those were her words. It is something the Conservatives had been saying from day one and that the Liberals refused to acknowledge. It is not just us. The possible future Liberal leader and the finance minister's possible seatmate when the Liberals are on this side of the House, Mark Carney, said that inflation in Canada increasingly reflects what is happening in Canada.

If members do not want to believe him, we have a former Liberal finance minister, John Manley, who said, “[The Liberal Prime Minister's] fiscal policy is making it harder...to contain inflation.” This is something that was also confirmed by the current Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem.

Where does all this wasteful spending lead, with the added-on $60 billion? It is going to lead to each and every Canadian household having another $4,200 of debt put on their backs. This is because the government, supported by its coalition partner, the NDP, just cannot help itself but to continue to tax Canadians further and further into bankruptcy. It is at the point now where we are seeing insolvencies going up more than ever.

More Canadians are visiting food banks than we have ever seen before. Why is this? It is because this trust fund Prime Minister does not understand the pain of Canadians. How could he understand it? He is the same guy who spent $6,000 a night on a hotel room. How does he understand the pain of what he is putting Canadians through?

We see wasteful spending of $22 billion on consultants. Those consultants are covering up for the incompetence of the government, especially its ministers. That is the ministers' job. They are supposed to be figuring out how to fix the airports and immigration system that they have made a huge mess of, yet they are hiring more and more consultants to try to cover for their problems. What is that doing? That is adding more taxes on to Canadians and driving more people to the food banks.

While we are talking about food banks, we had some of them testify at committee recently. All we hear from the Liberal side is that everything is fine, that things are great here in Canada and that people have never had it so good. However, the CEO of the Daily Bread Food Bank said, “The underlying reasons for [higher food bank usage] are complex, but I can summarize them in one sentence: People do not have enough income to afford the rapidly rising cost of living.”

We have already established that the government brought out-of-control inflationary deficits that pile-drove and forced Canadians into this cost of living crisis. Then, the government piled on more taxes, such as carbon tax 1, which was a scam all along; it made gas, groceries and home heating more expensive. Now, on July 1, it is going to pile-drive another one, carbon tax 2.0, which is going to take even more out of Canadians' pockets. It is going to make gas, groceries and home heating even more expensive. This government is not “responsible” or “fiscally prudent”, although these are words that the finance minister sometimes likes to use.

This is a government dead set on bankrupting more and more Canadians and taking more and more from them. Canada is not the country it used to be, where a person could put in hard work and expect to get something back. Now, people are working harder than ever, yet they do not see a promise that they are ever going to be able to afford a home. Interest rates keep going up because of the government's out-of-control spending. Those interest rates might go up even further. We have a housing crisis in this country, because of the out-of-control spending by the government; this budget, again, is going to add another $60 billion of fuel to that fire.

Conservatives continue to stand up for the betterment of Canadians. We are calling for a few simple things. When Conservatives take over, we are going to bring home powerful paycheques, lower prices and more affordable homes that Canadians can actually afford.

Our two simple requests for this out-of-touch Liberal-NDP government are to lower the deficit and axe the tax. Lowering the deficit would lower inflation, and with that, the interest rates would come down. Axing the scam of both the failed carbon taxes would let Canadians keep more in their pockets. Let us bring down the cost of gas, groceries and home heating; let us bring it home for Canadians and actually do something to help them out.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Quoting from Tupac was awesome. I thought that was great.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks almost exclusively in bumper sticker slogans that the Conservative Party recycles. Recycling slogans is the only environmental plan it has.

Why does he not mention anything about climate change, in terms of affordability, and its impact on food prices and impact on Canadians? However, I will not ask him that.

My question is this: Before standing up in this House and ignoring climate change, did he even go outside today to see the smoke in the air in the nation's capital from forest fires elsewhere, or is he just going to put his head in the sand and continue with the old ways of the Conservative Party?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of smoke and a lot of hot air coming out of that member's mouth. The member fails to realize that all these events are taking place. How much has the Liberals' carbon tax actually helped? How many fires or climate events has it stopped from happening?

The Liberals do not even have an environmental plan. We looked for it everywhere. Can anyone say they found the Liberals' environmental plan? Mr. Speaker, have you seen it? I have not seen it yet, and I looked for it. I did not find it anywhere. What we found was a tax plan that made gas, groceries and home heating more expensive, and the Liberals doubled down. Their failed carbon tax scam 1.0 already made the cost of everything go up, and now they are going to pile-drive another one, with carbon tax scam 2.0.

They need to get serious, actually present an environmental plan and stop the hypocrisy.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on another note, I would like to talk a bit about the monarchy with my colleague. The monarchy is a subject that the Bloc Québécois is particularly fond of talking about.

As members know, the Liberals included the recognition of Charles III as Canada's sovereign in Bill C-47, which we find a bit far-fetched in such a bill.

However, the Bloc Québécois still wanted to give the Liberals the benefit of the doubt. Since it is only fitting, and generally proper procedure, we asked that Charles III be invited to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance so that we can assess his skills. That seems fundamental to me.

We asked Rideau Hall if it was possible to invite him. We were told to ask Buckingham Palace, which we did. Buckingham Palace told us that we had to send a request in writing on fine paper, no less. They are fancy at Buckingham Palace. Obviously, it was a lost cause. Charles III will not appear before the Standing Committee on Finance as we would have liked.

The Conservatives are proposing to remove clause 510, which proclaims Charles III as Canada's sovereign. I think that is worthwhile, and I would really like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is sad to see that while Canadians are facing the worst cost of living crisis in the history of Canada, the Bloc wants to talk about the monarchy.

Conservatives are going to continue talking about how we are going to bring better investment, better jobs and better Canadian paycheques to Canadians. Once the member for Carleton becomes the prime minister of this country, those who put in the work will be able to see the fruits of their labour once again.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to hone in on an aspect of the member's speech that I think is really important for Canadians to attempt to understand. I believe the member often presents a goodwill solutions to the many things that are affecting Canadians from coast to coast to coast, particularly on affordability. I commend him for offering, what I believe, is an attempt at a solution for the affordability crisis.

The reality is that there will be a place that the Conservatives have to cut from. They are talking about austerity. They are talking about reducing the budget. Where will they cut from? Will it be dental care, care for children or clean water for first nations?

What would he cut beyond slogans? That is the part I am really nervous about in terms of offering a response. Is this going to turn into a “cut the carbon tax triple, triple, triple” thing? I seriously want to know.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are heckling me right now because they do not want to actually answer the policy question.

Which area would they cut? Is it going to be dental care or child care?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is simple. The member is from Alberta. We will cut what Albertans voted for. We will cut the carbon tax.

In 2019, Albertans overwhelmingly voted in the Conservative government. Its number one priority, and first bill, was to cut the carbon tax. Once again, last week, we saw Albertans overwhelmingly support and vote in a Conservative government that is against the Liberal-NDP failed carbon tax scam.

To the member for Alberta, we are going to stand with Albertans and axe the carbon tax, just as they asked for when they voted in the UCP government and gave it that mandate.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I was hoping there would be another Tupac quote.

Continuing debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I am the wrong person to look to for a Tupac quote. However, in the rest of my speech, I will try to educate, enlighten and entertain members of this chamber.

I asked about this in my question. It was troubling this morning when I got a warning on my phone. I think we all would have if we looked at the weather. It was an air quality advisory in Ottawa, which was related to forest fires elsewhere. It is shocking to me that members of the Conservative Party could go outside this building, see it with their own eyes, and then go to their ridings. They stand from Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec. They see these forest fires; they see the impacts of climate change so directly. It is impacting lives. I know they are passionate about their constituents. They get up, talk and ask what the government is doing, but they do not talk about the impacts of climate change on their residents.

The Conservatives do not put two and two together, despite scientists across the country, Nobel laureates and every credible scientist saying that these things are connected. However, the Conservatives stick their heads in the sand, even though they all, every single one, ran on a price on pollution during the last election. They can see it. We can see it with our own eyes. The hon. members can see, with their own eyes, the impacts of that.

What will these forest fires and floods cost Canadians? What do droughts cost farmers? The members talk about the impacts on Canadians, and that is the right thing to be talking about. What are the long-term impacts? What are the impacts going to be on our kids? If it is tens of billions of dollars now, what is it going to be for our kids? My kids are about to turn seven and five. What is it going to be like in 20 years?

We are seeing the planet get warmer. The Conservative Party of Canada is going to throw its hands up in the air and say, “We've tried nothing, but we're all out of ideas.” I do not know how they can look their kids and their grandkids in the eye.

There is a lot more work that we have to do. That is fair enough; there is not necessarily one way to get to a particular path, but the Conservatives are offering no solutions. We can see smoke in the sky outside. What do the Conservatives have? They have absolutely nothing but bumper sticker slogans. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, the only part of the Conservative environmental plan is recycling their slogans. That is all they have.

When it comes to actually working for Canadians, the Conservatives talk a good game. All these slogans sound great; they are going to do this or that, all these things straight off the bumper sticker. However, where have they been in the last seven and a half years? The Liberal government and other parliamentarians have worked hard to help lift Canadians out of poverty. There are 2.7 million fewer Canadians living in poverty, than there were in 2015, when the Conservatives were in power.

Where were they when the Canada child benefit was discussed? They voted against it. They were against increases to the guaranteed income supplement and increases to old age security. The Conservative leader is fervently against day care, which means thousands of dollars in the pockets of families who are having a difficult time. The Conservatives were against the Canada worker benefit and the rental benefit. Time after time, Conservatives talk a good game, but that is all they have.

There is no policy plan, only cuts. We have seen this story before. They say, “Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. The government will not be there for you.” There would not be anything that the Conservative party would do to help Canadians, except make it free to pollute.

The cornerstone of their policy is that those who pollute the most will get the biggest tax break. They will cut the benefits to Canadians, cut the green rebate to Canadians, the climate action incentive, and transfer that money to the biggest polluters in this country. That is unbelievably shocking.

There is no ambition. There is no fear for our children on that side of the House, and there is no desire to do anything better for our kids. There is no view in terms of what the long-term costs are going to be on this because, again, they will do nothing. Let the fires burn. Let the floods happen. The Conservative Party of Canada will do absolutely nothing on climate change. We have heard from economists, from the insurance industry and from national security experts, who have said the greatest threat to this country is the impacts of climate change. The Conservatives do not care. It is really that simple. If they cared, there would be some kind of plan. They talk about having technology. Where is this magic box that the Conservative leader has that is going to solve this crisis? There is no plan.

They talk a lot about food banks, again, rightfully so. There are a lot of Canadians who are having a difficult time, despite the supports.

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

I wonder why.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

The hon. member who is heckling me talked about food banks, but I am not hearing from my food bank that we should cut the price on pollution. That is not what they are talking about.

Conservatives are laughing. They think it is hilarious that there are 30,000 Canadians who have been evacuated from their homes. They do not care. They are laughing.

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

How shameful.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

That is right. It is shameful, as the hon. member said.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I think now we are getting into cross-debate. I would ask members, if they have comments or questions, to wait until it is time for questions and comments, which will be soon, in two and a half minutes.

The hon. member has two and a half minutes, and I would ask him not to engage in cross-debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if those members will go to food banks in their ridings and tell them that they will cut affordable day care. What would that do to parents, single parents especially? They will cut GIS perhaps, cut day care and cut the CCB. There would not be a rental benefit. They would not have stood by Canadians during the pandemic.

Those seem to be the talking points from the Conservative Party. I do not think that is what they are going to hear or that they will gain much support from food banks across the country with a message of “Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. It is the Conservative way.” Again, as droughts, fires and floods ravage agricultural areas of our country and those of our allies, what is the cost of that? They are silent on that, consistently silent.

The final thing I would like to discuss, and the one that is the most shocking of all they are opposed to, is dental care. Each one of us, every member of this chamber, has taxpayer-funded dental care for themselves, for their family, for their spouse. What are we hearing the Conservatives tell their constituents? They say, “You don't need that. You don't want that. We will cut it. That is the Conservative way.”

They can talk a great game about balancing the budget, but that is going to be the cornerstone of it. We do not hear the other side of what the Conservative Party is talking about: “We will balance the budget, but it will be on the backs of Canadians and, by the way, we'll give a tax break to the largest polluters in this country.”

If pollution is made free again, the one thing that I think we can all guarantee is that there will be a lot more pollution. There will be more fires. There will be more floods. There will be more drought. That is the one guarantee. It is very sad, again, that Conservatives can go outside, see the smoke in the air and say they do not care.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the Liberal member fearmongering about cuts, as many Liberal members do. If we take a look at actual history and facts, we will find that the last government to significantly cut transfers for health care, social services and other important programs was the one of finance minister Paul Martin's budgets of 1995-96 through 1997-98, where we went from $18.4 billion in 1995-96 to $14.7 billion in 1996-97 to $12.5 billion in 1997-98 because of the absolutely disastrous economic policies of the last incompetent Trudeau government, a government that racked up deficits in 14 out of 15 years. We now see another incompetent Liberal government doing the same thing.

Does that not concern the hon. member in the least?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member goes outside and sees the smoke in the air and talks about 1995. I think I was in grade 11. Let us get real. Let us get real about today. Let us get real about the future.

If he wants to talk about history, let us talk about history. Let us talk about Brian Mulroney, a Conservative prime minister who put a price on pollution. Guess what? It worked. It helped solve the acid rain problem that was endemic during the 1980s. It was a Conservative idea. If it worked then, why will Conservatives not at least embrace something?

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

Madam Speaker, we recently learned that the government has agreed to lend an additional $3 billion to Trans Mountain. Meanwhile, we have learned that the government took $2 billion from the employment insurance fund.

My colleague opposite talks about forest fires as though Bill C-47 is going to somehow contribute to Canada's fight against climate change. He says one thing, but his government does the opposite. How does he explain that?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, we said it at the time. It is about transitioning the economy. Oil is still going to be produced. Energy is still going to be relied on. I know that when the leader of the Bloc Québécois was minister in the provincial government, he was seeking to engage in oil exploration in Quebec.

Again, this is about transitioning. It is an existing pipeline that is going to be doubled to get the same amount of oil to different markets.

Let us talk about climate change while the Conservatives are doing nothing.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that, of course, I am most proud of in this bill is the dental care and the expansion of dental care. Obviously, dental care is something that New Democrats have been fighting for, for a very long time. It is very good that the Liberals have come on board. This bill expands that to be for more than just children. It expands it to those under 18 and to seniors.

I am wondering if the hon. member could talk a little bit about what dental care will mean in his riding and perhaps comment on how on earth he thinks the Conservatives justify to their constituents why they think dental care is not reasonable for Conservative constituents.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been advocating for dental care since before my election in 2015, as the chair of a community health centre in St. Catharines that established a volunteer dental clinic.

To see the look in people's eyes when they can smile is monumental. It is monumental in their lives. The Conservatives may say that they are not going to do it because it is right. Maybe it will appeal to them as an economic plan. One cannot get a job if one cannot smile at a job interview. To see someone be able to go into life without pain is significant.

Again, it is shameful that they would look away and not support that. They will have to tell their constituents why they want to take away dental care from them.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, introduced by the government.

The budget is a key exercise in our democracy. It is the time when the government decides how and where it will spend the hundreds of billions of dollars that it controls. The government does not pull all this money out of thin air. Each of these dollars comes directly out of the pockets of individuals from the four corners of Quebec and Canada who worked hard to earn that money. That is why the government has a duty to use that money responsibly and reasonably. Most of all, it has to spend so as to meet the needs and priorities of the public—because, again, it is our money.

The government can also use the budget to implement its vision for society, the vision it has for the future. We saw that in Quebec with the construction of hydroelectric dams, which continue to make the Quebec nation an ambitious, visionary and decidedly green nation. I will say, however, that if we want to find a vision of the future, then we need to look somewhere other than this Liberal budget.

If we take a close look at the budget, we see that the government's priority is more about saving its faltering marriage to the NDP than meeting the needs of Quebeckers and Canadians. While the Prime Minister plays political games and uses the treasury as his personal piggy bank to stay in power, everybody else is tightening their belts and wondering how they will pay their mortgage.

We are talking about inflation, recession, the economic slowdown and skyrocketing interest rates, but the government has not seen fit to implement preventive measures to prepare the economy for the possibility of rough times ahead in the coming months and years. This government is completely out of touch with the economic situation and its day-to-day impact on the lives of real people. Since these ministers are chauffeured around and do not often take the time to look beyond Ottawa and the greater Toronto area, I will use the rest of my time to explain what is happening in areas such as mine, the Lower St. Lawrence, and how their inaction is making life difficult.

The first urgent issue is housing. It is not complicated. There is virtually nothing available on the market in my region. According to the most recent data from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, the vacancy rate in Rimouski is 0.4% this year compared to 0.2% last year. That is a slight improvement, but it is nothing to write home about. To give members an idea, a healthy real estate market usually has a vacancy rate of about 3%. We are nowhere near finding a balance between the current vacancy rate of 0.4% and the average of 3%.

That imbalance is having unprecedented consequences for my region. I held a housing summit in my riding in March to better understand and identify those consequences. Here are some of the things that the organizations and people on the ground shared with me. There is no longer any such thing as affordable housing. The housing units that are available are unaffordable or not fit to live in. Requests for emergency assistance have tripled since the beginning of the pandemic. Obviously, there are not enough resources to help all of those people and many are being left to fend for themselves. Emergency shelters, particularly in Rimouski and the surrounding areas, are full to overflowing. It is unprecedented. People were homeless in Rimouski in the middle of winter. Spending the night outside in the Lower St. Lawrence area in the middle of winter is far from pleasant.

I have heard some extremely disturbing stories. Students looking for housing are being approached by older men offering to put them up in exchange for services. That is completely unacceptable. Staff at addiction treatment centres have even told me that people cannot leave their facilities because there is nowhere go.

Given all the precariousness and the distress people are feeling, one might think the government would have made it a priority to tackle the housing crisis, but no. The Liberals have completely dropped the ball. There is nothing at all for housing in the latest budget—zero, nada, niet, not one penny.

The government members are patting themselves on the back and quoting data from the 2022 budget. It is unbelievable. How can this be happening? A crisis is going on, but no investment is being made to find solutions that could end it. The disconnect is staggering.

However, the demands of the Bloc Québécois and community organizations were fairly clear and specific. For instance, the government was asked to permanently renew the rapid housing initiative and to increase the rent supplement transfer.

The need to speed up the transfer of funds between governments was also discussed. With each day that the federal government holds on to funds instead of passing them on to Quebec to send where they are needed, construction costs keep rising and our students, families and seniors keep growing poorer. How much longer do we have to wait for action? Urgent action is needed now to resolve the housing crisis.

Another area where we hoped the government would deliver on expectations is employment insurance. This issue has been a topic of discussion for a long time. When the Liberal government came to power in 2015, it was one of their election promises. When it came back to power in 2019, it did not keep its promise then either. In 2021, it made the same promise again. We were told that consultations were being held to find out what was going on, but they know what is going on. They know the problems and they know the solutions. What is missing is the will to act, the action.

I have not forgotten the Liberal promise of 2015, and I can say that the rights groups advocating for the unemployed have not forgotten it either. The unemployed men and women who are waiting for the government to deliver real reform have definitely not forgotten it.

Currently, six in 10 workers who pay into employment insurance are not eligible for it because the eligibility criteria no longer reflect the reality of the labour market in 2023. These are not people who hope and pray for an unemployment cheque, they are people who pay into the fund. It is not complicated: this program was set up many years ago and has not been updated. There has been no reform. Naturally, it no longer reflects reality. I hope that the government will take action on this for once and for all.

As mentioned, on reading budget 2023, we learn that the government is not planning for any reform before 2030. The Liberals promised reform in 2015. During the 2019 election, they said they would do it.

In 2021, they called an early election. We all remember what a good idea it was to change government and call an election in 2021. What is more, they did it in the middle of the pandemic, when they were telling people to wear their mask and maintain social distancing. Then the government and its Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, went out and took photos with babies. They acted like the pandemic was over because they wanted to win the election. They did not want to change things for people. They wanted to return with a majority government. It is not easy to be in a minority government.

Every day, this government shows us that it does not care one iota about democracy. We know that it entered into an alliance with the NDP, which has been doing its bidding for some time. This is not new. The NDP also serves the government by supporting its gag orders. There have already been a dozen gag orders since the government and the NDP, which calls itself the New Democratic Party, struck a deal.

Let us come back to the budget. My colleagues will understand that it is quite difficult to just go along with it. I hope that the people listening to us at home will realize what is happening in this democracy. It is now operating under multiple closure motions to allow the government or an opposition party to save face. That is what we are currently putting up with in a G7 country.

I will repeat that six out of 10 workers who pay into EI are unable to access it. In the Lower St. Lawrence area, back home, seasonal work is a large part of the economic activity and the lives of workers. A strong EI system would help build solid regions and ensure that people keep living in our regions and do not leave.

The EI reform is urgent. It is part of the support measures that are necessary for seasonal work, which is an economic driver in our regions. I am thinking mainly of tourism, agriculture and the fishery. We can discuss that.

All of these sectors rely on seasonal activities. It is not because people do not want to work in certain seasons. Potatoes cannot be planted in the middle of winter. Some government ministers do not seem to grasp how it works. People are still wondering about this in 2023.

Another issue I absolutely must address has to do with seniors, specifically the inequity suffered by people aged 65 to 75 who are not getting an increase in their OAS benefits. The government is completely out to lunch on this. It is yet another broken election promise. I hope the government will do something once and for all.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague very carefully, as always.

Over the weekend, I went door to door to hundreds of homes in Montreal. I spoke with Quebeckers who mentioned that the NDP was able to bring in a dental care program that will help the people of Quebec. People in Montreal were thrilled that this program in being established.

The NDP forced the government to introduce legislation on pharmacare this year. There are so many holes in Quebec's pharmacare program. As we know, the major unions are calling for a public pharmacare program that covers everyone, just as the New Democrats are proposing.

I see then a bit of a gap between what the Bloc Québécois supports and what the NDP has proposed, which seems to really resonate in Montreal.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's question and his comments. First of all, neither the NDP nor the federal government invented the dental care program. Of course Quebec's current dental care program is not perfect.

However, I will say one thing. It is not a secret. We can see in the government's current budget that there is no allocation for the so-called dental care program. There is nothing until 2023. I will make a wager on what will happen after that. It is possible that there will be an election in 2024, if the agreement with the NDP is not honoured. I guarantee that the Liberals will put that in their election campaign. They will ask people to elect them again with this promise. I do not believe it right now.

There is another very important thing I would point out to my colleague, and that is that the government's dental care program penalizes Quebec families. That is unfair. Quebec families will receive less money than other Canadian families, because we already have dental care programs with Quebec's current employment conditions. There is therefore nothing to boast about, quite the contrary. The House should be condemning the fact that the federal government's dental care program is creating a certain inequity between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech.

One of the things he spoke to was employment insurance. I know that the topic is important to him. I would like to hear him speak about the environment as well.

Bill C-47 is very short on environmental proposals, to put it mildly. In fact, it lets the oil companies use taxpayer money that they do not really need to invest in solutions that do not really work.

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

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

Madam Speaker, what I am about to say is no secret, but it is important. The government purchased a pipeline. It is not for shipping grain; it is for shipping oil. The pipeline cost $30 billion. It started off at $7 billion, and then climbed to $15 billion, $22 billion, $24 billion, $28 billion and $30 billion. I hope that the government realizes that it could fix an awful lot of problems with that money. It could build housing, help seniors and support families.

What my colleague from Terrebonne said is important. The government is not even trying to hide anymore. It bought a $30-billion pipeline with our money. In the latest budget, it is also giving away $21 billion in tax credits to oil and gas companies. I will not be shedding any tears here tonight for these companies over tax credits. They are not even subsidies now, just tax credits. That makes it even harder to track how much money will be disappearing into the pockets of which multi-million dollar corporation.

The government cannot be serious. It wants to transition to green energy, yet, today, the Minister of Labour is praising the government's action on seabed oil and gas development, saying, “Don't tell me a green energy future doesn't include oil and gas.” I want to congratulate the Minister of Labour. This government is not going to make the net-zero energy transition happen, I guarantee it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Before I resume debate, I am going to ask members to check the mikes around them and turn down the ones that are not being used. We are getting some feedback on interpretation; the mikes are picking something up. I would appreciate that, as it would save the pages a bit of time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

I will start off by condemning the incredibly childish behaviour of Conservative MPs over the course of the last few days. We have seen in the House unprecedented adolescent, juvenile behaviour. We certainly saw that last Friday. I raise that concern because Canadians need to know that what the Conservatives have been blocking are measures that are going to benefit their constituents. I find that surprising.

What have the Conservatives been blocking over the course of the last few days? They have been throwing paper in the air. They have been trying to pretend that they are having technical problems. They have been putting forward every single dilatory motion they can think of. The member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay was able to finally put forward the emergency debate motion, after eight hours of Conservatives blocking it. They were blocking an emergency debate on wildfires at a time when Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia are consumed by fire. Firefighters are working hard, communities are threatened and there have been massive economic losses, and the Conservatives have spent the whole day blocking that motion from coming forward. I am glad they were finally overcome by the weight of more rational members of Parliament, and we will have that debate on wildfires tonight.

However, the fact is that the Conservatives are so disconnected from reality that they blocked an emergency debate that is so important for paying credit to the firefighters fighting these fires and paying credit to the communities and volunteers trying to keep people alive and safe. They blocked that for the course of the entire day, and I am unbelievably disappointed with these pyromaniac gatekeepers. Finally, the NDP persevered, as we always do ultimately, and we are now going to have this debate.

The Conservatives would justify this by saying they are blocking programs the NDP wants to bring in, and that is true. There are programs the NDP, on behalf of Canadians, wants to bring in, so let us talk about what the impact of them would be in Conservative ridings.

There is the dental care plan that the member for Burnaby South and the entire NDP caucus forced the government to bring in after decades of commitments from Liberal and Conservative governments that they always reneged on. The dental care plan means that people with disabilities, seniors and families with kids under the age of 18 will finally have access to dental care at the end of this year. That is what is in Bill C-47. This is what the Conservatives have been blocking for two days. It is access to dental care for thousands of their constituents. It is access to dental care for seniors in their ridings, 70-year-olds who have never had access to dental care because they could not afford to pay for it.

We know that dental care is expensive. However, the Conservative MPs stood resolutely against seniors finally having access to dental care after decades. They stood resolutely against people with disabilities. I find that particularly despicable, because we know that people with disabilities are the poorest of the poor. Half the people who go to food banks to make ends meet are people with disabilities. Half of the homeless in this country are people with disabilities.

I remember during the terrible years of the Harper regime how the Conservatives steamrolled over people with disabilities, steamrolled over seniors and forced the retirement age up so that people who had worked all their lives were forced to work longer. The disrespect shown by blocking dental care, to my mind, is inconceivable.

As members know, in the recent Alberta election, the NDP swept all of Edmonton, every single riding at the provincial level, and took most of the ridings in Calgary. If I were a Conservative MP from Edmonton or Calgary, I would read the room and think, “What we are doing with the kind of mean-spirited approach we have, where we try to deny people services that can make a difference, is obviously something that people in Edmonton and Calgary have turned their backs on.”

If I was an Edmonton MP or a Calgary MP for the Conservative Party, I would think twice about doing what they have done over the last two days, which is deny basic dental care to those seniors, people with disabilities and all families that have youth 18 and under. It is not just that; the Conservatives also denied the grocery rebate. As for the average benefit to a Conservative MP's constituency, about 11,000 Canadians living in each of those ridings would benefit from that grocery rebate: $500 extra to put food on the table at a time when people are struggling.

The member for Carleton, who is the head pyromaniac gatekeeper, is saying he does not want that money to go to those 11,000 people in his constituency, and I guess other Conservative MPs are saying the same thing, that in their constituencies, they do not want those 11,000 Canadians, who are struggling to make ends meet and who have lower incomes, to get the grocery rebate. Why would they be so mean-spirited? Why would they be so entitled to deny those constituents the benefits they have? I ask, because the Conservatives have access to a dental care plan as MPs, and they have access to a good salary as MPs, but they would deny that to, on average, 11,000 constituents in their ridings. To my mind, it is unbelievable.

Then, of course there is the other element that the NDP succeeded in forcing the government to do, which is on affordable housing. The urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy financing is so vitally important. Affordable housing is finally being built. Finally, we are getting to the point where we are starting to address the housing crisis in a meaningful way. The member for Carleton likes to talk a good game. He says, rightly, that the cost of housing has doubled under the Liberal government. What he neglects to say is that it also doubled under the terrible Harper regime, one of the most corrupt governments in our history and one of the most mean-spirited governments in our history. It was an unbelievably incompetent government. It could not manage finances. It could not fight its way out of a paper bag, and all of the other things—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is not time for comments or questions. I would just ask the hon. members to hold their thoughts and write them down, for when the time comes for questions and comments in about two and a half minutes. It seems that every time we get to two and a half minutes we start getting a little rambunctious, and I would just ask members to hold off, please.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Madam Speaker, the truth hurts. When Canadians speak truth to Conservatives, we know what the reaction is. Albertans in Edmonton and Calgary certainly spoke truth to Conservatives earlier last week, and I think we are seeing that reflected in the falling poll numbers as well for the Conservatives.

The Conservatives would stop affordable housing from being built. After we have seen decades of both the terrible Harper regime refusing to build affordable housing and the Liberal government refusing to build affordable housing, the NDP is forcing the government to actually do that, and the Conservative response is to block it. They do not want affordable housing for Canadians, as they might be able to have a roof over their heads and they might be able to back to school or work. A whole bunch of things could happen from that, and Conservatives somehow find that this is something they do not want to see.

The NDP forced investments in health care, and members will recall it is the terrible Harper regime, that dismal decade of 10 awful years that Canadians had to survive, that actually cut the health care funding in the first place, so the NDP is fixing what the Harper regime and Conservatives broke. What we have in the bill—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin is rising on a point of order.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, as you know, and as the hon. member has been around long enough to know, it is against the rules of the House to mislead the House, and he just completely misinformed the House in regard to the Harper record.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members that this is all due to interpretation—

[Greg McLean]

No it's not.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

This is part of debate. I just want to allow the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to finish up his speech. I would ask members—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Again, the hon. member for Calgary Centre seems to be a bit rambunctious right now. I would ask him to hold his thought, and he can stand to ask a question in one minute and six seconds.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Madam Speaker, I actually would like to make a motion for unanimous consent so that I can take another half-hour to talk about the Harper government. I would be more than pleased to get into the details.

I move that I be accorded an extra half-hour to talk specifically about the Harper government.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am not going to allow unanimous consent at this point. Nobody can move a motion because of the way that we have structured the debate.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Madam Speaker, that is too bad because I would love to spend the evening talking about how terrible, how awful, how mean-spirited the Harper government was and how badly it managed finances and of course the scandals that we lived through. The scandals were unprecedented.

I will close by saying this. People, including those in Conservative ridings, need dental care. They need access to affordable housing. They need to have the grocery rebate. They need the supports that are in this bill.

For goodness sake, Conservatives should get with the program, listen to their constituents and vote for this bill.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, rather than just being an MP, I am going to put my dental hat on here because that is what I was educated in. Although the hon. member has applauded how well the NDP has brought this forward, I am going to remind him that the Canadian Dental Association actually spoke out against this program initially. It was never even consulted at the beginning. Perhaps that is one of the first things. It actually asked for an expansion of the current programs by the provinces, things like Healthy Smiles that actually get to the children. The problem that we also know here is that with the cost of living, many of these cheques are cashed because of the unaffordability of food.

I would like to know if he actually believes that this program could be audited, and whether this money is going to the dental program or helping hard-hit families because of inflation.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for that member and appreciate her work in the House. I would kindly suggest that she has not actually read the bill that the Conservatives have been fighting against over the course of the last few days, because what she actually referred to was the dental payment from last year, not the dental program that takes effect at the end of this year which includes seniors, people with disabilities and youth. It is a completely different program. If she had read the bill, long as it is, she would be informed about that. I have enormous respect for the work she does, but I am going to correct inaccuracies and in this case what she said was in reference to last year, not this year.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby on his speech. I have the pleasure of working with him on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and we appreciate the collaboration we have. I think we do. I do, at least.

Having said that, I want to talk a little bit about the content of Bill C-47 and the budget in general.

We heard from many witnesses from the arts community and the cultural industry in recent months and years. They were unanimous in saying that the cultural industry needs to be supported during the post-pandemic recovery. We actually discussed this with the minister last week in committee.

I would like to hear my NDP colleague's opinion on the fact that this budget does not include the money that the cultural industry specifically asked for to survive the post-pandemic recovery. What is more, the little bit of money that is being spent is not being used the way the industry wanted.

I would like my colleague to talk about that.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague from Drummond. I think that the vast majority of members of the House agree that we definitely need to invest more in the arts and culture sector. That is important for community economic stability.

It is also very important for us to have those stories that we can share among ourselves and that help us learn more about Quebec, British Columbia or Acadia. It is important in a country as big as ours. Canada is the world's greatest democracy, where there are two official languages and a multitude of other languages. There are also people from indigenous communities, and we must share those cultures.

In my opinion, we need to continue to work to increase those investments. The NDP will not stop advocating for the arts and culture sector.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always so enlightening for me to listen to this member speak. He wanted to speak a bit more. He asked for unanimous consent and, of course, that was not possible. However, I wanted the member to talk a bit more. We know that this bill does not go far enough with regard to indigenous housing. It does not go far enough with regard to the support for the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls national action plan. It is a start, but it has not gone far enough.

The member spoke about the Harper years. I was in the non-profit sector at the time and I know how horrendous those years were for those of us in the charitable sector. Perhaps the member could talk about the impacts of the Stephen Harper years on indigenous people in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Edmonton Strathcona and her seatmate, the member for Edmonton Griesbach, are the two strongest members of Parliament from Alberta in this House; no question. They are incredibly strong.

The Harper government was disastrous for indigenous peoples. I can go into literally hours of description of how bad the Harper regime was. Thankfully, it is no longer there and we do not ever want it back.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise to speak on behalf of the people of northern Saskatchewan. Debates such as this on Bill C-47 are good opportunities for members of Parliament to bring their own unique backgrounds and perspectives to the House. As a former accountant and mayor, members can imagine that I have dealt with a few budgets and many numbers in my day. I want to spend the first few minutes tonight talking about a few of these numbers, some very big numbers.

In 2015, when the Liberals were first elected, Canada's national debt was $612 billion. This budget projects Canada's debt to be $1.22 trillion by next March, which is $81,000 per Canadian household, and it will reach $1.3 trillion by 2028. A simple fact is that the Prime Minister has accumulated more debt in eight years than all of Canada's previous prime ministers combined.

How did we get here? In 2015, the total expenditures of the government were $280 billion. This budget again calls for billions of dollars in new spending. The Prime Minister simply cannot help himself. This past year, total expenditures were $480 billion, and this budget projects to start at $497 billion and rise to $557 billion by 2027-28. That is an average of $526 billion in each of the next five years. That is also $246 billion per year or 88% greater than expenditures were in 2015.

If this is what the finance minister meant when she said, “we will review and reduce government spending, because that is the responsible thing to do”, I would hate to see what the irresponsible thing looks like.

I have a couple more numbers. Canada will have accumulated over $700 billion of new debt under the Prime Minister by 2028. As projected, the cost of interest on that debt will rise to over $50 billion per year. That is more than a 100% increase over 2021 and 2022, and it would then become about 10% of the total expenditures of the government. If I had run my accounting practice for the little City of Meadow Lake the way the Liberal government has run Canada's finances, I would have been out of business and run out of office.

Let us consider some promises made in 2015. First, the Liberal Party said it would run small deficits and return Canada's finances back to balance in 2019. I hate to break it to the members opposite, but not only did the Prime Minister overspend this promise by about $700 billion, but the budget was never balanced and there is no plan to ever balance it. It is no wonder that record numbers of Canadians no longer trust their government institutions.

Second, the finance minister talked a lot about the declining debt-to-GDP ratio. This was her fiscal anchor. She said, “This is a line we shall not cross. It will ensure that our finances remain sustainable.” That sounds like another promise. I hate to once again break it to colleagues opposite, but the debt-to-GDP ratio has risen every year since the government was first elected in 2015 and is projected to rise again in the coming year. When the Prime Minister and finance minister make promises about debt and deficits, forgive me if I do not hold my breath.

Sometimes one must invest in things to be successful, so it is important to measure what one gets in return for choosing debt and increasing spending. Let us consider the state of Canada after eight years of out-of-control Liberal spending and inflationary deficits. Food price inflation is at a 40-year high. Nearly half of Canadians feel they are less than $200 from insolvency. One in five Canadians is skipping meals to reduce the cost of food, and 1.5 million people used food banks in a single month. The average cost of housing, both to rent and purchase, has doubled since 2015. This is the record of the Liberal government and the measures it is proposing in budget 2023 will, in fact, make the situation worse for Canadians by pouring another $67 billion of new deficit spending fuel on the flames of inflation.

I am very proud of coming from northern Saskatchewan. I believe it is an area that is a very good benchmark to measure how Canada's economy is performing. It is a region that has many important sectors of our economy: mining, forestry, agriculture, oil and gas, tourism, etc. It is also home to a unique cross-section of communities and people, communities and people that, frankly, should be thriving. Instead, everywhere I visit when I go home, people speak about how frustrated and desperate they are with the current economic situation.

Municipalities are struggling. The cost of much-needed infrastructure projects has ballooned over the last few years. Whether it be upgrading a sewer line, building a recreation complex or improving a street, community leaders are being tasked to do more with less. The result is that not only do they have to do the heavy lifting for their people, but the conditions under which they are operating keep getting worse due to the economic policies of the NDP-Liberal coalition.

These same policies are negatively impacting small businesses in northern Saskatchewan. This winter, I was talking to a business owner. He supplies people living in remote and rural communities with home heating fuel. He described to me the difficult position he was in due to the rising cost of this home heating fuel. His customers were either being forced to buy very small amounts, or they were pleading with him to extend credit until they could pay. They were having to choose between feeding their families or living without heat in the middle of a northern Saskatchewan winter, and he was having to choose between possibly losing money or seeing these families live without heat. That is the choice that this small business owner was facing because of the NDP-Liberal coalition nightmare.

Small business owners are also continually telling me how the carbon tax disproportionately affects rural and remote areas like northern Saskatchewan. This is becoming a very serious situation for them. Not only are they dealing with a labour shortage crisis, but due to the rising carbon tax they are forced to increase prices. Now the costly coalition is adding a second carbon tax that will ultimately add 61¢ per litre to the cost of fuel.

Everything, everywhere in northern Saskatchewan must be trucked. There is no other option. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this will cost the average household in Saskatchewan $2,840 per year. Increasing taxes at a time when people are struggling to get by is not a recipe for economic success. Is it any wonder that the people I talk to are fed up?

That anger can also be felt when I talk to farmers back home. The government members seem to forget that agriculture is the economic backbone of Canada. A stabilizing sector and one that provides the food we all rely on deserves better from its government. Let us imagine being the Minister of Agriculture in Canada and voting against Bill C-234, a bill that would give farmers carbon tax exemptions to produce the food we need. If the minister will not stand up at the cabinet table for farmers, who will?

Let us face it. When it comes to agriculture, these Liberals have become the living definition of biting the hand that feeds them. In a country that feeds the world, Canada is now a place where people cannot afford food. For many people in northern Saskatchewan who were already struggling with the increased cost of living, the skyrocketing price of food has become a crisis.

“This isn't working” are the words of a food bank chair from northern Saskatchewan, who adds, “Everything is increasing—gas, rent, food, heat.... I just don’t know how people are supposed to manage.” The food bank's monthly food budget is $5,000, and it now provides half the number of food hampers that it did just three years ago. The Liberals' mismanagement of the economy, assisted by their NDP enablers, has created conditions that directly harm the most vulnerable in our communities the most.

All of this is while the people from northern Saskatchewan and Canada have a Prime Minister who spends $6,000 a night on a hotel in London, but would not admit to it for months and still takes no responsibility; a Prime Minister who vacations in Jamaica at a luxurious estate of Trudeau Foundation donors; a Prime Minister who spends $8,000 a month on groceries; a Prime Minister who is embroiled in a foreign election interference scandal and uses Trudeau Foundation members and friends to investigate; a Prime Minister who named an interim Ethics Commissioner who is the sister-in-law to a cabinet minister, who is also a long-time family friend, to replace the former commissioner who grew so frustrated by the continued Liberal ethical lapses that he finally walked away. This is not leadership by any measure at any time in our history.

Budget 2023 is not an economic document. It is the political document of a government led by a Prime Minister who has chosen power over principle.

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

Madam Speaker, I am curious because we are debating Bill C-47 tonight, which is not the budget but the budget implementation act. In terms of reading that piece of legislation, I can understand that speeches can wander off topic, but I did not hear anything of the topic in that speech. I am wondering what part of his speech the hon. member would refer me to in terms of the budget implementation act we are debating tonight.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives will talk about improving the lives of people. We will talk about the war on work from increasing taxes. We will talk about stopping the rising cost of living, the rising costs of food, fuel and housing. We will talk about making people more accountable to the people who elected them so that we can improve the lives of people all across this country.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague does a lot of good work on the indigenous and northern affairs committee, which is something that connects both of us, him as a representative for Saskatchewan and me as a representative for Alberta who formerly represented many indigenous people.

This budget speaks directly to some of the aspects that are needed for our first nations communities to continue to get out of the crises they are in.. For example, the red dress alert is something that is most critical to constituents in my community, who are faced with some of the most tragic results of the inquiry into the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and two-spirit people.

Why would the member oppose such an important endeavour, which is called for by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and what does he have to say to the thousands of women who need the support?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague. We have done some work on a number of different committees together and much of it around our first nations and other indigenous populations.

I would say this to the member. We sat at committee together the other day when we talked about the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the ability of the departments of CIRNAC and ISC to meet the goals and the targets they set for themselves, including the targets for things that he referenced. I would suggest that one of the things we need to do, as a House of Commons, is to find a way to create accountability to ensure that the bureaucrats in the departments, who are out there serving people, set good targets and are able to meet the targets they set for themselves so that we do not see huge investments in departments across government without the required outcomes to improve the lives of people.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member to not refer to indigenous people as “our” first nations. I know indigenous people do not appreciate that, as they do not belong to anybody. I just want to raise that.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, like the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-47, but for different reasons.

I hear my Conservative colleagues talk a lot about the carbon tax. They keep coming back to the same points. We in the Bloc Québécois are a bit like that. We keep coming back to the same points, specifically the fact that there is nothing for seniors, nothing for housing, nothing for EI reform.

I would like my colleague to comment on that last point. All stakeholders have been calling for this for years, and it is considered an urgent matter. That is how urgent it is, and yet there is nothing in this budget.

I think this is long overdue, and it actually looked like it was finally going to happen. Could my colleague share his thoughts?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would respond to my colleague's question by saying there are many things that we find missing in this budget and that are not included, one of them being the ability to control the inflationary spending and the huge deficits. Just six months ago, the finance minister talked about having to end the inflationary deficits because she acknowledged that they were fuelling the flames of inflation.

There are a lot of things missing in this budget. We have made it very clear that there are some requirements that are missing for us to support the budget. They would include a move toward a balanced budget and something to control the inflationary spending and the increasing cost of living. Those are the things that are missing in this budget that we feel are very important.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to a number of speeches on this year's budget and on Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, at all stages of debate.

I have been inspired by some of these speeches. I really enjoyed the one delivered by the hon. member for Abbotsford. He spoke about the lines the Minister of Finance said last year she would not cross. It was about the increase in a ratio called the debt-to-GDP, or gross domestic product.

I agree with him completely. It seems as though the government, from so many of its ministries, tells Canadians what to expect from them and then ignores those seemingly brave words. It spoke of short-term deficits of $10 billion to bring us back to balance by 2019. I remember that one quite well. Then it spoke of a carbon tax that would never rise above $50 per tonne. That was in the 2019 election platform, not so long ago.

I love when the Liberals say, “We have got Canadians' backs.” What does that even mean? They say, “We are laser focused on solving this problem.” Sure. The one I like best is, “We are not worried about inflation. We are worried about deflation.” I think they would like to erase those words from the record at this point.

Talk is cheap in today's politics, until Canadians actually see the consequences of breaking the real pillars that hold up our country's financial well-being. There will be reduced opportunities in an underperforming, non-resilient economy for generations.

Social programs such as health, education and welfare will be compromised because bankers will get paid first and the amount of priority spending is increasing. This means the amount of money we have to spend as Canadians taxpayers paying the interest on our debt is a rising rate and a rising number. It is escalating quickly.

Deficits do not solve themselves. They take planning and resolve. The consequences of not solving them are upon us with rising inflation, rising taxation and rising income inequality. There are rising labour tensions, as we saw with the recent strike at the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Canadians are just trying to have their wages and salaries keep up with the rising cost of living that the government's negligence has caused.

Inflated dollars buy less. They buy less food, less shelter and fewer social services. We are all poorer by degrees. The government just hopes Canadians do not notice it too much. Canadians are noticing, and they are wondering how a modern country is throwing away its future and has forgotten the lessons from the last time this scenario unfolded just four decades ago. Politicians change, but institutional memory, the decision-making, should learn from the lessons of history, especially recent history.

I would say Canada's debt-to-GDP is a somewhat useless ratio, as it only compares how bad our ability to provide balance for tomorrow's taxpayers is with that of other spendy governments in the world. The debt-to-GDP is increasing, and there is no benefit to having a high debt-to-GDP. There is only a cost, and it is a rapidly rising cost.

As so many have indicated, that rising cost has rising consequences. The government presents in its own set of data that its sacred ratio will peak next year, this time at 43.5%. Let me caution colleagues on this opportunistic representation of data and remind everyone how last year, the Minister of Finance said that this ratio had peaked and would not increase further. Those are words and promises without meaning or real intent. I think we know the answer to that choice.

Let us look at what is called a national accounts basis, as the rest of the world looks at these metrics. That is that there is only one gross domestic product and there are a number of government debts in Canada. If we add in each of the provinces, on top of the federal government's debt, we get a ratio that is higher than 95% on the ratio.

We also have to subtract out the funds that do not belong to the government that it likes to include in its calculation. That is the amount it subtracts from workers who have to set aside money for programs, such as the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan. I should point out that that is one of the costs to workers that is increasing substantially this year.

Canadians need to tell the government that these funds do not belong to the government. They belong to the people who have earned those pensions. The government should get them out of the calculations, trying to make its numbers more justifiable. These are not the Government of Canada's assets. They are being held in trust for Canadians at arm's-length organizations. The government has no recourse to these funds, or does it?

Does the government want to explain how it might have recourse to these funds, which Canadians think are sequestered for their retirement? I ask this question because the government went out of its way to freeze Canadians' bank accounts last year, and freezing earned benefits would pale in comparison to freezing a basic bank account, so someone could buy food and pay for their shelter in Canada.

In any event, for the financially literate, let us stop painting a rosier picture of reality. The government does not get to pick and choose which numbers it uses. Sustainable finance theories aside, and these are mock theories, the government does not get to pick and choose the numbers that affect people's lives. It should just be presented factually.

The irony is that the Liberal government presents a scenario in which provincial budget balances have collectively turned positive in 2022, and thus contributed to Canada's overall turnaround. Let us be clear. That is based on the surplus in one province, Alberta, and those revenues are predicated on world resource pricing of, yes, oil and gas, which the government scorns daily in the House.

As is said, comparing badly run jurisdictions in the world, Europe is a collection of poorly managed economies with no resource wealth, whereas Canada is a very poorly managed country with a backstop of significant resource wealth. It is very clear the country needs better management. We are in line for the job, and we are just waiting for the shareholders to fire this underperforming team.

I went through much of the budget presentation, and I noted a number of fictions that the government actually prints on government paper.

How is this? “The federal government’s fiscal anchor—reducing the federal debt-to-GDP ratio over the medium term—remains unchanged and is being met.” That is wrong. There is also this: “Even with higher borrowing costs, public debt charges as a share of the economy are projected to remain at historically low levels“. That is wrong, again.

The $44 billion in interest payments is up from $24 billion just two years ago, and a larger portion of the GDP than it had been in over 15 years. The government says these metrics are going in the right direction and hope that Canadians are not paying attention.

However, they are emulating themselves in the House of Commons by now putting nonsense on paper. Let us just keep spending and everything will balance itself.

How about this one? It says:

Budget 2023 proposes substantial measures as the next steps in the government's plan to “crowd-in” new private investment by leveraging public investment and government policy. The goal of this approach is not to substitute government for the private sector, nor supplant market-based decision making. It is to leverage the tools of government to mobilize the private sector.

No, it is not. That is fantasy. It is a false narrative based on giving taxpayer money to connected friends of the Liberal government.

We are giving foreign companies subsidies amounting to double the amount they are investing in this country to put Canadian taxpayer dollars in the pockets of foreign investors. That is how the Liberal government thinks it makes friends.

Who is laughing all the way to the bank? It is not Canadian taxpayers. It is not the $200 billion in project financing that was in line in Canada before the government created absolute market uncertainty.

What is not in this budget implementation bill? Anything to do with climate financing, just like last year. The budget speech indicated moving forward on climate initiatives, yet these exist nowhere in Bill C-47.

What is in this bill? A whole bunch of items that have nothing to do with the budget, including CEPA changes and jurisdictional oversteps. It is just tax, spend and divide. That is not the way to manage Canada's finances.

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

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague, who was also a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. I remember when we were debating Bill C-2.

I would like to have a bit of clarity on something. Clause 510 officially recognizes Charles III as King of Canada. One of the Conservative Party's motions calls for this clause to be deleted.

Has the Conservative Party been seized with a sudden fit of good faith and common sense and become anti-monarchist?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I am not sure what clause my colleague is referring to. If my colleague could mention the words that go with the clause during her next question, that might benefit the House of Commons.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it felt like there was some dishonesty in the member's speech. He started out speaking about the dishonesty of the Liberal government, but then he spoke about how this was almost an omnibus bill at the end, as if the Harper government was not renowned for its omnibus bills. He spoke about how we should have learned from history, but in World War II, one of the things that we saw was the massive investment in our communities and in our infrastructure, so I want to ask him about what he would cut.

However, what actually caught my ear the most was when he was talking about pensions, about Canadian pensions. I am sure he knows where I am going with this. We just finished an election in Alberta, and the United Conservative Party, the UCP, in Alberta, was running on the idea of taking Albertans out of the Canadian pension plan and using that money for its own means.

Since the member does not agree with the Canadian pension plan being used by the government, would he say that what Danielle Smith is proposing in Alberta would be equally wrong?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a completely dishonest question. This is something that has to be very clearly said in the House of Commons.

The member began her question by saying there was some dishonesty in my speech. The only thing that was dishonest in my speech was when I was referring to what is in the budget. I do not think I uttered a dishonest word in that speech.

There was nothing about pension plans in that last election where the United Conservative Party of Alberta won a majority government in Alberta, yet the NDP in both Alberta and the House seem to take that as if it were a part of it. There was a bunch of disinformation coming. The disinformation continues in this House as it did in the provincial election. It seems to be repetitive.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

The misinformation came from the premier.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that she had an opportunity to ask a question. If she has a subsequent question, she should wait until I call for questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, I have put this question to other members debating tonight. Over the course of any discussion of Bill C-47 in this place, I have heard very few members actually speak to Bill C-47, which is not the budget. The budget carried already in this place. We are now debating a budget implementation act, which changes many pieces of legislation. It is an omnibus bill, but it is not an illegitimate omnibus bill. It follows through on changes.

I actually voted against the Liberal budget, but I will vote for the budget implementation bill because it contains many, many useful measures, none of which relate to the topics that my hon. friend discussed. Universally, it seems, in this place, we assume that the legislation, Bill C-47, is the budget.

I just ask my hon. colleague if he has any comments as to why that is, since that is not what we are debating tonight.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question and the member is exactly right. There is everything anyone could choose, part of which is the budget and part of which is in this bill for the budget implementation act.

I had here in my notes 10 different issues on the budget implementation act, which I could have spoken about today. Getting to them, of course, requires some preamble. I hope the member appreciates all the issues about the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which I did refer to in my speech. It is also in the budget implementation act. We are changing words in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which we just recently put through at our own committee, and the member attended.

There is a bunch in here that does not belong. Frankly, it is an omnibus bill and should be presented when we are amending those acts in Parliament. We just did that with something where the government clearly took an overstep into jurisdictions that it does not belong in.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C-47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf-sur-Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-8 and C-10, as well as Bill C-11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C-12, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-19, C-24, C-25, C-28, C-30, C-31, C-32, C-36 and C-39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C-43, C-44 and C-46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C-9. Bill C-22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C-13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C-18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C-21, C-29 and C-45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C-47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I am sitting next to my colleague, who is giving her speech, and I am hearing sounds. I am not sure where they are coming from. It sounds like someone is watching a video or a headset on a desk has been left on at full volume.

I think it would be appropriate to ask colleagues to lower the volume on their devices if they are watching something other than the speeches being given in the House. Everyone deserves at least that much respect.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I gave a directive to that effect a little earlier, and I know that the pages walked around to ensure that the volume on the headsets on desks not currently being used was lowered.

We have run into this problem a number of times, and we are trying to figure out why it happens at certain times and not at others. We will do our best to ensure that this does not happen again. I would ask the people in their seats to check to see whether the headsets from the neighbouring seats are turned off.

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

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

Madam Speaker, it is true. When I talk, I can hear an echo. It is quite odd, but I will try to continue my speech anyway.

I was saying that it is shameful that there is nothing in the bill to financially support seniors, to increase, maintain or develop their purchasing power.

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry, but I can hear my voice echoing, as though there were two of me—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will ask the pages to go and check. It might be coming from the galleries.

The hon. member can continue. We will try to resolve the problem as quickly as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, at my advanced age, it is more difficult to concentrate when there is background noise that seems to be coming from the great beyond.

What I was saying is that, basically, what is missing from this budget is real support for seniors. As my Bloc Québécois colleagues have said many times, there are two classes of seniors.

In Quebec and Canada, there are seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 and those aged 75 and up. Seniors aged 75 and up received an increase in their old age security, whereas those between the ages of 65 and 74 got nothing. Quite frankly, I am not sure whether my colleagues are aware that a person whose sole income is the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement does not even get enough money a month to pay for decent housing, cover all the rent-related costs and still manage to have a decent and reasonable life. It is rather shameful that a G7 country is unable to take better care of those who built Quebec and contributed to its development. We must give them what they need to live and die in a dignified way.

Roughly 22% of the people in Salaberry—Suroît are seniors 65 and over. Earlier, before the technical problems, I was saying that I attend all the events in my riding, and seniors talk to me and tell me about their problems. They cannot grasp the government's lack of understanding and the fact it does not give them more support in meeting their monthly obligations. If a senior needs home care or to buy services, go to a private seniors residence and pay for services to support their loss of autonomy, quite honestly, that person has to ask for help from the Quebec government, from their province, because what they receive in old age security benefits is not enough to meet their needs.

In this budget there is a serious lack of consideration and esteem for our seniors, those who built the society we have today.

There is another important thing missing. I am sure that people are affected by this. There is nothing about employment insurance reform. The member for Thérèse-De Blainville has often said that it is high time that old legislation were modernized. The minister has made some promises over the years.

Recently, we believed we could start working on the reform because the minister went to the trouble of holding consultations. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois and our partners who support workers were utterly disappointed. There is no EI reform and no major change to the Employment Insurance Act to face the new realities of the labour market and secure better coverage.

In closing, I know that my time is up. Madam Speaker, I hope you gave me the time I lost because of the audio issues during my speech. I imagine you did.

I will conclude by saying that what is important to the Bloc Québécois is to vote for a budget that is really useful and serves Quebec's interests. At present, that is not what we have before us. Therefore, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the budget and, consequently, against Bill C-47.

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

Madam Speaker, I really want to thank the member for pointing out that the House is working hard for constituents, that work is being done and that bills are being passed in the House. I really thank her for pointing that out, because we, I would not necessarily say all of us but many of us, are working for our constituents.

I want to talk a little bit about seniors and the dental program for seniors. I have a lot of seniors in my riding who have called in and are anxiously awaiting the addition of dental care for them. I want to hear from the member whether this is something she also is hearing from seniors in her riding.

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

Madam Speaker, I will give a very honest answer. Strangely enough, no one talks to me about dental care in my riding.

As many people know, children in Quebec have some coverage. I know the Quebec government has extended coverage to include some people who need surgery but cannot have it because they need dental care before they have their surgery, so it has extended its coverage. The Quebec government made that decision without waiting for Ottawa to decide what it was going to do.

Quite honestly, people are not talking to me about that. Seniors want to talk about the loss of their purchasing power, about having to make difficult choices between groceries, care, rent and leisure activities. They tell me they are feeling so squeezed financially that they have no room to manoeuvre after working their entire lives.

Many seniors who are now 65 or 70 years old do not have a pension plan, even though they worked hard. I am thinking of people who worked as restaurant waitresses, or people who worked hard physically, in factories, for example, and did not have access to a collective agreement that guaranteed a pension plan.

Today these people are worried and do not understand why the government did not think of them when drafting Bill C-47.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to rise and ask a question of my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît.

In her speech, she once again demonstrated her empathy and warmth for her colleagues by highlighting the work of our colleagues from Manicouagan and Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. She also highlighted the work of our colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who will be leaving in the middle of the night tonight to drive long hours to his riding so he can support his constituents. That is quite admirable, and I congratulate him for that.

A few seconds ago, in response to our NDP colleague's question, my colleague talked about the lack of measures to help seniors financially. The OAS has not been increased for seniors aged 65 to 74. This is an injustice that the Bloc Québécois has been denouncing for a long time.

This class of seniors is not getting that assistance. These people are being deprived of this increase, but we believe they are entitled to it. What is more, when they have to go back to work so they can make ends meet and fight the rampant inflation we are seeing today, they are penalized, because their pension income is cut.

The Bloc Québécois is really troubled by all this injustice. My colleague mentioned it briefly. I also wanted to ask her whether her constituents are approaching her about this. Mine are. Are people talking to her about the housing crisis and the fact that the government has done nothing in this budget to respond to the urgent housing crisis in Quebec?

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

Madam Speaker, I would say to my colleague that seniors talk to me about housing, but they mostly talk to me about having the opportunity to work without being taxed, without changing four quarters for a dollar.

The budget could have included measures to make seniors' work more valuable, to prevent them from losing their guaranteed income supplement or prevent them from paying too much in tax. Indeed, seniors perhaps would have wanted to work a bit to stay socially active and improve their living conditions, but there are no tax measures in Bill C-47 to encourage seniors to go back to work.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, it has been an interesting debate tonight. There were a couple of things that I heard from the Liberals and the NDP, one of which I expected to hear a lot about and one which I did not.

What I did not expect was a couple of NDP members doing victory laps over the Alberta election results time and time again. As I watched the election results, I was struck by the fact that a Conservative government, having gone through a pandemic and a leadership change, unsurprisingly lost a couple of percentage points and formed a strong majority government.

The NDP may want to celebrate the fact that it gained about nine percentage points at the expense of the Alberta party, but hopefully all of us can hope for the very best for the Danielle Smith government in Alberta, because that would be really good for Albertans across the board. I, for one, congratulate that government and hope that it succeeds on behalf of all Albertans over the next four years of its very strong mandate.

What I expected to hear and have heard a lot of today, over and over again, is Liberal fearmongering about cuts that some potential Conservative government might threaten or initiate or whatever the case might be. It caused me to look back at history. It is important to look at where there have been cuts, because maybe we can learn from situations in the past when we have seen actual cuts. I had to go back a long way to find real cuts to health spending, social services spending, education spending and the transfers that fund those things.

I went back to 1993, 1994 and 1995, when we saw cuts at the very start of a newly elected Liberal government, but then it was astonishing to see the cut that occurred in 1995-96. In the 1995-96 Liberal budget, $18.4 billion was spent on health care, social services and education, and then in 1996-97, the very next year, we went from $18.4 billion to $14.7 billion, a reduction of almost $4 billion in important transfers for health, social services, education and those kinds of things. The next year, 1997-98, we went from $14.7 billion to $12.5 billion in those transfers.

I mention those figures because, as a result of the spending during the reign of a fiscally incompetent Trudeau government, a government that ran 14 deficits in 15 years while it was in power, we saw a crisis in energy, a crisis in housing and a crisis in inflation. I do not know if that sounds familiar to anybody around here. There were 14 deficits in 15 years in the 1970s and 1980s, and that led to these devastating cuts in 1996-97 and 1997-98, going from $18.4 billion for health, social services and education to $12.5 billion two years later. That was a Liberal government dealing with the devastating effects a generation after another Liberal government, a Trudeau government, had absolutely zero idea of what to do to run an economy.

I fear that we are in the same boat now. We have heard Liberal speaker after Liberal speaker get up and ask how Conservatives can vote against this thing, and they will cherry-pick one thing, or be against this other thing. All of the things they talk about sound great, but I hearken back to the debate on May 1 in the House of Commons, and one comment, though there were many comments like this, struck me. The comment was in response to a question during question period from a Conservative member of Parliament. The Liberal finance minister, talking about the grocery rebate, said, “The grocery rebate is going to deliver support to 11 million low-income Canadians who need it.” How have we come to a place in 2023 when the finance minister is bragging about the fact that we have 11 million low-income Canadians who need support to buy groceries? How are we at that place in 2023?

We look at the government's own budget documents and we take a look at the numbers in these documents and we think about those important transfers we are talking about and other programs. The Canada health transfer is set to be, in 2023-24, $49.4 billion. Do members know that the projected cost to service the debt will be in the same year? It is $43.9 billion, so because of the fiscal incompetence, and there is no other way to say it, of the government that has been in power for eight years, we are going to spend as much in interest as we are going to spend on health care in this country as a federal government. There is no other way to say it: That is absolute incompetence.

When we take a look at the Liberal budget, one of the things that strike me is that they cut their deal with the NDP, and we hear the NDP talk about the different things that they were able to negotiate into this Liberal budget, but I will tell members one thing that was negotiated out of the Liberal budget.

This is the state of where we are. We in this place oftentimes can agree that there are certain things that need our attention. We might have different ideas on how we address those things, but we can agree there are certain things that require attention. One thing that we all agreed on during the last election campaign was the fact that there is a mental health crisis in this country. We all had different platform ideas that we put forward. We ran an election. Canadians looked at those promises we made, because we make promises in election campaigns, and I would think Canadians would expect us to keep those promises. Admittedly, we made promises that were different from those of the Liberals and the NDP on mental health, but we all had substantial promises in there.

The Liberals promised, on page 75 of their election platform, very clearly in a black-and-white five-year costed layout of their election platform, a $4.5-billion investment in mental health called the “Canada Mental Health Transfer”. That was something the Liberals promised. Every Liberal in this House went to doors during the election campaign and promised things to Canadians, many of whom would have been struggling with their mental health, especially as we were still in the midst of a pandemic. We were moving hopefully toward the end of it, but at that point in time people were obviously very significantly affected.

Canadians struggling with their mental health had a Liberal member of Parliament or a Liberal candidate go to their door and promise they were going to spend $4.5 billion on a Canada mental health transfer.

What happened next? Immediately the Liberals signed their deal with the NDP. No NDP member has actually yet taken credit for negotiating this out of their agreement, but clearly it must have been something that the NDP said. They must have said that they wanted to put NDP priorities on the agenda instead of the Canada mental health transfer. No one has talked about why that was negotiated out, but it is very clear that the Liberals have decided that this promise they made is no longer important and that there are other priorities, or, if it is still important to them, that they have come to a point where the fiscal situation is so bad that it was in their cabinet meetings.

I do not know if the leader of the NDP is in the Liberal cabinet meetings or if the House leader of the NDP is, but the Liberals had to go into these cabinet meetings. They had to have conversations and say that things are really tough here and that they had decided to fund some program, one of the many programs they are listing, but they were no longer going to be able to afford this thing they promised on page 75 in their election platform.

I do not know what those conversations looked like; all I know from taking a look at the budget we are debating tonight and from taking a look at the numbers we are talking about tonight is that we are going to be in a situation where Liberal governments and this coalition, however long it lasts, are going to be having conversations like that, because they have come to a point where life is just not only unaffordable for Canadians but unaffordable for the government.

It becomes unsustainable at some point. It is just like when we were dealing with the results of Trudeau Liberal incompetence in the mid-nineties because the Trudeau government of the seventies and eighties had run up all of those deficits over all of those years. I fear we are going to be in the same situation moving forward. During questions and comments, I hope some Liberal will rise up and explain that maybe my concerns are somehow misplaced. Hopefully there will be some explanation and some understanding tonight of the situation we are in.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, what is important about what was outlined by the member opposite in his statement is that concerns about mental health are equally shared across all parties. However, what was not mentioned in the comments referenced by the member opposite is that part of what this budget includes is a formalization of an agreement that includes $190 billion in funding for health care and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

One moment please. The hon. member's phone is right by the microphone and is causing problems for interpretation. I want to remind members to make sure their phones are not near the microphones or sitting on their desk vibrating while they are trying to make a speech.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I was saying is that the funding agreement with respect to health care is about $190 billion over the next 10 years. It is approximately $46 billion of new funding. One of the aspects of that funding includes certain conditional priorities, and one of those priorities is exactly what the member was referencing: access to timely, equitable and quality mental health, substance use and addiction services. I would just point that out, to flesh out the record in terms of the context of this debate.

The member's party is steadfastly committed to voting against this budget. This budget includes $158.4 million over three years to support the implementation and operation of a 988 number that would be a suicide hotline in this country, which would serve the mental health needs of Canadians. Does the member seek to revise his voting position in that regard?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that, if he carves out that particular element and removes the $60 billion in new spending; if he removes the more than $40 billion in deficit spending, which this country cannot afford right now and which is driving up the cost of everything, and we see the devastating results of that; and if the member wants to go back and say that he thinks they should carve out the 988 suicide prevention hotline, I would be very happy to support it.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have to say I would be hesitant to accept that the Conservative Party would support that carve-out, only because of the shenanigans that the Conservatives have gotten up to in the last two days, during which they have not let anything be passed. They have not even let us have a debate on wildfires, which is so urgently needed.

However, I want to agree with my colleague on one thing in his speech. I will give Stephen Harper credit for one thing when he was the prime minister of this country: He did tell us who he was, when he was going to cut things and how he was going to decimate the charitable sector, the foreign aid and all of those things. He made it very clear he was going to do those things, and then he did them. However, the current Conservative opposition party refuses to tell us what the Conservatives would cut. The member refuses to tell us which things in this budget he would cut. Is it dental care? Is it housing? Is it health care? Is it a futures economy? Which one of those things would the member cut?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, let me say first that, soon enough, the member will be able to refer to us as the Conservative government and she will not be spreading misinformation.

I have heard the New Democrats talk about the Harper era during the whole debate tonight, and here are a couple of things from the Harper era. The member was wrong on most of her facts, but the reality is that, during the Harper era, there were a few things we did promise and deliver. We promised regular increases. In fact, almost every single year, we increased spending on the Canada health transfer by six per cent. Members would not know that by listening to Liberal talking points.

Something that clearly differentiates the current Liberal government's approach from ours is that when we dealt with a global economic meltdown, a part of that, every step of the way, was a road map to get back to a balanced budget, which we delivered in 2015. We have not seen one since.

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

Madam Speaker, I will quickly ask my colleague my question.

While the government is currently lending Trans Mountain $3 billion, which aligns with the Conservative Party's loyalties to fossil fuels, the Conservative Party has been droning on ad nauseam for months about the need for fiscal restraint.

How does it manage to reconcile the two?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I probably have very different positions on oil and gas and on pipelines. However, one thing we agree on is that there was no need for the federal government to own the Trans Mountain pipeline. In our view, of course, the private sector should have been able to build that pipeline. Quite frankly, it is ridiculous not only that the government got itself into the situation where it had to buy a pipeline but also that the pipeline has gone tens of billions of dollars over budget, which is an absolute travesty.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, of course, it always a delight to stand in this place representing the incredible constituents of Edmonton Strathcona.

This is the first day I have been in the House since the Alberta election, and I did want to send my congratulations to Rachel Notley. Of course, it was not the outcome we wanted, but I think it is important for all of us in this place to recognize the significant wins in Alberta. In Alberta, we elected the very first Black woman as an MLA. We elected the very first indigenous woman as an MLA. We elected members in Sherwood Park. We elected members in every seat in Edmonton and in so many more seats in Calgary. Almost every urban seat in Alberta went to the NDP, including seats that had been held by ministers and that flipped over to the NDP. It is something I think Rachel Notley, and all Albertans, should be extremely proud of.

There are things on which we have more work to do. I am not very proud of the fact that Albertans elected a member who compared trans children to feces. I am not very proud that a Conservative with those views was elected. It is appalling and disgusting during Pride month. However, there is work to do, and we will continue to do that work. However, this is not actually why I am here tonight, but I did want to raise that, because, frankly, some of those things are indicative of the changing political landscape in Alberta and the belief of Albertans in the importance of taking care of each other, and I think that is very important.

What we are actually here to talk about is the budget implementation act, and I want to talk a little bit about why this is so important and why I am supporting it. This is not a perfect piece of legislation. This is not a perfect budget. This is not the budget I would have written. However, I am so proud to be part of the New Democratic Party, which pushed for some of the things that are in this budget, and I am going to outline a few of those things.

In Edmonton Strathcona and across the country, families are struggling with the cost of life, with affordability. We cannot go into grocery stores and communities and talk to people on their doorsteps without them telling us about how difficult this is, how challenging it is for them, how difficult it is to buy food, to pay their rent, to find housing, to be able to pay for their lives and to be able to thrive in their communities.

As a parliamentarian, my primary job is actually to make life better for Canadians and my constituents and to find ways to support them. I cannot tell members how proud I am that dental care is something that Canadians are going to have access to when the bill is passed, and not just for children, but for everyone under 18, people living with disabilities and seniors. Oh my goodness, seniors in this country will have access to dental care, which is something that should have been in place decades ago. However, I am just so proud that I get to be part of the New Democratic Party, which pushed for this happen in 2023.

We have talked about the GST rebate in the House, which is that added help that so many families need. I will agree with other members who have raised this; I would like us to live in a country where that is not necessary, but right now, the reality is that there are Canadians who need that extra help, who need that extra piece to get them through. If we can provide that support to Canadians at this moment, when affordability is so challenging, why would we not do that?

On urban, rural and northern indigenous housing, I learned so much from my colleague from Iqaluit, the member for Nunavut. She is such a champion in the House, and she is a person who speaks so strongly for her constituents. She has made it very clear that there is not enough money for the need in northern indigenous communities. However, I will say that this budget implementation act is important, and it is important that New Democrats recognize it and recognize that our job is going to be to continue to push the government to do more, continue to push the government to make sure that rural, urban and northern indigenous communities have the funding they need for adequate housing. We would not accept less in any other communities, and we should not accept it in indigenous communities.

I am proud of what we have done for students. Do members know what I am really proud of? I am proud that there is legislation that will prevent scabs from being used by corporations. That is important. That is important for workers, so that workers know that they can actually work, that they can actually negotiate, that they can go to the negotiation table with their employers and get a fair deal. That is vital to workers. It is in the bill, and I am so proud of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his work on making sure this happened.

Of course, there are many things in this bill, but the other thing I am extremely proud of is the investment in a future-facing economy. The member for Timmins—James Bay has done so much work, but, more importantly, workers in Alberta have done so much work. Workers in Alberta have been calling for this investment in them. I have said this many times in this place. I come from a line of oil and gas workers. My dad was a trucker and my dad worked in the oil fields. He worked in Alaska and in Alberta. My brothers work in the oil and gas sector. My husband works in the oil and gas sector. I recognize what that sector has done for Canada. I also speak to people in my constituency. They want assurances that there is a future for them, for their children and for their families, and that there are going to be jobs for them, that there is going to be a place for them in a futures economy. If we do not have investment in Alberta, that is not going to happen. I am thrilled that this is here. I am thrilled that this is being led by Alberta workers.

I will finish today by saying how ashamed I am of some other members of the House from Alberta, how ashamed I am that some of the members have done everything they can to stop the processes of this Parliament going forward. The leader of the official opposition has benefited from a publicly funded health and dental care plan for over 20 years. Every one of us in the House benefits from dental care and a health care plan, but the Leader of the Opposition started today by proclaiming that he will use every procedural trick in the book to stop hard-working families from accessing desperately needed dental care. That is shameful, when seniors, people living with disabilities and children, his children, have access to dental care, and when he has access to dental care. The 25 New Democrats in this place have done more for Canadians in this Parliament than the 115 Conservatives have. I would ask them to tell me one thing they have delivered for Canadians, one thing they have been able to deliver. All they do is come here and obstruct.

I, for one, want to work to make this country better for Canadians. I want to make sure this world is better for everyone, so when I come to this place, I look around this room and think of who I can work with. How can I get things done? What can I do to make sure that life is better for my constituents? That is my job. That is why I come here. Every member of this 25-member caucus does that. That is why Canadians are getting dental care. That is why Canadians are getting housing support. That is why Canadians are getting the grocery rebate. It is not because the Conservatives are throwing shenanigans all over the place; it is not because they are making a mockery of Parliament. We are allowing things to get done, and I am so proud of that.

We talked about Harper a lot tonight, and I will say again that he did tell people when he was going to cut things. He did tell us when he was going to destroy our social safety net. The current opposition refuses to tell us when it is going to do that.

I will say it again: This bill is not perfect. There are things I would like to change in this bill, but there are more than enough things in this bill that are going to help Canadians, help with the affordability crisis and help people who are struggling in our country right now.

I will come into this place every single day ready to work and to do more and more to get the help for Canadians, and I certainly hope the Conservatives stop their shenanigans and get on board.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite started her speech by acknowledging what just transpired with the provincial election in Alberta. I want to turn to that for a moment. She acknowledged some landmarks being achieved in terms of the first female, Black member of the provincial legislature in Alberta, which I believe is something she mentioned. That is worth applauding.

I wanted to draw her attention to aspects of the budget. She outlined a lot of what is in the budget. There is a lot in there. Specifically, there are references to funding and supports to deal with some of the challenging divisions that we continue to see in Canadian society. The budget includes $25 million for supporting Black Canadian communities initiative, which is about empowering Black organizations. Another $25 million will go to supporting the anti-racism strategy and dealing with some of the pernicious issues that relate to anti-indigenous racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.

In the wake of the almost two-year anniversary of the Afzaal family being killed in London, Ontario, could she comment on the equity initiatives in the budget and her position on them?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, anything that we can do to help with some of those equity initiatives is very important. I have a bit of a concern. For example, one of the things brought forward in this budget is the recognition of the need for a national plan for murdered and missing indigenous women and girls.

I would also say that the government has promised money since 2019 and has not followed through with spending. That is my biggest concern with the Liberal government. It has the ability to say the right things, but it does not do the hard work. It does not do the work necessary to implement things, to spend the money and to get the programs out to the people who need them the most. I feel that the role of the New Democratic Party is to hold the government's feet to the fire.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I welcome my colleague back to the House after the time she spent in Alberta during the provincial election.

Let me ask her something. She has thrown a whole bunch of shame around the House. At the same time, the government has presented a budget that is plunging Canada further into debt, inflation and uncertainty as far as what Canadians can expect their hard-earned dollars to buy going forward and how much they are going to pay in taxes. We also have to balance the fact that we are going to have to impose further taxes on the next generation.

How does she balance the shame against the shame she is foisting upon the next generation?

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

Before I give the floor back to the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, I will just remind the hon. member that we do not mention if people are or are not in the House, directly or indirectly.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, to be clear, I was only throwing shame at one party in the House of Commons. I was not passing it around equally.

I have children; I have teenagers. One of the things I want desperately is for them to want to stay in Alberta. I want them to want to raise their families in Alberta. I want Alberta to have a strong economy, a strong health care system, a strong education system and a strong system that makes our communities thrive.

Frankly, I think this budget does so much more to help people with affordability issues. It does so much more to help Canadians than the Conservatives asking the Speaker to read 900 amendments into the record today.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech. Anyone can see how passionate she is and how much she cares about her constituents.

I was also glad to hear her say that, even though the election in Alberta did not necessarily go the way she would have liked, she still respects the democracy that was expressed in Alberta. They elected a premier who, while not her choice, was nonetheless democratically elected by Albertans. That is good, because the Bloc Québécois believes that it is important to respect democracy, as well as the authority and jurisdiction of the Quebec National Assembly and the legislative assemblies of the other provinces. Alberta's democracy has spoken.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. Governments express their priorities through the budget choices they make. I am having trouble understanding something, and I hope she can explain it to me. How can she support a budget that contains no measures to support seniors, no increase in the OAS benefits for seniors aged 65 and over?

The government is creating two classes of seniors. By supporting the budget, my colleague is endorsing the idea that seniors under 75 do not need assistance.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is a good one. I would go back to what I said in my speech. This is not a perfect piece of legislation, and it is not what the New Democratic Party would have brought forward.

However, when I look at seniors in my riding, I know how much it is going to help them to have dental care be part of our reality in Canada. I know how much it is going to help seniors to have investments in housing. Those things are going to help seniors in my riding deeply. It is impossible for me to turn my back on those seniors at this time.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to yet another inflationary, irresponsible Liberal budget that claims to rein in inflation, yet actually does the complete opposite.

The Liberals even claim that it is a made-in-Canada plan, while they continue their attack on workers' paycheques. Thanks to their irresponsible spending, Canadians from coast to coast to coast have found themselves bringing home less and less. People are lining up at food banks to put food on the table. Young people have given up hope of ever owning a home. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer has flagged several issues in the budget, ranging from a meagre economic outlook in the coming years to lack of fiscal transparency and an incoming recession. The Liberal government has had eight long years to step up for Canadians, but, despite managing to spend more than all past prime ministers combined, its chronic fiscal mismanagement and reckless policies have left Canadians struggling.

Canadians continue to watch prices soar, from food to fuel, home heating and even housing prices. Making ends meet through the cost of living crisis has become impossible. Despite all this, the government continues to hike the carbon tax and the excise tax on alcohol, against the interests of hard-working Canadians. Enough is enough.

The Liberal government has had eight years to step up for Canadians, but it is now time for it to step down and for common-sense Conservative solutions to be enacted to truly help Canadians across the country. As Conservatives, we set these three conditions for our support of budget 2023: It must bring home powerful paycheques, with lower taxes, so hard work pays off again. It must bring home lower prices by eliminating the inflationary carbon tax and deficits. Finally, it must bring homes that young people can afford by removing gatekeepers and speeding up the construction and affordability of housing.

The Liberals have rolled out over $43 billion of inflationary spending and senseless tax grabs that would burden Canadians from coast to coast. After eight years of the Liberal government, we all see how its solutions simply do not work. Conservatives have the right solutions that do work, so paycheques will work for the Canadians who do the work.

I am proud to say that Conservatives will not support this budget, and here is why: The Liberals' budget 2023 continues the Liberals' war on work, dedicated workers and workers' paycheques. Instead of listening to struggling Canadians suffering under the worst affordability crisis they have ever seen, the Liberals continue with their reckless, inflationary spending, while increasing taxes. This means that workers are punished for working hard and take home even less of their paycheques.

The government's inflationary spending has caused the cost of groceries to skyrocket, leaving one in five Canadians skipping meals or relying on food banks. The misleading grocery rebate would only give $234 for a single adult to cover the rising cost of living, which the Liberal government's reckless spending caused. 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 drastically higher than the $467 grocery rebate that they will receive.

On April 1, the Liberal government hiked the senseless carbon tax, costing the average family between $402 and $847 in 2023, even after the rebates. The government also continues to raise taxes on still-recovering restaurants and breweries by increasing the excise tax on alcohol by 2%. The temporary cap in the hikes of the alcohol excise tax is only valid for a year, and it is not enough.

The Liberal policies of hiking taxes and clawing back money that should remain in the pockets of Canadians in the first place must end. Conservatives will prioritize fixing what the Liberals broke by ensuring powerful paycheques and opportunities for the people who do the work. The down payment that is necessary nowadays for an average home has doubled after eight years of the Liberal government. We believe in bringing homes young people can afford so that they do not continue to live in their parents' basements because they have given up on their dreams of home ownership.

Back when the Liberals first took office, the average rent in Canada for a one-bedroom apartment was $973. After eight years of the current government, the price has skyrocketed to $1,760. The average mortgage and rent payments have also nearly doubled since the Liberals took office, increasing to $3,100 from what was once $1,400.

Before the Liberals took office, Canadians only needed 39% of the average paycheque to make monthly payments on the average house. After eight long years of Liberal recklessness, this number has risen to 62%, leaving Canadians with way less of their paycheques to spend on other necessities.

The Liberal government has not outlined any plans to get rid of the gatekeepers and get more affordable housing built. Its inflationary spending and misguided policies have left people giving up on home ownership. Conservatives believe in building a country with homes people can actually afford by getting rid of the gatekeepers, freeing up land, speeding up building permits and getting shovels in the ground to get affordable housing built. While the Liberal government continues to overspend and overtax, we will continue to prioritize the interests of hard-working Canadians by getting affordable housing built fast.

Eight long years of the Liberal government has brought nothing but reckless inflationary spending, senseless tax hikes and irresponsible policies, leading to the worst affordability crisis Canadians have ever seen. Canadians from coast to coast to coast have found themselves bringing home less. People are lining up at food banks to put food on the table. Young people have given up the hope of ever owning a home. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer has flagged several issues in the budget, ranging from the meagre economic outlook in the coming years to a lack of fiscal transparency and an incoming recession. That is the effect of the Liberal government, which has had eight long years to step up for Canadians. Now is the time for it to step down and adopt our common-sense Conservative solutions to make Canada work for the people who have done the work.

We will continue to demand the following: offering powerful paycheques, with lower taxes, so hard work pays off again; lowering prices by eliminating the inflationary carbon tax and deficits; and building homes that young people can afford by removing gatekeepers and speeding up the construction of affordable housing.

Because our pragmatic demands were not met, we will not be supporting this inflationary Liberal budget.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out a few factual clarifications of things that have been said by a number of Conservative members.

Canada currently has the lowest deficit in the G7. Canada has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Canada still maintains its AAA credit rating. These things are factual.

What is also factual is that the member is from Alberta, which is going through a very difficult time right now. I feel for the people whom he represents in terms of the wildfires we are seeing. Those severe and acute weather events are related to climate action.

I would put to the member that now is not the time to make polluting free. Does he agree?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, through you to the member, we are not saying that we have an issue with the climate crisis; we are saying we have an issue with the Liberals' tax plan, which has nothing to do with protecting the environment. They are collecting more money, which is leaving Canadians a lot less, yet they are meeting zero emissions targets. How is their tax plan, and so-called environmental plan, helping the environment? It is not.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Yellowhead mentioned gatekeepers, as a lot of Conservatives do. When I heard the Conservative leader give a speech on the budget last year, he gave a 20-minute speech entirely on gatekeepers and did not mention a single federal gatekeeper in his whole speech.

The member for Yellowhead mentioned gatekeepers around providing housing. I am wondering if he could point out where the federal gatekeepers are in that program.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have to admit that it is not necessarily just a federal issue. When we talk about gatekeepers, it does not matter which level of government it is.

For the most part, when it comes to zoning and restructuring building plans, it usually falls under municipal government acts that, because of the policies they have sometimes created, need to be amended and addressed because we are not building the homes that need to be built. The money seems to be put in the budget, yet the homes are not getting built. Why is that? It is because the policies and programs offered by municipalities a lot of times do not warrant the quick and speedy building of homes.

That is the big problem when I talk about gatekeepers. We need to address that to get homes that Canadians can live in built.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up with the question I asked another Conservative colleague about reconciling the fiscal restraint he mentioned with the fact that the government has invested an additional $3 billion in Trans Mountain, bringing its total investment to $30 billion. His colleague said that there was absolutely no need for the government to buy Trans Mountain.

I would be interested to hear what my colleague has to say about that, because had the government not done it, Trans Mountain would no longer exist. The logic seems to be flawed.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no reason for the government to buy a pipeline. The only reason it did so was because of its own policies, which created the issue. If this pipeline had been built by the contractor and the company, we would not have seen a $30-billion increase to the project. That is an outstanding amount, which is ridiculous, and no private industry would have ever built this pipeline for that kind of money.

This is, once again, the government's ineptness in getting projects done in Canada. First, they are hugely overrun and probably would have been built by now, but Liberal policies, such as Bill C-69, have stopped pipelines from being built in Canada, and they are intentionally causing the high costs to make sure Canadians think it is ridiculous and a pipeline will never get built again. They are right. If the government owned the pipeline, we will never own it. That is why it should go back to the private sector, where it belongs. The government should never have been involved in the private sector for pipelines.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, there were promises in the 2015 election campaign from the Liberals of a small deficit for one year and then a return to balanced budgets, but what has been delivered is something totally different. We have seen eight years of inflationary spending, and now the government is signalling that it will never return to a balanced budget and will continue its out-of-control spending as long as it can. Hopefully, we can end that soon.

If that were not bad enough, to go along with these massive deficits, we are seeing increasing interest rates in an attempt to rein in the skyrocketing inflation the deficits have caused. Compile all of this, and it spells bad news for Canadians. Canada's debt is projected to reach $1.22 trillion in fiscal year 2023-24. That is nearly $81,000 of debt per household.

One of the results of this inflationary spending is to cause inflation to go up to the highest rates we have seen in 40 years. The previous high was under a former Liberal government with an out-of-control spending problem. The high inflation rate is resulting in the Bank of Canada raising interest rates to try to rein in inflation, rates that the Liberal government was warned about, but it failed to take the warning. Therefore, now, as a result, we have record high national debt combined with jacked-up interest rates that will see Canada's debt service costs projected to reach $43.9 billion for fiscal year 2023-24.

Can members imagine the good $43.9 billion could do if it were not required to pay just for the debt? That is not to pay off the debt. That is just to pay the annual debt service cost. None of that estimated $43.9 billion would be going to reduce the deficit or the cost in future years. It is only to pay that annual debt service fee. That is $43.9 billion that could have gone to health care, to the nurses, doctors and hospitals where health care workers have been stretched to and beyond their limit. That is $43.9 billion that could have been going to infrastructure projects to improve water and wastewater projects in our communities, indigenous communities and municipalities. That is $43.9 billion that could have gone to transportation projects to help people get to work on time, or $43.9 billion to get homes built. However this $43.9 billion is only going to pay the debt service costs.

I used to ask people at home if they could envision what $20 billion looked like because I myself had trouble envisioning what that looks like. I would get blank stares or heads shaking back, and so I would ask them if they can imagine what five $100 bills would look like in their hand. They would say, “Yes, I can picture five $100 bills.” I said that is what $20 billion is to every living Canadian, every infant, every youth, every adult, every senior and every veteran. It is five $100 bills in debt. That was what the $20-billion deficits were causing. Now we are seeing $40-billion deficits.

The House resumed from June 5 consideration of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting when time constraints require us to split our speaking time between two different days, but I was okay with stopping my intervention halfway through last evening in order to accommodate the emergency debate on the wildfire situation.

I would like to express my hopes that everyone remains safe as the fires rage. I helped friends back home in Salmon Arm evacuate in 1998 just before the flames took their home, and I have seen how bad the devastation can be.

I also want to recognize the expertise and courage of the firefighters and emergency response teams for all they are doing to save lives, properties and assist those displaced.

I will go back to my intervention on Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. I was speaking last night about what $20 billion looked like to everyday Canadians, but I am now going to have to change my question it appears because the Liberal-NDP coalition has set new standards.

The forecast deficit for 2023-24 is now $43 billion. How do those record deficits affect Canadians? It will affect lower-income Canadians disproportionately more.

In 2015, the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment was $973; it is now $1,760. A two-bedroom was $1,172; it is now $2,135.

When the Liberals took office, it only took 39% of an average paycheque to make monthly home payments. Under the Liberal-NDP fiscal management, or lack thereof, it now takes 62% of average income to make payments on an average home, an increase from what was in 2015, which was $1,400, to $3,100 today. Average minimum down payments have increased from $22,000 for a home to $45,000 for across Canada numbers. Add to this the sharp increases in interest rates and we have a situation where renters and first-time homebuyers need some relief.

The Conservatives had asked for some common-sense steps in this 2023 budget, but the Liberal-NDP coalition was blind to the problems it continued to create for Canadians aspiring to purchase a first home or upsize to have room for their growing families.

The Liberals inflationary spending has also caused the cost of food to rise and skyrocket. Food prices have risen so dramatically that one in five Canadians are now skipping meals.

When I am out meeting with the good people in North Okanagan—Shuswap, a place where we can grow so much good food, people have been sharing their grocery store experiences, and this is one of the common topics that comes up now. They have been shocked at rising prices in the grocery aisles and have been forced into making choices and not purchasing items they used to purchase.

There were warnings that these issues were coming, rising inflation, higher interest rates, skyrocketing housing costs and higher food costs, but the finance minister ignored those early warning signs. In fact, the minister ignored further warnings, and continues to plan on spending like there is no tomorrow.

In the tomorrows to come, I and my Conservative colleagues will be fighting for and providing common-sense policies and budgets that will give those everyday Canadians hope for their futures, beyond the current government’s disastrous tenure.

We will work to have Canadians keep more of their paycheques so they can decide how to spend them instead of sending more to the Liberal government for it to distribute as government sees best.

Time allocation is now shutting down debate on Bill C-47, and I believe it is because the Liberal-NDP coalition does not want people to hear how bad this year's budget is for them. It is a shame that Liberals are going to shut it down and not allow us to tell Canadians what to expect and give them more hope for the future.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague gave a lot of facts and statistics. Could he expand a bit further on how the cost of living is affecting people, specifically with the carbon tax? We now know there will be a second carbon tax as well. Therefore, with all these extra expenses, an increase in inflation and carbon taxes that make the price of everything go up, could he speak to that?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know that carbon tax 1 has done nothing to meet emissions targets. The Liberal government has failed to meet any of the targets it has set. Now it is going to impose carbon tax 2. By the time we combine both of these carbon taxes and then the GST, the tax on a tax, Canadians will be looking at spending 61¢ per litre just because of the Liberal-NDP coalition's taxes on carbon. It is again one of those things Canadians need to be made aware of, and I am happy that I can stand to speak about it.

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

Madam Speaker, in listening to my colleague's speech, I take it that he has a very different position on a number of different issues, but I am going to guess that he is for helping people, especially tradespeople and workers who are trying to improve their situation in this current economy. Therefore, I wonder why my colleague is against the automatic advance for the Canada workers benefit, which is very important to my constituents in Châteauguay—Lacolle, and the doubling of the deduction for tradespeople's tools.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are so many pieces in this massive omnibus bill and there may be portions of it that we could support. However, when it comes to $43 billion in deficit this year, I cannot support that. My colleagues and I cannot support this out-of-control spending that is only going to end up taking more dollars out of the pockets of taxpayers. The government claims it is trying to put dollars in their pockets, but it is just taking more and more from them.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about hope for families. However, right now, hope for families is diminishing for another reason, and that is the climate crisis.

The climate crisis is escalating. Forest fires are growing in number and intensity, and the fire season has only just begun. This creates anxiety for everyone, young and old alike.

Considering what we see when we leave the House of Commons, I would have liked the Conservative Party to say more about the climate crisis. Basically, what I want to say is that I am disappointed to see that the Conservatives have not progressed despite what we are now seeing across Canada from coast to coast to coast.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member wants to see something different from the Conservatives. She will see something different from us if we form government next. We will see action on climate change through technology, not a tax plan like the current government has, a tax plan that takes more dollars out of the paycheques of Canadians, and it has accomplished nothing credible at this point in time.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I must rise today to talk about a crisis we are going to have to face in the medium term.

I am not talking about the fact that, right now, after eight years of this Prime Minister, nine out of 10 young people believe that they will never be able to buy a house. I am not talking about the fact that one out of every five Canadians are skipping meals because of the cost of food after eight years of this Prime Minister. I am also not talking about the fact that 1.5 million Canadians need to use food banks to be able to eat. I am not even talking about the fact that, after eight years of this Prime Minister, Canadians have to allocate 63% of their pre-tax income to pay their monthly housing costs. In Vancouver, they are using 98% of their pre-tax income.

That is not the crisis I am referring to. The crisis I am referring to is something no one is talking about, but that could explode if we do not change direction. The crisis is the following. When the government decided, in 2021 and 2022, to print $400 billion to finance excessive spending, one of the effects was to create inflation, which always happens when you print money. This also caused a huge bubble in our financial system, caused by the mortgage situation.

Huge numbers of Canadians took out mortgages because they were easily available and because of their artificially low cost. In fact, 38% of all current mortgages were taken out between January 2021 and June 2022. Almost 40% of all mortgage debt today dates from that 18-month period, because interest rates were extremely low. People decided to go to the bank, make changes to their mortgage and borrow huge amounts of money, because it cost almost nothing to borrow money from the bank.

The problem is that these mortgages have a five-year term. These high mortgages will all be renewed in 2026 and 2027, at a significantly higher interest rate. We are not talking about billions or tens of billions of dollars. We are talking about mortgages totalling hundreds of billions of dollars that will be renewed at a higher rate. Even the Bank of Canada acknowledged that it was a systemic risk, not only for people who took out mortgages, but also for the banks, which will probably have trouble getting their money back.

If families cannot pay the increased interest rates, what will they do? They will have to sell their homes. However, if everyone is selling their house at the same time and there are no families that can afford the increased interest rates, there will be sellers but no buyers. That could cause house prices to fall. We already have the largest housing bubble in the G7 and almost the largest in the world. What are we going to do about it?

We are stressing the importance of balancing the budget today precisely because that is a key element in avoiding this serious looming crisis. Even all the Liberal experts are saying it: deficits cause inflation. Inflation causes interest rates to rise. If we do not lower inflation rates over the next year, we will be unable to reduce interest rates in time to avoid a housing bubble in 2026 and 2027.

What we want is a government plan aimed at balancing the budget in order to reduce inflation and interest rates. I know that it is the Bank of Canada that sets interest rates, but the economic environment in which it makes these decisions is a determining factor.

If the government drives up inflation with inflationary deficits, the Bank of Canada will be forced to raise interest rates. Former minister of finance John Manley said that, when the Bank of Canada puts its foot on the brake, the government puts its foot on the inflation accelerator. We need to take our foot off the accelerator to reduce inflation and allow the Bank of Canada to reduce interest rates before the crisis hits. That is plain common sense. It is nothing new.

Deficits drive up inflation and interest rates. Balanced budgets reduce both. That is what we are going to do. We will put a ceiling on spending to eliminate deficits and waste in order to balance the budget, reduce inflation and allow all Canadians to continue paying their mortgage and keep their home.

We recommend that the government proceed with the utmost caution, and we are asking that it keep the promise it made six months ago to balance the budget in the medium term. As soon as the government does that, we will allow a vote and perhaps let this budget pass if the votes in the House permit it. It is just common sense. We will bring back common sense.

There is a crisis in this country, and the crisis is not just that 1.5 million people are eating at food banks or one in five are skipping meals because of the price of food. The crisis not just that a majority of Canadians now tell pollsters they are struggling to make ends meet or that even nine in 10 young people believe they will never afford a home. The crisis is not even that it takes 63% of average monthly income to make monthly payments on the average home, a record-smashing height. The crisis is not even that it now takes 98% of pre-tax income in Vancouver for the average family to pay a mortgage on the average house. Those things are all insane and unprecedented, but they are the reality after eight years.

The real crisis is that there is massive mortgage bubble that is ready to detonate in the years 2026 and 2027. Here is how this bubble occurred. Today, 38% of all mortgage debt was originated between January of 2021 and June of 2022, all when rates were at rock bottom because the government printed $400 billion of cash and pumped it into the financial system, causing it to be artificially abundant and artificially cheap. People took on mortgages they would otherwise not be able to afford. This inflated housing prices and mortgages together, but those mortgages come up for renewal five years later. That will be between January 1, 2026, and June of 2027. If interest rates are as high then as they are now, these people will run into a brick wall.

The Bank of Canada says that they will face a 40% increase in mortgage payments, so if their payment right now is $3,000, they will be paying an extra $1,300 a month, which equals almost $15,000 a year. If the average Canadian does not have more than $200 left at the end of each month, they will not be able to pay it. That will lead to mass selling and there will be no buyers because the buyers will not be able to pay the higher rates on those prices. That is a real crisis that we face if we do not change course immediately, so what must be done?

We need to reduce inflation so that the Bank of Canada can reduce interest rates. How do we do that? We do it by doing the opposite of what we are doing now. Even top Liberals, like former finance minister John Manley, have said that deficits are like putting the foot on the gas of inflation. What we need to do is take the foot off the gas to balance the budget, to reverse the $60 billion of inflationary spending that the government has put forward and to honour the promise the government made just six months ago to have a medium-term plan to balance the budget within a half decade.

If the government will do the common-sense thing, rise to its feet and present a plan to balance the budget, then Conservatives will allow a vote to occur. We know that the only way to rescue people from this crisis is through common sense: by balancing the budget to lower inflation and interest rates, bringing down the tax burden so that there are more powerful paycheques and allowing people to pay less and bring home more. This is just common sense. It is the common sense of the common people, united for our common home: their home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not particularly disagree with the member's concerns about the future and Canadians being able to properly take care of themselves. What I do have a concern with is the approach taken by the opposition party as we talk about deficits.

The one key part of the economic equation that the member is missing out on when he is discussing this is economic growth. The reality is that if we can grow our economy as quickly as it has been growing, it puts us in a position to be able to take on more debt.

It is not just me saying this. Every Conservative prime minister in the past has run countless deficits. As a matter of fact, if we look at Mulroney and Harper, out of the 16 budgets they introduced, only three did not run deficits.

Can the member comment on how economic growth plays into this equation?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it plays strongly into the equation. That is why the fact that the government has had the slowest real per capita economic growth since the Great Depression is such a big problem, and debt actually drives down growth because it weighs down the economy.

As for the deficits of previous Conservative governments, the Mulroney government did not have any operating deficits. Its deficits were simply interest on the previous Trudeau government's debt. Of course, I am going to inherit the same kind of mess from his son.

Let me quote Stephen McNeil, former Liberal premier of Nova Scotia, “Happening on the inflation side, if governments both nationally continue to spend beyond their means, not spending for infrastructure, spending to pay the credit card of the government of today, they are going to continue to have inflation that continues to increase, which continues to put pressure on household budgets across country.... Number two, get your spending in order, we would all benefit from all governments being able to manage their own budget a lot....”

That is from a Liberal. Top, common-sense Liberals no longer recognize themselves in this radical, nonsense government. We need balanced budgets to lower inflation and interest rates so Canadians can keep their homes and build a life.

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

Madam Speaker, in the initial Bill C‑47, a $2-billion transfer for health care was included twice. It did not take very long for the Liberals and the NDP—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I know that the Leader of the Opposition would like to hear the question, but it is difficult to hear it when other parliamentarians decide to talk to one another. I must repeat, as I often do, that if people wish to talk to one another, they should leave and then return if they want to hear what is happening in the House.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

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

Madam Speaker, even my secondary school students understood that aspect of basic respect.

The initial Bill C-47 contained $2 billion in health transfers. It was a repeat of a previous bill. That was a mistake, except that it was a good mistake that could have helped all of the provinces and Quebec, in particular given the aging population, which entails more health care needs. However, this government and its allies decided to withdraw the $2 billion to Quebec and the provinces.

What does my colleague think, and what does he think the impact will be on health care systems across Canada?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know that the Bloc Québécois wants to eliminate 100% of federal health transfers. With sovereignty, the Bloc wants Quebec to receive $0 for health care. I find it very strange and ironic that the Bloc would stand in the House of Commons to ask for more from Ottawa when its ultimate goal is to receive nothing. It makes no sense. We should not waste time talking about sovereignty.

Quebecers are struggling to pay their bills because of taxes and the government’s inflationary deficits. What is the Bloc doing? They are asking for more debts, more spending, more taxes and inflation.

Only the Conservative Party has the plain common sense to control spending and balance the budget in order to reduce inflation, interest rates and taxes.

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

Madam Speaker, the other crisis in our country is the crisis with people not being able to afford to go see a dentist. I am very proud that the NDP was able to force the Liberal government to expand provisions in this bill to make sure that children under the age of 18, seniors and persons with disabilities can now have access to dental care. These people are in the margins of our society and they really need it.

How long has he been able to enjoy the benefits of taxpayer-funded dental care, while his constituents and Canadians across this country have gone without?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, we see the NDP socialist paradise playing itself out on the streets of Vancouver, where we have had, up until recently, a socialist government at the federal level, a socialist government at the provincial level and a socialist mayor, a former member of that caucus, at the municipal level, and what has it given?

It has caused tent cities, massive, raging crime and a situation where it now costs in the city of Vancouver 98% of the average person's family income to make monthly payments on a home. That is the paradise they have been promising. Utopia means “no place” in Greek. Actually, it means “no place” in English too.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to the continuing debate on Bill C-47, the budget 2023 implementation act, which proposes measures that will help Canadians and build a stronger economy.

Budget 2023, “a Made-in-Canada Plan: Strong Middle Class, Affordable Economy, Healthy Future”, arrived at an important time for our country and the world.

It delivers targeted inflation relief for 11 million Canadians and families who need it most, strengthens Canada’s universal public health care system with an investment of $198.3 billion and introduces a new Canadian dental care plan to benefit up to nine million Canadians.

Budget 2023 also makes transformative investments to build Canada’s clean economy, fight climate change and create new opportunities for Canadian businesses and Canadian workers. This includes significant measures that will deliver cleaner and more affordable energy, support investment in our communities and create good-paying jobs as part of a responsible fiscal plan that will see Canada maintain the lowest deficit and the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.

One aspect of Bill C-47 I would like to address today is how it proposes to enact measures to help build Canada’s clean economy, and specifically, two important proposals that were first announced in budget 2022.

The first is the Canada growth fund, which would help attract private capital to build Canada's clean economy. The other is the establishment of the Canada innovation corporation as a new Crown corporation, with a mandate to increase Canadian business expenditures on research and development.

I will start with the Canada growth fund. It was incorporated in December 2022 as a subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation. As a significant part of Canada’s plan to decarbonize and build Canada’s clean economy, the Canada growth fund requires an experienced, professional and independent investment team ready to make important investments in support of Canada’s climate and economic goals.

Therefore, budget 2023 announced the intention to have the growth fund partner with the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, or PSP Investments, to deliver on the growth fund’s mandate of attracting private capital to invest in Canada’s clean economy. Bill C-47 contains the necessary legislative amendments to enable PSP Investments to manage the assets of the Canada growth fund as a $15-billion arm's-length public investment vehicle.

PSP Investments is one of Canada’s largest pension investment managers, with more than $225 billion in assets under management, and operates at arm’s length from the government. It will provide the Canada growth fund with an independent team that has extensive experience across the range of investment tools that the growth fund will use to deliver on its mandate and attract new private investment to Canada.

By partnering with PSP Investments, the Canada growth fund would be able to move quickly and begin making investments in the near term to support the growth of Canada’s clean economy. One of the investment tools the Canada growth fund will use to support clean growth projects is contracts for difference. These contracts can backstop the future price of, for example, carbon or hydrogen, providing predictability that helps to de-risk major projects that cut Canada’s emissions. Contracts for difference allow companies to plan ahead, supporting the growth of Canada’s clean economy by making clean projects more cost-effective than more polluting projects.

Relatedly, budget 2023 announced that the government will consult on the development of a broad-based approach to carbon contracts for difference that aims to make carbon pricing even more predictable, while supporting the investments needed to build a competitive, clean economy and help meet Canada’s climate goals. This would complement contracts for difference offered by the Canada growth fund. Notably, the Canada growth fund assets will be separate and managed independently of the pension assets of PSP Investments. However, it will maintain the market-leading reporting framework for public transparency and accountability that the government committed to in the 2022 fall economic statement.

I also mentioned earlier that Bill C-47 proposes to establish the Canada innovation corporation as a new Crown corporation with a mandate to increase Canadian business expenditure on research and development across all sectors and regions of Canada. Currently, Canada ranks last in the G7 in R and D spending by businesses. I think we can all agree that this has to change.

Solving Canada’s main innovation challenges, including a low rate of private business investment in research, development and the uptake of new technologies, is key to growing our economy and creating good jobs. Canadian companies need to take their new ideas and new technologies and turn them into new products, services and thriving businesses, and they need support to do that.

The mandate of the Canada innovation corporation will be to promote the improved productivity and growth of Canadian firms, which would contribute to a strong and innovative Canadian economy. It would work proactively with new and established Canadian industries and businesses to help them make the investments they need in order to innovate, grow, create jobs and be competitive in the changing global economy.

It would do this by offering needed support to transform new ideas into new and improved products and processes. It would also support them in developing and protecting intellectual property and in capturing important segments of global supply chains that will help drive Canada’s economic growth and create good jobs.

I would like to stress that the CIC will not be just another funding agency. It is intended to be a market-oriented innovation agency with private sector leadership and expertise. The CIC would operate with an initial budget of $2.6 billion over four years, and with the passage of Bill C-47, it is expected to begin its operations in 2023.

Overall, these measures from Bill C-47 are just part of the government’s plan to build a stronger, more sustainable 21st-century economy. They build on budget 2023's transformative investments to build Canada's clean economy, fight climate change and create new opportunities for Canadian businesses and Canadian workers.

With our made-in-Canada plan, our budget would ensure that Canadians have more money in their pockets and are meeting the challenges of today and tomorrow, while building a Canada that is more secure, more sustainable and more affordable for people from coast to coast to coast. Key measures in the budget implementation bill include, one, an automatic advance for the Canada workers benefit; two, the doubling of the deduction for tradespeople's tools; three, improved registered education savings plans; four, banning cosmetic testing on animals; five, strengthening Canada's supply chains and trade corridors; and six, continuing our efforts in supporting Ukraine by taking action against Russia.

I encourage all hon. members to support Bill C-47 and to contribute to this effort.

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

Madam Speaker, in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, we have seen rent prices continue to increase. In Nanaimo alone last year, we saw rental prices increase by 30%, and those prices have continued to increase from there. This, as we all know, is disproportionately impacting seniors on fixed incomes, families and people living with disabilities.

When will we see the Liberals put an end to renovictions and put into place a national acquisition fund so that non-profits, for example, will have a chance to keep rents low and people can afford a place to call home?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, rent affordability is a major cause of concern for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Through our national housing strategy, we have committed billions of dollars to increase the construction of affordable homes. We have also provided funds for private sector companies to have affordable rental properties in their new projects. However, the fundamental thing that has to be addressed is the supply of new construction.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member a question relating to promises made by the finance minister.

Last year, in the budget debate, she made it very clear that her government had a plan to return to balanced budgets. In the more recent fall economic statement, the minister again said that she had a plan to return to balanced budgets, or, in other words, the government living within its means.

The most recent budget has no commitment anymore to returning to balanced budgets, so I would ask my good friend and colleague across the aisle this. Why is it that the government has now abandoned any commitment to returning to balanced budgets?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, these are challenging times in the challenging world we live in. Considering all of the things happening around the world and considering inflation, which is affecting almost every other country in the world, we are taking very prudent steps in managing the fiscal aspects of our economy.

We continue to have the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We continue to have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio among G7 countries. That is due to the prudent approach we have adopted in the last eight years, which we continue to focus on.

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

Madam Speaker, this budget allocates $80 billion over 10 years for a green transition fund. However, there will be no accountability to Parliament for that fund.

Moreover, the eligibility criteria involve being able to invest in the oil industry, even though reducing GHG emissions means reducing oil consumption.

How can my colleague find it logical to invest up to $80 billion over 10 years in the oil industry while pushing for the reduction of GHG emissions?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, our budget has made it very clear that the investments we are going to make will be in companies that lead to the clean economy of the future. That has been made very clear and we will continue to stand by it.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Nepean for addressing Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

I will point out, for those who are observing this debate, that the budget implementation act covers the variety of measures the hon. member for Nepean mentioned, changes the most favourable nation status for Russia and creates a vessel remediation act and a vessel remediation fund, which are going to be very important for areas in my constituency. Does he have any comments on that?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, as members know, we have covered a lot of things in this budget, and there are many things there for everyone.

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

Madame Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to exchange and share my views as an elected member on Bill C‑47.

Before I begin my speech, I would like to offer my warmest thoughts to all residents who are currently facing unprecedented fires in Quebec, but also elsewhere in Canada. I do not know if there are still climate deniers, but I think we must all resolve once and for all to take action to counter and prevent these phenomena.

I would also like to acknowledge everyone on the front lines who is supporting Quebec and ensuring that our natural resources and our citizens are protected, now and in the future.

As a member who is called upon to play the important role of legislator in the House, I find it difficult to have to once again debate a 430-page omnibus bill that amends 59 acts, in addition to the income tax regulations. I find it difficult to have to take a position on such a bill.

The government had promised not to do that anymore, and yet here we are faced with an omnibus bill once again. I would like to acknowledge my colleague from Joliette, who sits on the Standing Committee on Finance and who has done an amazing job at trying to find the best and ensure the best. However, we know that this situation becomes almost impossible. I do not think it is worthy of the work we do here.

I will touch on another point. As elected members, we have a duty to properly represent the people in our ridings, particularly during budget periods. I am certain that I am not the only one to do so. We know that the budget tabled in Parliament will affect many aspects of their daily lives. It is sad to see that the main issues are not being addressed. In my riding, I did a prebudget tour to understand the priorities and realities, to hear ideas from our fellow residents about priorities to be considered to improve their daily lives.

Recently, I even went on a tour of seniors' residences. Health is always the first issue people raise. We hear about everything that is happening, at least in Quebec. We hear about the burnout and the conditions for workers who have been on the front lines for a long time. Unfortunately, this budget does not in any way address the reality of health and social services in Quebec.

As we know, Quebec and the other provinces were calling for a substantial increase in the Canada health transfers they receive. They did that for a reason. This increase would enable them to fulfill one of their main responsibilities. Once again, however, the government decided to use its spending power to slash these health transfers. In addition, it decided to put money into a dental care program that will be difficult to implement because dental care does not fall under federal jurisdiction at all. The federal government is interfering in the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces instead of investing its fair share to strengthen our universal public health care systems. That is one of the priorities, but there is nothing in the budget about that.

The same goes for seniors. There are no measures for them. I already know what the government will say in response. It will say that it is here for seniors and that it increased old age security by 10% for seniors aged 75 and over.

At the federal level, however, OAS is almost universal as of age 65. The government has decided to leave seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 out in the cold. When I meet with seniors in that age range, they say that they are concerned about their financial well-being. They are also concerned about housing.

In Quebec, a number of seniors' residences are closing down for budgetary reasons. There are seniors who say that if they had to move out by tomorrow, they would be unable to find safe, adequate housing they could afford. These are concerns that affect the entire population. In Canada, OAS is not a gold mine. Among OECD countries, we have one of the weakest systems.

However, the government has decided that seniors aged 65 to 74 must wait. We will see. Once they have emptied out their savings, the government may change its mind. That is so ridiculous.

A real vision to support the most vulnerable would require that this budget include robust measures for seniors and for affordable and social housing, not for housing at market prices. The government is investing over $80 billion in programs under the national housing strategy. That is public money, yet we are struggling to get answers about the role it will play in affordable and social housing.

Fortunately, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is currently conducting a study of the financialization of housing. I believe there are things that will need to be resolved once and for all. Investing in off-market properties is the best way we can help seniors and young people, to ensure that affordable housing becomes a priority. It is a shared responsibility. The federal government has a role to play in this respect. In this budget, it is doing nothing. That is astounding to me.

There is another issue that affects both businesses and workers, and that is the labour shortage. It is not imaginary, it is a reality. I do not know about my colleagues' ridings, but the labour shortage is apparent everywhere we look. For instance, I have seen employers offering to hire seniors.

I have met with retirees and self-employed workers who might actually be interested in returning to the labour market, putting their expertise to use and being part of the workforce. However, in the current context, they are totally penalized. They already have low retirement incomes. If, in addition, the tax rules are not revised to ensure that their retirement income is not reduced, why would they go back to work?

These are people who are very involved as volunteers. They are prepared to help out in the workforce but, again, they must not be penalized for that. There is nothing in the budget in this respect.

Workers are making almost historic demands. They are asking the government to reform the only social program that exists in Canada, the employment insurance system, once and for all. In 2015, the Liberals made a solemn promise to reform the system. In 2019, the Liberals made another solemn promise to reform the system. In 2021, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion and the Prime Minister committed to implementing reform. In the wake of the crisis that we have experienced, they said the system needed to be reformed and adapted to the current labour market.

Workplaces have changed. There are non-standard workers and seasonal workers. The government is turning its back on all of these people.

All that to say, this budget does not target—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I gave the hon. member a little extra time, but I cannot give her any more. We have to move on.

The hon. member for Châteauguay—Lacolle.

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

Madam Speaker, I am always very interested in what my colleague has to say, especially when it is about seniors' pensions. I have two questions.

First of all, I am wondering whether she is familiar with the D'Amours report that was released by the Quebec government about 10 years ago. According to that report, the real need for additional pension benefits begins at age 75.

Here is my other question. Could she comment on the Conservative Party's idea to raise the age of eligibility for OAS to 67?

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

Madam Speaker, with regard to the member's second question, the government has restored the age of eligibility for the old age security pension to 65, and that was the right thing to do.

However, even though they restored the age of eligibility for the pension to 65, they are abandoning seniors. The elderly are no longer taken into consideration.

The D'Amours report is from another era; it is 10 years old. Yes, I am aware of it, as I was working with the unions at the time. Now it is 2023, and we are in an inflationary economic climate in which seniors have two concerns: housing and their safety. Overall, 60% of seniors live on a fixed pension as their sole source of income.

In my view, it is a disgrace that the Liberal government has decided to abandon seniors and discriminate against them in this way.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned many things I think we agree on. She mentioned the need to reform employment insurance. She mentioned the need to increase old age security for seniors who are struggling. I want to ask her a question about another group that is struggling to make ends meet, and that is people with disabilities. I met with a group on Friday in my riding that told me that half of the clients it works with, adults with developmental disabilities, are having the CERB benefits they received clawed back by CRA.

Does my colleague agree with me that the government should put a stop to the clawback of CERB benefits for people living with disabilities in this country?

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

Madam Speaker, although some people had their meagre CERB supplements cut, I think some compassion is in order.

Concerning people with disabilities, I am proud to say that support is still available in Quebec. People with disabilities are not different, they are unique and should be treated as such. In other words, they are fully entitled to social inclusion. Every effort must be made by and for them.

We have one major concern in this regard. I think that CERB clawbacks, such as those that have affected some of our seniors, should involve at least some degree of amnesty.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was listening earlier when my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle asked her questions.

I have often wondered how the Liberal leaders managed to pull a fast one on their MPs when it comes to increasing the old age security pension only for seniors aged 75 and up. Now I understand. They led their MPs to believe that a report from 2013 is still relevant today. That explains a lot of things and is very disappointing.

I congratulate my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville on her speech. She touched on all the issues. The main issue is seniors, and she spoke about them at length.

I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks about the government's inaction when it comes to relief measures or incentives for seniors who are returning to the labour market after just retiring around the age of 65 to 70. I would like my colleague to talk about that.

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

Madam Speaker, in my opinion, the government does not address the important issues in this budget. It is unbelievable. We need to support these people. They are already contributing to society. They are prepared to lend a hand, but the government is penalizing them. Basically, not only is the government not supporting them, but it is telling them to stay home. I find that unacceptable. I am sure that my colleague hears a lot about that in his riding.

The Government of Quebec made changes to the Quebec pension plan to address these issues. We would have expected the federal government to do the same. The Bloc Québécois very clearly requested tax measures to support this contribution in the current demographic context.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a great joy for me to rise today in support of Bill C-47 for a couple of reasons. One reason is that this is a budget that is focused on Canadians. It is a budget that is focused on increasing affordability and improving the quality of life for Canadians. However, it is also important for us to use this occasion to understand and articulate to Canadians what the opposition is standing against and what the Conservatives are choosing to stop Canadians from accessing.

This is a budget about making life more affordable. It is about making investments in health care and making sure that Canadians receive the care they expect and deserve. In budget 2023, we outlined how our government is going to provide targeted inflation relief to Canadians.

This includes a one-time grocery rebate. Conservatives are standing against a grocery rebate, which would be provided for the many individuals and families who are struggling to put food on the table due to the rising cost of groceries. By targeting this grocery rebate to the Canadians who need it most, we would be providing important relief to 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families, all without fuelling inflation. That is what the opposition is voting against. This is supposed to be delivered to eligible Canadians on July 5 by direct deposit or cheques through the CRA. This is what the Conservatives have said they are going to stall.

Bill C-47 would implement additional key measures to make life more affordable for lower-income Canadians who are working hard to get ahead and join the middle class. That includes taking action to crack down on predatory lending, so now the Conservatives are standing up against taking on predatory lenders, which I cannot understand. Predatory lenders take advantage of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, including low-income Canadians, newcomers and seniors, often by offering very high interest rate loans. Bill C-47 would allow the government to make changes to the Criminal Code to lower the criminal rate of interest from the equivalent of 47% to 35%, in line with the lowest cap among provinces, which is in Quebec. Bill C-47 would also adjust the Criminal Code's payday lending exemption to impose a cap on the cost of borrowing charged by payday lenders. This is something that affects Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I cannot understand why Conservatives would stand to oppose that.

We have also chosen to work hard to eliminate interest on Canada student loans and apprentice loans, which is support that would help students and new graduates finish their studies, keep more money in their pockets and successfully transition to the workforce. Over 750,000 post-secondary students rely on federal assistance each year to help them afford the cost of tuition, housing and everyday essentials. Our government chooses to invest in the future by investing in our children. That is again what the opposition has opposed. That is what the opposition is standing against.

We are supporting Canada's skilled tradespeople, who are essential to building our clean economy and who are the people who are going to help double the number of new homes that were built in Canada by 2032. That is, again, something the Conservatives seem to think is not in the interest of Canadians.

With Bill C-47, we would help tradespeople invest in the equipment they need by doubling the maximum employment deduction for tradespeople's tool expenses from $500 to $1,000. Conservatives are choosing to oppose that.

This bill would implement automatic advance payments for the Canada workers benefit. This benefit has already helped thousands of Canadians out of poverty, and these improvements would ensure that low-wage workers have timely access to the funds they need to support themselves and their families. Apparently that is not important to the Conservatives either. Starting in July, this would provide $714 for single workers, and $1,231 for a family, in three advance payments.

The Conservatives are also standing against stronger public health care. We all know that health care in this country and the workers who support that system are under tremendous strain. To ensure that Canadians receive the care that they need, budget 2023 would deliver an urgent and needed investment to strengthen our public health care system. Whether it is helping Canadians find a family doctor or combatting the opioid crisis that has devastated too many families and communities, we are committed to ensuring that every Canadian can rely on a world-class, publicly funded health care system. The Conservatives do not support that either.

First, our government is committed to supporting provinces and territories in delivering better health care results for Canadians, no matter where they live, so the budget would deliver on our plan to provide an additional $198.3 billion over 10 years to support better health care, including $46.2 billion in new funding to provinces and territories. This would include additional Canada health transfer measures, tailored bilateral agreements to meet the needs of each province and territory, personal support worker wage support and the renewal of the territorial health investment fund. In return for all of this new funding, for the first time, provinces and territories would have to commit to not diverting away health care funding of their own and to improve how health care information is collected, shared, used and reported to Canadians to help manage public health emergencies and deliver better health outcomes. Conservatives, incomprehensibly, oppose this as well. This is supposed to be about working together to improve health care for all Canadians, and somehow it has turned into a partisan issue.

In recognition of the pressures on our health care system, especially in pediatric hospitals and emergency rooms, and to reduce wait times, we are providing an additional $2 billion CHT, or Canada health transfer, top-up for all provinces and territories to address this immediate pressure. The funding is supposed to 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.

In addition, the federal government is going to work with indigenous partners to improve and provide additional support for indigenous health priorities by providing $2 billion over the next 10 years, which would be distributed on a distinctions basis through the indigenous health equity fund. Inexplicably, Conservatives seem to oppose this as well.

As we all know, dental care is an important component of our health, but seeing a dentist is expensive. The Canada dental benefit, which is providing eligible parents or guardians with direct, upfront and tax-free benefits to cover the cost of dental care for children under 12, has supported more than 290,000 children to date, many of whom are in Conservative ridings. In my own riding, we have seen this benefit, and I know many Canadians from across the country, from coast to coast to coast, continue to benefit from this. However, it is not just children; it is also seniors. The government is committed to fully implementing a permanent Canadian dental care plan for uninsured Canadians with annual family incomes of less than $90,000, with no co-pays for those with family incomes under $70,000, by 2025. The Conservatives seem to think that making sure those Canadians who need dental care most should not get it is perfectly reasonable. In the House, we must stand against this type of nonsense, because those Canadians deserve and need it, and it should be up to us to ensure that they get it.

By amending several tax statutes, beginning this year, Bill C-47 would be an important step in rolling out this plan. It would facilitate information sharing between departments as part of the implementation of the dental plan, and it would streamline the application and enrolment process to allow Canadians to access dental care sooner. My constituents have been asking for this; they write about this and they call about this. This should be something we make a priority and we get done. The House has a responsibility, to all those Canadians who need dental care, to make sure we deliver it.

Budget 2023 makes targeted and responsible investments that would help to build a stronger future for all Canadians. Our government is moving forward with these measures to address the cost of living in a way that sets Canadians up for greater success without having an impact on inflation. We are making fiscally responsible investments for the future, and we are going to ensure that Canadians receive the health care they deserve. Every member of the House has an obligation to make sure we are doing right by Canadians. We hear a lot of talk about gatekeepers, but what we are doing right now is that the Conservatives are gate keeping Canadians from the benefits they need, the benefits they deserve and the benefits the House has an obligation to provide for them.

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

Madam Speaker, in an earlier intervention, I asked the Leader of the Opposition how many years he has been enjoying taxpayer-funded dental care. He refused to answer, but the answer is 19 years.

While Conservatives are actively fighting against this measure, which is going to provide dental care for the most marginalized people in Canadian society, more than a million Canadians who cannot afford to see the dentist, I would just like to ask for my hon. colleague's thoughts on why the Conservatives seem so hell-bent on “dental care for me but not for thee”? Why are they not going to fight for their constituents who obviously need this? Dental care is a part of health care.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have been plagued by this question for quite some time.

All of us have an obligation to protect the interests of our constituents, to make sure that we improve their quality of life. If those of us in the Chamber can benefit from publicly funded dental care, we have an obligation to protect the interests of our constituents from coast to coast to coast who need it and should have that same benefit. The Leader of the Opposition has been benefiting from this for his entire adult life. I cannot understand why anyone in the House who has taken that benefit would stand here and say that Canadians who need it most, seniors and kids, should not get that dental care.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate hearing from some of the Liberals.

I would like to dig down into one specific part of this bill, which has to do with some of the aspects of the clean fuel standard and some of the regulations associated with that. I have great concern that we are at a point where, as a society, we would be diverting possibly millions of tonnes of food from the food supply chain into the energy supply chain. The results of that, at a time when there is so much global instability and food insecurity, the policies which are being promoted by the Liberal government, could actually have a dramatic, negative effect on global food security.

I am wondering whether the member could comment specifically on that, and whether or not he is aware whether his government has done a full accounting of how many people would be food insecure because of policies that are diverting from food into energy.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think we are all seized with the challenge of food security. We all need to be taking it seriously. There is also a bit of a false dichotomy in saying that we simply cannot be thinking about food insecurity if we are thinking about fuel standards and about how we deal with energy in this country.

It is important for us to be able to make the right investments in promoting food security and in making sure we are building long-term sustainable food supply in this country, but we also have to be taking up the fight with respect to how we think about the future of energy use in this country, how we think about climate change and how we make sure we are making the right investments for the future to ensure that what we are seeing today, fires across this country from coast to coast to coast, does not become the norm.

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

Madam Speaker, the majority of what we are voting on today under ways and means will go into the economy, but through tax credits for questionable environmental projects.

How does my colleague explain that this government says one thing and makes itself out to be a champion of the environment, but then funds fossil fuels, with no means to ensure accountability, to boot?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I share with the hon. member a desire to deal with climate change in a meaningful and thoughtful way. With respect to the direction of the decisions the government has taken, we have put in some of the most substantial measures ever in this country to combat climate change. Different and changing circumstances require us to be adaptive in the way in which we respond, but our commitment to dealing with climate change in a thoughtful way is predicated on science and seeks to improve the quality of Canadian lives along the way. It is unmatched.

I believe very strongly that staying the course and ensuring that we do the hard work that is required will get us to the future we deserve.

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

Madam Speaker, I am speaking today from northern Ontario, where the air is thick with the smoke from out-of-control fires. I know that people in Ottawa are dealing with the heavy smoke from out-of-control fires. I just spoke with a senior citizen in Toronto who ended up in hospital because of his lungs, and he was told it is because of the smoke from the fires.

Halifax burns. Abitibi burns. Sept-Îles burns. Alberta has burned for over a month, with 30,000 people evacuated. What we are dealing with is an unprecedented crisis as the climate catastrophe descends upon us, yet in the House, we see shenanigans, game playing, chest-thumping and climate denial.

I am speaking today about the need to get the budget implementation legislation passed so that we can address serious issues facing our country and our planet. Certainly, the people I represent want to know that the dental care plan for seniors is not going to be obstructed by the man who lives in the 19-room mansion at Stornoway with his own personal chef. They have a right to dental care, and they want that dental care passed. I will stay night after night until we get that passed. It is the same for the people who are calling us about food insecurity and inflation; they want us to act.

However, more than ever, I am hearing from people who are deeply concerned about the climate catastrophe that is unfolding. From Lucretius, the Roman poet, we have what is called the “Lucretius problem”, which is that a human being cannot imagine a river bigger than any river they have ever seen. Perhaps, for the longest time, we could not imagine the catastrophe of a planet unbalanced, and then Lytton burned. Then Fort McMurray burned, with nine billion dollars' worth of damages. Then there was the Paradise fire in California. Then Australia burned. Then, last year, the Arctic Circle was burning. This year, in Canada, more land will burn than in the entire history of our country. This is not a one-off; this is the accelerating impacts of the global temperature rise. Parliament does need to show Canadians that we are going to do something about it. Part of this is the work that we have been doing as New Democrats to push the government on embracing a sustainable energy future. The time is now. In this budget, we have seen some significant promises, and we need to make those promises happen.

There is another urgency in terms of the climate crisis, which is the urgency of not being left behind. In the nine months since Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, 31 battery manufacturing plants have come on stream. This will amount to 1,000 gigawatt hours of energy by 2030, enough to support the manufacture of 10 million to 13 million electric vehicles a year. We cannot be left behind while America shoots ahead. In energy production, in the nine months since the IRA, companies in the United States have announced 96 gigawatts of new clean power within an eight-month period. That is enough to power 20 million homes.

This is the work we have been doing as New Democrats, yet we see the Conservatives, who are long-standing climate deniers, make fun of and interfere with this funding, and they are now doing everything they can to block the funding from getting out to kick-start clean energy projects.

When the leader of the Conservative Party, the member from Stornoway, came to my riding, he was making all kinds of jokes about electric vehicles. I checked his work resume, and I know he has never worked in manufacturing or the mines, but my region is going to be dependent on the critical mineral supply chain for jobs and for long-term sustainability. We know that the Conservatives have attacked and undermined the investments at the EV plant in St. Thomas. They have also had nothing to say about the need to get the battery plant in Windsor off the ground, even though that represents thousands of jobs.

Just recently, at the committee on natural resources, the member for Calgary Centre claimed that the critical mineral strategy was a minor contribution to energy. He said that EV plants in the supply chain will have little or nothing to offer for 20 years. That is just false, and I want to get down to that right now, because we have been dealing with disinformation from the Conservatives consistently.

Peak oil is when oil reaches a historic high. This was supposed to be in 2030, but the massive changes in renewable energy have reduced that to 2025 or possibly 2024. This year, the investment in renewable energy was almost twice that of oil and gas. The urgent point is that Canada does not leave its energy workers behind. Just this past week, I held a press conference with the Alberta Federation of Labour, with which I have worked closely on this, and the energy workers there who are ready to embrace the clean energy opportunities in hydrogen and in geothermal. They have the skills and the ideas, but what we all know is that the clock is ticking. We have to address this.

Whether the Conservatives want to admit it or not, the transition is happening. This is what I hear from energy workers in Alberta. They know this. The day after Danielle Smith won the election, 1,500 Suncor employees, 10% of its workforce, were fired. Suncor is getting rid of its workers and shifting to automation. That is where the big money is. Over the last nine years, we have seen Texas lose 110,000 jobs for oil workers. Alberta lost 45,000 jobs over the last nine years in the oil sector. Those jobs are not coming back.

We need to retool. We need to build an economy that is actually focused on creating sustainable energy from our immense resources. There is no other country in the world that has the resources we have or the skilled workers. However, this country is being blocked by an immature opposition, in terms of the Conservatives, who continue to deny the climate catastrophe. I encourage them to step out and go take a big, deep breath of that smoke-filled air, to realize that the fire is here. It is coming. It is not going away. We have to address it.

There are many shortfalls in the present government, which I will continue to call out. There are many shortfalls in this budget, but there are key areas we have to move on with a sense of urgency and a sense of responsibility for the Canadian people. We have to get this passed so that the national dental care strategy is actually able to help seniors this year, as was promised.

We have to get the funding and support out there to start the clean energy strategy so that we are not left behind in terms of our American, European or Chinese competition. We actually need to move quickly on legislation that will enable the protections in place to make sure that communities are part of the sustainable jobs transition and that energy workers are at the table; energy workers are the ones with the expertise, and we need to be hearing from them at this time.

I encourage my colleagues to put the June game playing away for a little bit. People sent us to get a job done. They sent us to work. I am here to work. I am here to make sure that energy workers, natural resources workers, miners in the communities I represent and young people who are watching the planet burn around them are not going to look at a Parliament that ignores that and plays games.

We have a job to do in the midst of a worsening climate crisis, and we have the potential to do it, but the window for action is narrowing. I urge my colleagues to step up. Let us get this thing voted on and then let us get on to other really important matters that are facing our country at this insecure time.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague gave a very important speech. As I listened to what he was saying, I was reflecting on the things that are in this budget, such as dental care, support for improving our health care across the country, dealing with climate change and supporting our most vulnerable.

My question for the hon. member is this: Why are the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition so interested in acting against the interest of Canadians?

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

Madam Speaker, certainly, the Leader of the Opposition has always acted in his own interest. The guy owns a house in Ottawa, but he gets to move into Stornoway, a 19-room mansion, with its chefs and groundskeepers. He has had public dental care for nearly 20 years, paid for, for him and his family, yet he expects us to disrupt Parliament to the point that senior citizens do not get dental care.

That is not leadership; that is grandstanding. We need to be able to reassure Canadians, at a time when they have good reason not to trust politicians, that we are actually here to do a job. We are not just here to pull stunts and light our hair on fire, but to deliver something.

I do not know what the problem with the member in Stornoway is, but senior citizens on my watch are going to get access to dental care. They deserve it. They have a right to it.

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

Madam Speaker, when the member ran to be the leader of the NDP, did he say he would never occupy Stornoway? I was here in 2011 with the Harper majority, and the member did not say boo about Tom Mulcair occupying Stornoway.

New Democrats talk a big game, but it is always about them. There is a lack of leadership. The fact that the member makes it so personal against the member for Carleton just shows that he must be feeling the heat from the leader of the Conservative Party. I look forward to the Conservative Party being in his riding and talking about real ideas that matter to that member's riding.

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

Ouch, Madam Speaker, I am hurt.

I looked up Mr. Stornoway's job record, because I thought maybe I would understand him better. I cannot find that he has ever actually had a job other than professional politician. I was a carpenter and a house builder; I had—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, instead of using names here, we use members' titles and ridings. The member is not following the Standing Orders. I would ask you to bring him into compliance.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary has a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not remember the Conservative outrage when they were saying “minister of inflation”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary's point is a point of debate.

I want to remind members that just because one member is doing it does not mean that it is okay for another member to do it. However, when it comes to respect in the House, yes, we should be recognizing each other by either the riding name or position in Parliament. That applies to all sides.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Madam Speaker, that is a double ouch. The Conservatives certainly have a raw wound there. I was talking only about the member who moved out of his home in Ottawa and moved into Stornoway, which is a fact. That is a 19-room mansion funded by taxpayers.

I was just saying that I had a job; I had many jobs. When I ran my own business, I had to go to dentists to try to get a deal on dental care for my children. The member who lives in Stornoway has never had to do that. He has lived pretty damn well off the taxpayer. He is telling senior citizens in 2023 that they have no right to dental care; he said he will do anything, including jumping up and down all night long in Parliament, to stop this from happening.

He should tell his chef in the morning to give him some eggs, some yogourt, some granola and some green tea to calm him, so he is not just a rage bucket. That way, he can actually show up in Parliament to do some work.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑47 included $2 billion in health transfers that were already voted on in Bill C‑46, to be sure, but that were still there.

The NDP joined forces with the Liberals to remove that $2 billion even though the needs are growing not only because of the current fires, but also because of the growing and aging population.

Does my colleague regret having removed that $2 billion from Bill C‑47?

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly think the New Democrats would be more than willing to do a workshop for the Bloc on the years that we have spent, time and time again, fighting for senior citizens and fighting for health care, because it is the right thing to do. We will continue to do that.

As for the member's comments on the fires, yes, we are very concerned about the fires in Abitibi. They are having a huge impact in my region. We are very concerned about Sept-Îles. This is why we need to be seen to be delivering for the Canadian people, and I look forward to working with the Bloc and maybe helping them understand how much work we have done on health care as a party. In fact, we are the party that brought in national health care, and we will continue to defend it.

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

Madam Speaker, allow me to begin my comments by talking a little about the situation in Quebec and Canada. My thoughts are with everyone affected by the fires, whether in Halifax, northern Ontario, or in Quebec in Abitibi, Témiscamingue or the north shore, where I have family and friends who are either out of their homes as a preventive measure, or unable to leave their village because the road is blocked by the fire. I send my love to my sister, my cousin and my niece.

We are here today to discuss Bill C‑47. It includes some interesting elements, including the creation of a real EI board of appeal. People who feel cheated will be able to assert their rights. That is a good thing. The air passenger protection system is also being improved. I attended a meeting on the topic in January, and most of the proposals we put forward were accepted, which better protects users. That is also a good thing.

However, several elements are missing. There is no increase for seniors aged 65 to 74. An increase of the tax credit from $5,000 to $6,500 is good. However, people who paid taxes for their entire lives still find themselves with rates that are similar to people who are single, without being able to put money into RRSPs or other forms of tax credits. Seniors' pensions are essentially a social program and, constitutionally, are the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The way things are going, seniors have a better chance of seeing Quebec repatriate all its pension powers for seniors than seeing Canada improve their situation based on current economic realities.

There is little in this budget related to housing. The supplementary estimates (A) include $973 million, but this one includes almost nothing. In terms of health, the population of Quebec and the Canadian provinces is aging, but is also growing across all age groups. That means that health care costs are higher. The government, with its wires crossed somewhat, had left $2 billion in health transfers in Bill C‑47, which were already voted in Bill C‑46. We thought the government had reconsidered its position, that it was acknowledging that the needs are actually greater, that it would increase health transfers and that that would help everyone. In the end, in a dramatic twist, the Liberals joined with the NDP to remove that $2 billion in health transfers, although the needs are still there.

Now let us now talk about employment insurance. This government has been promising EI reform since 2015. The only thing that has been done so far is a pilot project for seasonal workers, which is a good thing. Their benefits are being extended. Apart from extending the pilot projects, though, nothing else in this budget is new, as I said. The pandemic left a huge hole in the employment insurance fund. The act states that the fund may not run either a deficit or a surplus over an average period of seven years. This means that workers and employers will have to make up for the pandemic-related deficit through their EI contributions. It is important to note that the government does not contribute a penny to the EI fund. Only workers and employers contribute to it.

Over the next few years, there will be surpluses in the EI fund, as was the case before the pandemic, and those surpluses will be used to get rid of the debt brought about by the pandemic. The government could have solved the problem by using the consolidated revenue fund to keep a surplus in the EI fund. It chose not to do so and to make workers and employers pay down the deficit.

The surpluses generated over the next seven years will be used to cover the deficit created by the pandemic. That means that the government has no real intention of reforming the program for the next seven years, in other words, as long as the pandemic deficit is not eliminated.

Employment insurance is also a social program. Just like seniors' pensions, constitutionally, it is a program that should belong to the Canadian provinces and Quebec. At this time, Quebec repatriating its powers and putting in place a modern program is more likely than Canada even beginning to think about maybe continuing to reflect.

There are also surprises in this budget. Among other things, we learn that $80 billion will be allocated over 10 years to a fund for the green transition. That is good news, except that the fund will be distributed to organizations that are not required to report to Parliament. The eligibility criteria for obtaining funds include investments in the oil industry to create green energy, so oil and gas will be burned to create green energy.

By the way, the energy transition does not mean shifting from fossil fuels that produce a lot of greenhouse gases to fossil fuels that produce just a bit less greenhouse gases. The energy transition means shifting to renewable energy. The last I heard, there was no shortage of wind in Quebec and Canada. That is just one renewable energy that can be used. The technology is increasingly reliable.

There is another little surprise in the budget. While 56% of Canadians and 70% of Quebeckers say they are opposed to the monarchy, something was included at the very end of the bill, in clause 510, which is under division 31 of part 4, on page 325. It is recognition of the appointment of Charles III as Canada's monarch, the official head of state of Canada. It is an attempt to slip this by the 56% of Canadians and 70% of Quebeckers who are opposed to the monarchy. Some would say that Bloc members are sovereigntists who no longer want the monarchy. That would mean that 56% of Canadians and 70% of Quebeckers are also sovereigntists. The will of the people—a majority of them in this case, as I said—ought to be respected.

I will quickly end my speech. To answer the Leader of the Opposition's question, a sovereign and independent Quebec will not need health transfers, equalization payments, housing transfers or infrastructure transfers. That is because Quebec will get to keep all the taxes it collects. It will also keep the revenues from customs duties. It will be the sole manager of monies paid by workers and employers into the employment insurance fund and the pension fund for seniors. It will be the sole manager of monies generated by this new country that Quebec could and must become. Quebec's independence will allow us to manage our own future so we can fully represent Quebeckers' aspirations for future generations, unlike this budget, which does not do so.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with one part of the member's speech, and that is her plea to electrify our grid through the use of more renewable energies. She spoke specifically about wind, indicating there was a lot of opportunity for that, but one critical part to that energy infrastructure change and revolution is our capacity on storage and our ability to store energy in the future.

Could the member speak to other opportunities for us to continue to build upon the transition we are going through?

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

Madam Speaker, technology is advancing rapidly.

Solar, wind and hydro are types of energy that can be considered renewable. We need them. Increasing GHGs in various ways will not help minimize environmental damage.

By the way, the best energy is always the energy we do not use. Reducing our own consumption across the board will also change people's habits and make a difference.

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

Madam Speaker, as we are all experiencing it today, there is smoke in the skies. We are clearly in a climate crisis. Instead of us moving forward in a direction to begin implementing sound solutions to address this climate crisis and the horrendous impacts we are all experiencing as a result, the Conservatives are playing games with stalling tactics, ensuring these are not being implemented.

Could my colleague share her thoughts on the importance of us putting into place sound solutions to address the climate crisis and to not see hold-ups and unnecessary parliamentary games to keep us from moving forward in a positive direction?

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

Madam Speaker, in response to my colleague, I would like to remind her of the opposition's role in democracy.

When I arrived in the House, someone told me that my role as a member of the opposition was not to enable the government to function, but to obstruct it at all costs. Personally, I see the opposition's role as being much more constructive.

No single party or individual can see all sides of an issue. It is just not possible for a government to introduce a perfect bill. It is important to consult all the parties and come to an agreement, to have a consensus.

The expression “political games” is wrong; we are not playing games here. This is about every aspect of people's future. This is serious. We have to work together, find consensus and represent the entire population, the people we all represent.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Before I get going, I want to give a quick shout-out to my nephew, who had his 21st birthday yesterday, Noah Bradley.

My colleague from the Bloc spoke about finding consensus. I would like to hear her opinion on whether the way to finding consensus is through cutting debate, as the Liberals have done so often in this Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, I wish my colleague's nephew a happy birthday.

I know the Remparts beat the Kamloops team and really enjoyed their stay in Kamloops.

With respect to consensus, time allocation is not the best way to reach it. We have to find other approaches, maybe different ways of talking to each other, to make that happen.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, first allow me to spare a thought for the people affected by forest fires across Canada. I am thinking of them and channelling my energy toward helping them get through this extremely difficult and tragic situation. I thank the firefighters, members of the military and all volunteers contributing to their well-being.

Today, I am rising in the House to speak to Bill C-47. On March 28, the Liberal government tabled an irresponsible budget that increases both the debt and inflation. The government chose to throw money at everything. It is an obvious ploy. The government is making self-serving decisions to stay in power by using public money to buy the support of the New Democratic Party.

In the highlights of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report of April 13, Yves Giroux stated:

Budget 2023 does not provide an assessment of program effectiveness that the Government launched in last year's budget under its comprehensive Strategic Policy Review, nor in my view does it identify opportunities to save and reallocate resources to adapt government programs and operations to a new post-pandemic reality.

Take the Canada dental benefit, for example. I support this benefit. It is a very exciting social program, but it has to be considered within the current context. The truth is that this government is throwing so much money around that it is going to trigger a recession. Before offering people the chance to invest in their teeth, how about ensuring that they have food to eat first?

The government is free to rebut this comment with the grocery rebate proposed in its budget, but let us be realistic. A one-time payment will only help some people, and not for long.

In a column entitled “A doubled-edged rebate”, published on March 30 in La Presse, Sylvain Charlebois reminded us that this budget, like last year's, contained no section on agriculture or food. I would point out that Dr. Charlebois is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University. He has credibility. I encourage the Liberals to consult him for ideas. Dr. Charlebois says this:

For Canadians, the grocery rebate will be limited in scope and duration, an offshoot of the politicization of food inflation. The PR spin is real, whereas tax changes that could have a substantial impact are not. However, the prospect of injecting $2.5 billion more into the economy is causing a lot of concern. Such an action could worsen the food inflation problem.

Yes, it is a double-edged rebate indeed.

The government gives with one hand, but it claws back double or more from the pockets of honest Canadian citizens through the excise tax, the carbon tax and the carbon tax 2.0. It is injecting money into the economy, which is causing inflation. In our capitalist system, businesses aim to make a profit. That aim is perfectly legitimate. It is a matter of survival for them. If they cannot turn a profit, they will close their doors and thousands of Canadians will lose their jobs.

In that context, the responsible thing for the government to do would have been to reduce federal spending and collaborate with the Bank of Canada.

That is the way to stop inflation and give some breathing room to Canadians who are increasingly struggling.

There is a major lack of vision here. Maybe the government's vision is restricted by its blinders, leading it to focus exclusively on what is really important to it: the Liberal-NDP coalition keeping it in power.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown that the carbon tax will cost the average family between $400 and $847 in 2023, even after the rebate. I urge everyone to take a look at the Canadian Debt Clock created by the MEI, the Montreal Economic Institute. It shows that the federal debt in Canada now exceeds $1.299 trillion and will soon reach $1.3 trillion. That is huge. It breaks down to $44,000 of debt per taxpayer. Based on data provided by the Department of Finance in its March 28, 2023, budget, the MEI estimates that, by March 31, 2024, the Canadian debt will have increased by $42.6 billion, the equivalent of $116 million per day, $81,000 per minute or $1,350 per second.

I have heard members of the government, I think including the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, when he was minister of foreign affairs, say that now is the time to borrow, that interest rates are low and will stay low. What a peculiar basis for managing a government's public funds.

To illustrate the government's incompetence, just last fall, in the economic statement, it forecast a deficit of $36.4 billion for 2022-23, and deficits of $30 billion in 2023-24 and $25 billion in 2024-25. The fact is that, in this budget, the government now forecasts a deficit of $40.1 billion for 2023-24. That is almost $10 billion more but, for the Liberals, $1 billion, $10 billion or $100 billion is nothing because they can just print more money.

As I noted earlier, the national debt will soon reach $1.3 trillion. Do my colleagues know that the debt ceiling is set at $1.8 trillion? Is the government racing to reach that target? I hope not.

The Conservative Party, to which I am proud to belong, had some very specific asks for the government concerning budget 2023: end the war on work by reducing taxes for workers; end the inflationary deficits that are driving up the cost of goods; and eliminate barriers to building housing for Canadians. The simple truth is that none of the Conservative Party's three demands have been met. None of them have been included in the bill.

That is why the Conservatives will not be supporting this anti-worker, pro-inflation budget that raises taxes. At least, we will not be supporting it unless and until our demands are met. This way of doing things is unacceptable. It is irresponsible, and I hope that, thanks to the actions of the opposition, the government will listen to reason and change course.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, my regards to you and to all our valiant colleagues who are here with us.

This is a debate at report stage on the budget, specifically Bill C‑47. It is the month of June. The Stanley Cup finals are going on. It is hot out, we still do not have a budget and we have a minority government. As we have seen all this week and today, there is a blockage in Parliament. Everything is delayed, everything is moving slowly. These blockages clearly have an impact on government policies, Quebeckers and Canadians.

In a minority government, we would expect the government to use methods that foster a consensus and the advancement of the work of Parliament. We would expect the government to propose a budget that we could agree on, one that could achieve a consensus, especially since there is great potential for blockage here on the part of the official opposition.

The Conservatives have many faults, including being against women's right to control their own bodies, being against environmental policies and being pro-oil, but they do have one good quality, and that is that they are predictable. We know that they will block everything.

We expected the government to have the foresight to propose a budget that we could work on. Instead, the government did exactly what it had promised it would never do. It is something the Harper government did time after time, namely present an omnibus bill, a colossal bill that is basically impossible to rework and that is almost designed to be delayed.

It almost seems like the government has no respect for the House and is looking for trouble. This bill amends 59 acts, in addition to the Income Tax Regulations. Anything and everything is in there. There is even a royal provision in the budget to recognize Charles III as sovereign. After all that, the government members are surprised that it is being blocked. They are surprised to see the Conservatives propose 900 amendments. They will say that everyone else is being unreasonable, when they are the ones who tabled an omnibus bill. They will ultimately invoke closure. The NDP will get into bed with the Liberals and support closure as usual. After that, they will accuse the other parties of picking fights.

As a responsible opposition party, all we ask is to debate and be able to do our work on each element of the budget bill.

For example, we wanted to be responsible and work intelligently on the royal provision. There is an appointment in the bill. Charles III is to be appointed head of state in a sovereign country. We thought we would do what we do for all appointments of all commissioners and officers of Parliament. We thought we would call His Majesty and have him come to committee. We wanted to give him a chance and see if he is competent to be head of state. There is no one more sporting than us. We are square dealers.

We therefore asked the clerk of the Standing Committee on Finance to contact Rideau Hall and ask them to invite His Majesty. This is, after all, part of his kingdom. We were told that they do not have his phone number. We were surprised to see that the Governor General did not serve much purpose. Honestly, I was surprised. I did not expect that. Then we went back to the clerk to see if he could contact Buckingham Palace and ask them to have His Majesty come testify. An email was sent to Buckingham Palace. The response we received from Buckingham Palace was that His Majesty is a bit old-fashioned and only opens snail mail, so the invitation would have to be mailed to him. I do not know if mail addressed to His Majesty can be sent postage free. That should be checked. Nevertheless, he was supposed to be invited by mail.

How should we interpret that? First, we have a head of state who cannot open emails. Do we really need to invite him to committee to know that he cannot deliver results? Would we hire an ethics commissioner or a privacy commissioner who could not open emails? Maybe we should have sent him a homing pigeon. Government do not work that way.

We have to wonder. Does a refusal to come pay a short visit to parliamentarians not show contempt for Canada, its institutions and its Parliament? I see that as contempt.

I cannot believe that, in order to send an invitation to His Majesty, we have to send him a letter on papyrus and wait for the letter and his response to travel across the Atlantic Ocean. I thought it seemed obvious. Even His Majesty is embarrassed about the budget and ashamed to be associated with it. I think members can understand why. The reason is that the things that are most important to Quebeckers and Canadians have been left out of the budget. Even the King is embarrassed.

Take, for example, employment insurance. The government was supposed to have learned from the crisis. During the COVID-19 crisis, the government went from one temporary measure to another. That is because we have an EI system where 60% of people who lose their jobs are not eligible. It is not right that six out of 10 people are not eligible. What is more, women and young people are particularly affected because many of them hold non-standard jobs. They have a hard time qualifying. It also has more of an impact on those who are vulnerable because of the new realities of work, or what is referred to as the sharing economy, which is a way of artificially turning a salaried employee into a non-salaried employee so that they do not have access to all the benefits that a social safety net could provide.

The Liberals have been promising to reform EI since 2015. They promised not once, not twice, but three times. It was supposed to happen in August. Then we saw the actuarial forecasts in the budget. We realized that not only was a reform off the table, but they were going to pick $25 billion from the pockets of SMEs and workers through a payroll tax to pay off the EI fund deficit that built up during COVID‑19, even though all the other pandemic measures implemented were funded by the entire population.

That is why His Majesty is embarrassed to come. He no longer wants to have anything to do with the Liberals. It could be that His Majesty is embarrassed over the environmental policies. We are giving away $20 billion to $30 billion in dirty oil subsidies, allegedly for carbon capture, even though the problem is immediate.

The government tells us that the environment is important. On May 31, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change boasted to the New Economy Canada conference that there was a plan for transitioning to the green economy.

That same day, the Minister of Labour told an audience of business people, “Don't tell me a green energy future doesn't include oil and gas.”

What colour is oil? It is not the colour of the chairs here in the House of Commons. It is definitely not green. The environment is being completely neglected.

Here we have the government creating its much-touted green fund, the $16‑billion Canada growth fund. This fund will be managed by PSP Investments, a company that does not report to Parliament and will not be accountable. The only mandate it has ever had is financial performance. Through no fault of its own, this company has absolutely no expertise in this area. At the moment, it sees carbon capture as the green development model. That technology is not yet up and running, but we are being promised that it will exist in 30 years' time. However, the problem is here now. There is even talk of using small modular nuclear reactors to extract more oil by using less oil to export more. That is what PSP Investments is all about.

In the budget, there is nothing for seniors who dealt with the crisis and were hit hard by it. Even before the crisis, their purchasing power had declined.

There is nothing for our regions either, nor for discount regional flights. I am thinking about Abitibi, the Gaspé and the north shore. We know that for regional development, for economic development, we need regional flights. It is very important. There is absolutely nothing in the budget. It is always promises, promises.

The budget includes changes to the equalization system that deny Quebec of $400 million in short order. Let us talk about equalization. We are still in this mode where the Liberals are not meeting their commitments. That being said, they are doing some things. It is not all bad, but they are not getting results where it counts.

They will tell us that we should support this because the best is yet to come, but we know all about Liberal promises. We knew about them in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. We still know about those Liberal promises, but we no longer believe them. That is why we are going to do what King Charles III would do if we were in our shoes: We are going to vote against the budget.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, my colleague is an economist and has taught economics.

As recently as February of this year, the Minister of Finance said that higher deficits would add fuel to the fire of inflation. That statement from the finance minister is the exact opposite of what she proposed in the last budget.

Does my colleague think that makes sense? Does he believe that the government has failed in its duty to manage the country properly by adding fuel to the fire of inflation, with such high interest rates and skyrocketing inflation?

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

Mr. Speaker, what is happening is that the government has developed a habit of overspending given the flexibility that it has.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown that, to maintain its debt-to-GDP ratio, the government has roughly $40 billion in fiscal flexibility. However, the government has developed a bad habit of using its fiscal advantage to take over areas of provincial jurisdiction. We saw this in the case of child care and the infamous dental plan. The government has encroached on many areas of jurisdiction.

I believe my colleague will agree with me in part. I think the government could be more fiscally responsible if it took better care of its own areas of jurisdiction and let the provinces do their work as they should.

I think there is some confusion in Ottawa at the moment. All the Liberals want to do is stick their noses into just about everything, in order to win votes. It is highly unproductive.

I am sure my Conservative colleague will agree with my take on the situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the member for Mirabel, on his excellent speech. He gave us a very clear picture of the situation.

I agree with him completely on the fact that Charles III is not the only one embarrassed to support the Liberal budget, but also on the fact that contempt is being shown for democracy.

Here is my question for my colleague. I would like to know what he thinks about the fact that, since the NDP and the Liberal Party formed an alliance, 26 time allocation motions have been used to speed up debates. Commonly called a gag order, this practice is anti-democratic.

In the House, the NDP, this new party that calls itself democratic, is engaging in anti-democratic procedures. It is taking speaking time away from parliamentarians.

There is a limit to the boundaries of contempt for our institutions. There is a limit to the boundaries of contempt for democracy. There is a limit to the boundaries of contempt for the right to speak. In a democracy, we have the right to discuss bills and the budget, as we are now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not a New Democrat, thank God. I do not agree with the approach the New Democrats took when they decided to support the government no matter what.

I think they took their own risks, and at some point they will have to figure out when it stops being a compromise and starts being a denial of who they are and what they believe in.

I think my colleague said it well. I can think of two examples, which I will briefly summarize.

The first is time allocation, gagging Parliament. It is very rare for opposition parties to support such a measure at all, let alone so often.

The second is the special rapporteur, David Johnston. Because of their agreement, they are conflicted. They go from one position on Monday to another on Tuesday and a third on Wednesday. It is obvious. As a result, they cannot do their job as an opposition party. It is becoming more and more obvious.

I am very glad I am not in their shoes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Mirabel, for his comments, notwithstanding some of the little partisan digs he managed to fit in there.

Our goal is to make life better for Canadians. I am sure his goal is to make life better for Quebeckers in his riding. Does the member not see anything in this budget implementation act that would improve the lives of his constituents?

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

Mr. Speaker, what kind of a world is this when we state the facts and get accused of being partisan?

What would make life better for Quebeckers is if the government respected the Quebec National Assembly and respected the unanimous motions from the Quebec National Assembly.

The 125 elected members in Quebec City are standing up for policies in Quebec's own jurisdictions. It is not partisan when every party stands up. They are calling for the right to opt out of the dental care plan with full financial compensation. They are calling for health transfers.

The NDP supported agreements under which the provinces got only one out of six dollars they had asked for, and yet it boasts about wanting to take care of people.

Tell me who is partisan here.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Democratic Institutions; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Climate Change; the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, Housing.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to share my thoughts on budget 2023, which is at report stage.

This government, under this Prime Minister, who has turned out to be the biggest spender in history, has delivered a reckless, irresponsible and free-spending budget. It has upset the fiscal balance that Stephen Harper's Conservative government had managed to restore. Let us remember that in 2015, the Prime Minister, who was driving a backhoe, promised three small deficits before returning to a balanced budget in 2019. What happened? For eight years, this government has posted deficit after deficit, the biggest deficits ever seen in Canada.

In her fall economic statement in November, the Minister of Finance gave us a glimmer of hope. She said a small budget surplus would be recorded in 2027-28. I remind members that it is 2023. Just a few months later, in the budget we are now discussing, where is the return to a balanced budget? Poof. It has evaporated, it has flown away. It has disappeared into thin air. It has gone up in smoke.

I will give my colleagues some staggering figures that illustrate just how irresponsible this budget is and how spendthrift this government is. Since 2015, the national debt has risen from $650 billion to $1.3 trillion. It boggles the mind. Sadly, the Liberals have managed to double the debt in just eight years. If this Prime Minister were to be awarded a prize, it would be for the prime minister who has increased the debt by more than all the other Canadian prime ministers combined in 155 years.

We know that the Liberals will point out that there was a pandemic. We know that. However, our expectation was that this government would return to more sensible spending after the pandemic. It is incapable of that. The minister told us that hers was a prudent budget. On the contrary, this budget is written in very dark red ink, and we see no end to the deficits.

In 2008-09, the Harper government was forced to invest $60 billion to kickstart the economy after the 2008 crisis. We then managed to recover very quickly. Canada was the first of the G20 countries to recover from the economic downturn, which some compared to the 1930 crisis.

The minister told us that her budget was prudent; however, it is anything but. I am certain the government members will say we are too partisan. That is what they always say. However, I have a few quotes here from independent economic experts and commentators that confirm the opposite.

Gérald Fillion, from Radio-Canada, said the following:

So, where is the prudence and discipline that the Minister of Finance was talking about before publishing her budget? Even back in November, we knew that economic growth was going to be weak in 2023 and that interest rates had risen rapidly. Why add so much to deficits, debt and, consequently, public debt charges?

Public debt charges have doubled. They went from $24 billion to $48 billion. Imagine what we could do with $24 billion. My colleague mentioned health transfers earlier. This is money that was requested by all the Canadian provinces, but they were given virtually nothing.

Derek Holt, an economist with the Bank of Nova Scotia, said this:

Big spending, big deficits, big debt, high taxes, high inflation and bond market challenges are not the path to prosperity. [The Minister is] wrong to describe the budget as prudent, with overall program spending set to balloon to 51% above pre-pandemic levels by 2028.

Michel Girard, a leading economist with the Journal de Montréal, wrote an article with the headline “Ottawa is taking $102 billion more out of your pocket”. I will quote from the article:

$46.1 billion more in personal income tax

$35.4 billion more in corporate income tax

$14 billion more in GST

$2.8 billion more in other excise taxes and duties

With such a deluge of money into the federal coffers, one might have expected the Trudeau government to finally announce a return to balanced budgets.

The fact is, Canadian families are currently being heavily taxed by the government. This is to say nothing of the carbon tax and the second carbon tax that is right around the corner.

Michel Girard continues with the following:

Well, no. According to finance minister Chrystia Freeland's latest budget, the federal government will remain in the hole for the next five fiscal years.

This completely contradicts what the Minister of Finance had said a few months earlier. It is completely backwards.

Have the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance read or heard these words? I do not believe they have. They continue to spend lavishly and to propose inflationary policies.

This is very unfortunate because the biggest losers in all this are Canadians who work hard and are seeing the fruits of their labour slip away more and more each day.

I have a company with 30 employees and we had to make a major salary adjustment in the past few months because of the rising inflation and interest rates. I have employees whose mortgage payments have gone up by $700 a month. Wages have not kept pace with inflation.

Inflation is at his highest level in 40 years, and the impact on food prices is dramatic. Here are a few examples: The price of butter is more than $8; a loaf of bread costs $5.50, compared to $1.50 four years ago; a pound of bacon costs $10.

A family of four, meaning two parents and two children, will spend $1,065 more on groceries this year alone. That is a lot. It is way too much. It also does not help when we add to that the price of gas, which is hovering around $1.80. Obviously, there is transportation. The Liberals are always telling us that the carbon tax does not affect Quebec, which is completely false. The food that is sent to us from across the country travels between the provinces. Obviously, there is trade happening. All of the items that need to be transported are subject to all of these taxes, which are inevitably inflationary.

Some parents have to skip meals so they can feed their children. The use of food banks has skyrocketed. In Canada, 1.5 million people are using food banks every month. That is a source of daily stress for families, and yet nothing stops this government's out-of-control spending, which is driving up the cost of everything.

That is not even to mention the cost of housing. Since this Prime Minister took office, the cost of housing has doubled. Just last year, the price of houses increased by 21% in the Quebec City area. That is unbelievable. Successive interest rate hikes have doubled the average mortgage payment, which is up to almost $3,000 a month. It is the same thing for rental units. It is not unusual to see ads for one-bedroom apartments that are renting for $2,000 a month.

As a result, young families are abandoning their dream of owning a home. I have been an MP for eight and a half years and, for the first time, young people are coming up to me and saying exactly what we have been saying for months. They are asking me how they can one day become homeowners. No one had ever talked to me about that before, but now that is their reality.

The list of negative effects and wrongs caused by this government's policies is too long to fit into a 10-minute speech. I am not even talking about the other problems caused by this government, such as violence, which is constantly on the rise, or the inadequate services to citizens.

Just think about last year's passport crisis. I have never seen anything like it in my life. The number of federal employees has increased by nearly 70,000 over the last eight years and we have never had such bad service. This is truly poor organization from this government.

I am not going to touch on the other problems. I am not going to talk about foreign interference, about everything that is going on at the moment or about our colleagues who have been spied on, and even threatened in some cases, by Beijing.

Canadians deserve a lot more and a lot better. They deserve a government that puts them first, that thinks about their paycheques, their homes, their families and, most importantly, their future. They deserve a government that recognizes the hard work they put in every day and that is not always trying to squeeze more out of their paycheques. They need a government that will bring back some common sense. They need a Conservative government.

I really look forward to the day when we are back in government. We will simply stop spending, and we will still have plenty of money to deliver all the programs people need.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question that perhaps the member can answer.

Why do the Liberals and the NDP insist on imposing a carbon tax when it clearly is not working?

Emissions continue to rise, so why are they imposing this?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

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

The carbon tax was effectively put in place by the government to get people to change their behaviour. The people who pay this tax were to receive the equivalent amount in the form of a rebate. Obviously, that is not what is happening, because the math does not work.

Furthermore, the government has had environmental targets in place to reduce greenhouse gases for seven and a half years now, and none of those targets have been met, even with the carbon tax.

Now, they want to add carbon tax 2.0, and they want to add the GST on top of that. We are talking about 61¢ a litre. That is going to send the cost of every food item and product in Canada sky-high.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very troubling, as my colleague from Mirabel said so well earlier, to hear and see the Conservatives manoeuvring to block the business of the House. What fascinates me even more is the misinformation being conveyed by the members of that party. It is still quite fascinating.

I was just doing some research on my phone. I did not find the price, but I gather that the member has not gone grocery shopping for a long time, since he said that bread cost $1.30 four years ago.

What is really extraordinary is that when the Conservatives come to power they are going to fix everything. They have magic solutions for the labour shortage and inflation. It is as though they could fix everything by waving a magic wand. I would like to know their abracadabra formula.

Lastly, it is funny, but in Quebec seniors do not talk to me about the carbon tax. They talk about real support that the government could provide, such as an increase in old age security or a review of the guaranteed income supplement. I do not see a lot of seniors in Quebec stopping me on the street to talk about the carbon tax.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are some good bakeries in my riding. Four years ago, I could still get a loaf of bread for less than $2. That was perfectly normal. I go grocery shopping regularly. I am also very pleased to tell my colleague that.

In the past four, five or six years, I have seen prices skyrocketing, particularly in the past two years. The inflationary taxes that the government continues to impose on Canadians are inevitably driving up the cost of food in Canada. There is a reason why 1.5 million people across Canada, my riding included, are turning to food banks. I spoke with the director of Moisson Kamouraska just last week and she told me that this is unprecedented. Every month there is a significant increase in demand.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's party has said that, instead of carbon pricing, it is going to focus on technology, yet every single economist out there, including my friend from Mirabel, will tell us that directly subsidizing technology is a far more expensive approach than carbon pricing, which relies on the market.

I am wondering why the Conservatives are insisting on a more expensive approach to addressing climate change.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we believe in the science of technology. It is actually surprising that the NDP and Bloc Québécois members do not want to believe in new technologies. It is as if we were going back in time. We only have to look at communications technologies, for example. We hold those in our hands every day. We did not have that 25 years ago. We were still sending letters by mail, as my colleague pointed out earlier.

Obviously, things evolve, including in the world of oil and gas. It is a lot less polluting than it was before. In fact, I really applaud the people of western Canada who have made huge efforts to reduce their carbon footprint over the years with the help of new technologies.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a genuine pleasure for me to be able to be here to speak to the substance of Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. I say this because so much time has been spent dealing with whether we should now adjourn the House or adjourn debate, or whether one member or another of the Conservatives should now be heard. We have spent time sitting mute during a lengthy filibuster at the finance committee, where there was a detailed elocution on the fishing of eels, or seeing members insist that the bells ring for 15 minutes at the end of question period before a vote. These are not the reasons why the good people of Charlottetown sent me to Parliament. They sent me to be the voice of Charlottetown here in Ottawa and to speak to substantive issues such as those presented in the legislation, Bill C-47, so I am particularly pleased to be here and have the opportunity to carry out that role.

Before we can look forward, it is important to know where we are at currently. I would like to, of course, bring a Prince Edward Island perspective to this debate. I will start by highlighting a recent report from the Public Policy Forum entitled “The Atlantic Canada Momentum Index”. This report outlines the progress made across the Atlantic region over the last decade.

Members may also be interested to know that just today there was an op-ed in the local newspaper, penned by former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney, talking about the remarkable progress that has been made in our region since he was prime minister and was overseeing the establishment of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

Going back to the “Atlantic Canada Momentum Index”, the report outlines the progress made across the region over the last decade, looking at 20 key indicators. In particular, I want to highlight the great work that has been done in Prince Edward Island. In the 2015 to 2022 period, 17 of the 20 indicators experienced an improvement in P.E.I. These are things such as housing, immigration, business investment, and R and D spending. Prince Edward Island had the highest and best performance of all of the Atlantic provinces. This is fantastic news for Islanders. It demonstrates that real progress is taking place.

The Conservatives do not like when we trumpet positive economic news about the region. The common critique we hear is that we are saying that things have never been so good. There is no denying that there are significant challenges. We have made positive growth, but Canadians and Islanders face significant challenges. When I talk to people in Charlottetown, whether while door knocking or when at the farmers' market on the weekend, the three challenges they want to talk about are the cost of living, health care and climate change. Undoubtedly, as a government, there is much more to do. We cannot sit on the sidelines. That is why the budget implementation act and budget 2023 have been brought forward, specifically to make sustainable steps to address these challenges.

I want to talk for a minute about the grocery rebate and its importance. It is undoubtedly more expensive to put food on the table. Islanders have had to carry the burden of some of the highest inflation rates in the country. Aside from one month, Prince Edward Island had the highest inflation rate in Canada every month for two years, from March 2021 to March 2023. This is in large measure because of the disproportionate dependence on home heating oil and the increase in price in that regard.

In Charlottetown, the median after-tax household income is $58,000, so in general, Islanders have to pay more but earn less. We know that the burden of inflation is impacting the pockets of many people across the country. That is why the government has responded in this budget, and in this budget implementation act, with the grocery rebate to support those most in need.

For 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians, the grocery rebate will provide eligible couples with two children an extra $467, single Canadians without kids an extra $234, and seniors an extra $225 on average. It is absolutely unfathomable that with all of the stories of hardship I hear, especially from seniors, we have these procedural, partisan games blocking those payments. It is my sincere hope that people will come to their senses and accept the reasons they have been sent here, that debate in a substantive way will proceed on Bill C-47 and that it will get to a vote and get to implementation so that people who need that money in these inflationary times will be able to get it. I hope other priorities will not stand in the way of that progress.

We know that many Canadians have had to choose between putting food on the table and other necessities. One thing that is often on the back burner is dental care. In 2018, more than one in five Canadians reported avoiding dental care because of the cost. With the recent increased cost of living, we can assume even more Canadians cannot access dental services due to cost.

That is why in the fall of 2022 we introduced the Canada dental benefit. Since December, over 300,000 Canadian children have accessed dental care services. To build on this, in budget 2023, our government will invest $13 billion over five years in the Canadian dental care plan. The plan will provide dental coverage for uninsured Canadians with annual family incomes of less than $90,000, with no copays for those with family incomes under $70,000. This includes seniors, children and people with disabilities.

I have heard seniors in my riding, after hearing coverage of the budget, asking when the dental care plan will start and when they can start to access it. The news is out there and people are looking forward to it. There is absolutely a need, especially for seniors who are struggling, and quite frankly we need to get on with it.

In addition to budget 2023, the budget implementation act demonstrates a clear effort to address the cost of living by supporting those in need. I mentioned earlier how often I hear from seniors who are having a hard time and how very frustrated they will be if the grocery rebate is further delayed.

One other measure that has been taken, not for seniors on the lower end but for those in receipt of federally regulated pensions, is adding some flexibility to the payments under those pensions. That will help those in the middle class among retired people. That is important in my area, because Prince Edward Island is the only place in Canada outside the national capital region that has a national headquarters of a federal government department, that being the Department of Veterans Affairs. We have a disproportionate number of retired federal servants. This matters to them and it needs to go forward.

The last thing I will touch on before wrapping up is the tools deduction. In P.E.I. we have among the lowest vacancy rates in the country. For apartments it is 0.9% and for bachelor apartments it is 0%. For love or money, one cannot find a bachelor apartment in Prince Edward Island. One of the measures in the budget implementation act is to give a break to tradespeople. We need to show as much love to tradespeople as possible, because with 1,500 vacant construction jobs in Prince Edward Island, there is a major bottleneck in getting the houses built that we need.

In conclusion, I would like to highlight that Prince Edward Island has experienced positive growth and momentum in recent years. While we have made progress, the cost of living, health care and climate change continue to be major concerns of Islanders and Canadians. I encourage all of my colleagues to help address these shared challenges and to focus efforts on the things that matter to our constituents, not partisanship and not procedural games. Let us support Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing from those on the other side of the House that the government is investing, that they will do this and they will do that. I wonder if they recognize that there is no such thing as government money. It is the money of hard-working Canadians. It is important to live within our means or we will go further into debt.

Will the member not recognize that massive deficits and debt are fuelling inflation and making life more expensive for all Canadians?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, as someone who was here in the tail end of the decade of darkness and witnessed the Harper government run deficit after deficit after deficit, attempting to cut its way to economic growth and exhibiting a period of economic growth that was the worst since the Great Depression, I really am loath to buy into the idea that austerity and cuts can get us to prosperity. Those cuts were disproportionate in our part of the country. They struck us particularly hard. I will make absolutely no excuse and absolutely no apology for the philosophy of this government to invest in Canadians and especially in our regions.

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

Mr. Speaker, on July 1, while Canadians are celebrating Canada Day, Quebec will be marking a special day. It is moving day.

That is the day everyone moves. All the leases come to an end. The vast majority of Quebeckers who move to a new place or buy a home, although I do not think that anyone is buying a home right now, do so on July 1. Last year, in Montreal alone, 600 people did not find housing. This year, every organization is expecting it to get worse.

We are halfway through the national housing strategy that started five years ago. For five years, the Liberals have been saying that they are getting things done. Just this afternoon, the Prime Minister said that they are investing, that we are going to see a housing accelerator and that housing will be built. However, every organization is saying that this year, the situation is going to be worse than ever.

What is being done to deal with the housing crisis?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. Canada really does have an affordable housing crisis. We have indeed invested in a lot of programs to address that. There is still a lot of work to be done because it is true, the statistics cannot be denied. We continue to work hard to develop and finance good programs to try to make a difference.

I think it is very important for everyone here, the members from all parties, to work together to give advice and collaborate. We all have the same goals. We must recognize that it is a real problem; we have invested in possible solutions, but it is still a problem, I agree.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague from Charlottetown a question that I asked earlier in question period. Given what we know about the financial hardships faced by people living with disabilities, does he agree with me that the CRA should stop clawing back CERB from people in our country living with disabilities? People with disabilities are twice as likely to live below the poverty line given the challenges they face getting their bills paid and given the fact that the government has long delayed the Canada disability benefit. Does it not add insult to be clawing back the few benefits that these folks have received over the past two years?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult question. For the CERB program to have integrity, there need to be checks at the end of the day to determine eligibility. It is my firm belief that the CRA should be acting with compassion with respect to collection efforts. It is my understanding that it is.

The record of this government, particularly with the onset of Bill C-22, is one where people with disabilities have made and will continue to make better progress than they have under any other government. However, compassion in collection efforts is absolutely critical. I do not think they should be wiped out.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-47, the government's budget implementation bill.

The cost of everything is going up. Why? Because the Prime Minister is directly responsible for creating the cost of living crisis. The Prime Minister has created that cost of living crisis through his out-of-control spending and through his inflationary policies.

The Prime Minister is trying to ram $67 billion of new spending through Parliament before he takes the summer off. We would think that there would be a plan to return to a balanced budget, but there is not. We would think that there would be a detailed plan for how the $67 billion in new spending would be used, but there is not. We would think that the government's finance minister would answer questions about her spending, thoroughly, in Parliament, but she has not. We would think that the Prime Minister would stop raising taxes on Canadians during a cost of living crisis, but he has not.

That is why the Conservatives are blocking the Prime Minister's inflationary budget until he changes course. The Conservatives have asked for two things.

First, the Prime Minister must present a plan to end his inflationary deficits and spending. The Prime Minister has added more debt to our country than all other prime ministers combined. Let that sink in for a minute. It is staggering. Now Canadians are paying the price. Food price inflation is at a 40-year high, and 1.5 million Canadians are eating at food banks.

With higher inflation comes higher interest rates. Recent reports predict that the Bank of Canada will continue to raise interest rates on Canadians. Canadians cannot afford more interest rate hikes to keep up with the Prime Minister's inflation. The down payment needed to buy a house has doubled under the Prime Minister. Mortgage payments for a new house have doubled under the Prime Minister. The cost to rent in Canada has doubled under the Prime Minister.

According to the CMHC chief economist, Canadian households are more in debt than those in any other G7 country, and the amount they owe is now more than the value of the country's entire economy. Even Statistics Canada has proved that Canadian households are paying 72.25% more in interest payments since the Prime Minister took office. It is just staggering.

At what point does the Prime Minister look in the mirror to understand where the problem lies?

The second thing Conservatives are demanding is an end to the Prime Minister's carbon tax hikes. Canadians know that the Prime Minister's carbon tax is not an environmental plan; it is a tax plan. That is why the government's own budget watchdog proved that the Liberals' first carbon tax would cost Canadians $1,500 more than they would get back in rebates.

However, one carbon tax is not enough for the Prime Minister. That is why he introduced a second carbon tax that would drive up gas prices 61¢ a litre, further hiking the price of gas, heat and groceries.

The Canadians I talk to, especially those who live in rural Canada, cannot afford the Prime Minister's carbon tax. Rural Canadians have no other choice but to drive. There are no subway stations in rural Canada. They cannot rely on bikes for transportation. Rural Canadians rely on gas-powered vehicles to live their lives. The Prime Minister wants to change the behaviour of Canadians but, in doing so, he is making it impossible to live the rural way of life.

One of the most troubling aspects of the Prime Minister's spending is that he is spending billions of taxpayer dollars with little to show for it. Do members notice how the government always talks about how much it is spending instead of how much Canadians are getting in return?

Let us just look at the Liberal government's record when it comes to connecting Canadians with high-speed Internet. The Liberals have announced billions of dollars, paid for by taxpayers, in an attempt to connect Canadians. There are at least—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. member who will be able to come back to his speech after Private Members' Business. The member still has five minutes and 10 seconds to complete his speech.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, the cost of everything is going up. Why? It is because the Prime Minister is directly responsible for creating the cost of living crisis. The Prime Minister has created a cost of living crisis through his out-of-control spending and through his inflationary policies.

There is $67 billion in new spending. That is how much the Prime Minister is trying to ram through Parliament before he takes off for the summer. We would think there would be a plan to return to a balanced budget, but there is not one. We would think there would be a detailed plan on how the $67 billion in new spending would be used, but there is not one.

We just have to look at the Liberal government's record when it comes to connecting Canadians with high-speed Internet. The Liberals have announced billions and billions of dollars, paid for by taxpayers, in an attempt to connect Canadians. There are at least eight bureaucratic programs under the government's connectivity plan. There are eight bureaucratic programs chasing the same goal. What is there to show for it? Over one million Canadian households still do not have access to high-speed Internet.

Over 50% of first nation communities still do not have access to high-speed Internet, despite billions of dollars' worth in taxpayer-funded announcements over eight years. This is not a record to be proud of. It is a record of failure. I wish the government would realize that announcing money is not the same as getting things done.

It is the same pattern displayed by the government when it comes to the economy. We have a record amount of new debt added by the Prime Minister, and now we have $60 billion in new spending. What are the results? According to The Globe and Mail, Canada will have the weakest per capita growth among its member countries from 2020 to 2060. That is not an economic record to be proud of.

As members know, I represent a rural region. It is a region that is proudly home to thousands of farmers who work their land to feed the world. The longer the Prime Minister remains in power, the more difficult it becomes to farm in Canada. Not only is the Liberal government's costly carbon tax preventing Canadian farmers from feeding the world, but the Prime Minister's inflationary policies are too.

I recently read a report that stated the cost to purchase farm equipment rose 11.7% in 2021 alone. Farmers cannot afford to keep up with the ever-increasing cost of farming. The cost of everything is going up, but the value of one's hard-earned dollars is going down. The rising rate of interest is now preventing farmers from borrowing the money needed to do their job. I challenge anyone to find a farmer who believes the government is working for farmers.

I will remind Canadians that it was the Liberal government that voted against a Conservative bill to remove the carbon tax from grain drying and barn heating. Thankfully, the bill passed the House of Commons, and it is now waiting to be passed in the Senate. Any Liberal who thinks it is okay to punish farmers for producing food is failing to stand up for Canadian agriculture.

The Canadians I represent oppose the Liberal government's out-of-control spending. They oppose the billions in dollars in new spending without a plan. They oppose inflationary policies that drive up interest rates. They oppose the government's carbon tax hikes.

Canadians cannot afford the Prime Minister and his policies. Inflationary policies and constant tax hikes are not sustainable. That is why Conservatives are blocking the Prime Minister's inflationary budget. I will be voting against Bill C-47 and will continue to work with my Conservative colleagues to fight for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, for a long time, we have been listening to a very disingenuous argument from the Conservatives about the cause of inflation in Canada.

Big oil racked up $38.3 billion in profits straight from the after-tax money in the pockets of Canadians right across Canada. Big grocery has been racking up hundreds of billions of dollars in profits. Again, that is after-tax money coming out of the pockets of Canadians right across the country.

Why are the Conservatives not talking about them? They are doing far more damage to the affordability of things for people in Canada than the government or anybody else.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals' approach does puzzle me as well. They tax everything that moves.

For the first time in Canadian history, during COVID, the Liberal government charged our hospitals to heat themselves. It charged a carbon tax on hospitals, universities and schools. The Liberals actually charged them a carbon tax to heat their buildings, and they have no ability to get that money back. I do not know about that Liberal member. Never mind about the oil and gas industry. These institutions just wanted to heat their buildings, but the Liberals are taxing our publicly funded facilities.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives keep repeating themselves. It is always more or less the same speech. They talk about the carbon tax being tripled.

Since the beginning of the session, the Conservative opposition days, the budget, it is always the same thing. We have to get rid of this and eliminate that. They just sidestep the major issue of our time, which is the fight against climate change.

The earth is burning right now and that is not just a figure of speech. Quebec is literally on fire. This is certainly related to climate change.

I would like to know the plan. If we get rid of the carbon tax, what would be the Conservatives' plan? We know that in this country, there is a back and forth between the reds and the blues. Sooner or later, the blues are going to return to power.

What are they going to do to address the major challenge of our time, the fight against climate change?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, we have to address inflation. The problem with the carbon tax is that it impacts everything. We are a big country, and we move goods all over the place. Quebec is somewhat insulated from this because there is no backstop program, but there are six other provinces out there that are charged this directly and paying a disproportionate portion. Ontario is one of them, and in Manitoba, where I live, we are paying a carbon tax that the Quebec people are not. That is a bigger problem in itself. This is how the government is very much dividing our country instead of trying to pull it together.

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

Madam Speaker, in the budget implementation bill, there is something very near and dear to the hearts of NDP members and to all progressives in this country: access to dental care for the poorest, the disadvantaged and middle-class families.

For the first time, people who have previously been unable to afford it will have access to dental care.

I want to ask the member this: If he votes against Bill C-47, will he commit to refusing his dental care, which is paid for by his parliamentary insurance?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will go back to inflation.

The lower-income people the New Democrats say they are defending are impacted more than anybody else. They have fewer dollars to move around. Sure, with our MP wages, people look at us. We are going to stand up for the little guy. We should get the reality here.

These lower-income people do not have extra income, so to put another program on them and say we will save their teeth when they cannot even afford groceries, and are standing in food lines to feed themselves, is absolutely ridiculous. We have to focus on getting the cost of living under control.

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

Madam Speaker, today we are debating an omnibus bill. That, of course, is Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. This bill, which is sponsored by the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and the member for University—Rosedale, is at report stage.

First, this bill is problematic because of its size. We are talking about 430 pages, the amendment of 59 laws and the Income Tax Regulations, on top of that. Even though this government promised to never again introduce such mammoth bills, that is exactly what Bill C-47 is. That is regrettable because it becomes impossible, or at least very difficult, to discuss certain important measures in detail.

I find that they are trying to muddy the waters. In any case, true to form, the Liberal government is ignoring almost all the demands and suggestions of the Bloc Québécois. Like the 2023 budget, Bill C‑47 contains absolutely nothing for seniors, practically nothing for housing and no long-term solutions to the underfunding of health care. There is also nothing about EI reform.

To my detractors, however, I admit that this bill seems to contain some good elements. Let me name two. First, it clarifies the calculation of taxable capital gains on the intergenerational transfer of SMEs, particularly farm businesses, something we in the Bloc fought hard to get. Second, it creates an employment insurance board of appeal. I will stop at just the two positive aspects of the budget.

I just said that this bill muddies the waters. I would like to reiterate that Bill C-47 is indeed clear as mud. Hidden in the piles of measures—the bill is roughly 400 pages long, after all—in division 31 of part 4, on page 325, the government introduces 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.

Yes, that is what it says. This monarchist measure has absolutely no place in a budget implementation act. At the very least, it should be the subject of a separate, full-fledged legislative initiative. We would be delighted to debate it. The Liberal government has tried to pull a fast one on us. It is taking people for fools. I am not mincing words—that is how much this shocks me.

The Liberals have told us that this merely confirms a fact, that Charles III is Canada's new sovereign. I am going to tell the Chair a little something: The Bloc Québécois does not want this new king. What is more, the majority of Quebeckers and Canadians do not want him. An Angus Reid poll conducted last April, as members will recall, showed that 71% of Quebeckers want the monarchy to disappear and 51% of Canadians feel the same.

The poll shows that there is not a single province in Canada where the percentage of people who support constitutional monarchy exceeds the percentage of those who oppose it. It seems to me that these figures speak for themselves. It also shows that 92% of those opposed to the monarchy would like to see an attempt to change the Constitution in order to sever ties with the monarchy. That is a big deal. Charles III is being disowned by the majority of the people over whom he rules while we, as elected parliamentarians, must agree to a bill that recognizes his authority.

No, I am opposed. All Bloc Québécois members are opposed because we do not want to see Charles III on our coins. We do not want to swear an oath to him. I do not want this hidden in a budget implementation bill.

Furthermore, it is expensive for us to remain British subjects. It costs a little more than $67 million per year on average for honours and awards, ceremonial events and travel. In March 2022, in support of the magnificent sand castle that upholds the monarchy, the Governor General handed taxpayers a $100,000 catering bill for herself and 29 invited guests during an eight-day tour of the Middle East while our streets are filling up with homeless people. Between 2019 and 2022, the Governor General's salary increased by $40,000, or 13%. That is more than the 12% over four years obtained with great difficulty by 120,000 federal public servants a few weeks ago.

Not that long ago, we were dismayed to learn that governor generals Julie Payette and Mary Simon purchased more than $100,000 of clothing since 2017 at the expense of Quebeckers and Canadians. That is sad because it happened and continues to happen. The money keeps flying out the door. We want nothing to do with this system.

I stress this because the Liberal government had the gall to introduce this notion within the budget. In Canada, we do not have many institutions that are as expensive and at the same time as useless. For a government that wanted to make Canada a so-called postnational state, we might find this attachment to the monarchy rather unusual. It is one of the most archaic and moribund institutions in existence. It is utterly absurd. The monarchy does not improve Canada's image, it covers it in dust. Faced with the government's stubbornness in maintaining this absurdity, there remains only one option for the people of Quebec, a well-deserved option, which is sovereignty.

Among those who best grasp the importance and historical weight of Quebec sovereignty, there was Frédéric Bastien. This historian, professor and columnist left us far too soon at the age of 53, on May 16. Not 48 hours ago, I attended Frédéric's funeral with my leader and some of my colleagues. I was very moved to see thousands of people gather to celebrate the life and work of this great separatist. Also, every sovereignist mind from the cultural, political and journalism worlds was there. Everyone of importance in this magnificent nation was there to pay tribute to Frédéric Bastien. In a way, Frédéric Bastien spent his life fighting against the British monarchy and for Quebec's sovereignty. It is a great loss for the people of Quebec.

In short, Bill C‑47 has a few good things, but that is all. This monarchist measure that has nothing to do with the budget is hidden in there. Semiology expert Roland Barthes called this type of details that spoil everything “a tear in the smooth envelope of the image”. The image of Bill C‑47 has been badly tarnished by the fact that the requests of the Bloc Québécois have been completely ignored and that the needs of Quebeckers have been completely ignored.

People can guess how the Bloc Québécois will be voting in good conscience.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

I gathered that there was not much in the budget that interested him. I would like to hear his opinion. Would he have liked to see more about access to the Internet and improvements to the cellular network in all of Quebec's regions and across Canada? It is 2023 and we are still asking questions. How is it that we are unable to have adequate services? I would like my colleague to comment on that.

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

Madam Speaker, it is funny that he said that.

Earlier, my colleague from Mirabel gave a wonderful speech. He told us that he wanted the king to appear before a committee, but that the king did not have Internet service or did not know how to use it. That was really great.

Yes, that is something that should have been in the budget. There are too many other things that are missing. Earlier, I referred quickly to seniors, and then there is housing and EI. There is the underfunding of health care. This budget did not really target the real concerns.

It is a mammoth bill, but the content is not reflective of the container.

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

I would remind hon. members to respect Canada's constitutional arrangement.

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

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

Madam Speaker, this budget is far from perfect. There are big gaps we are very worried about, but there are still major gains for ordinary people.

It will come as no surprise to my colleague that this budget expands dental benefits for children aged 12 to 18 and for people 65 and up, as well as for everyone earning less than $70,000 a year or whose household income is less than $90,000 a year. This is the NDP's plan to make sure people can go see a dentist, a service they may never have been able to afford in their lives. Hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers will have access to this type of health care.

This is not interference; it is reimbursing expenses. Nobody is telling Quebec how to run its hospitals. Nobody is opening federal dental clinics; this is just about reimbursing expenses. It will help people in a tangible way.

What does my colleague think about the fact that people in his riding, seniors in his riding, will be able to go see a dentist?

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

Madam Speaker, that is obviously a win.

However, at what price will the NDP have gained this victory?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member touched on many subjects and topics in his intervention. He talked about Quebec separating. In his opinion, what is stopping Quebec from separating?

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

Madam Speaker, may I remind the member that we came very close to achieving sovereignty in 1995?

It is a movement that has its ups and downs. Just like here, in Parliament, we know we will go from blue to red and from red to blue. These are perfectly normal societal trends.

What I can say is that, right now, as we know, sovereignist sentiment is on the rise. It is currently at 38% among Quebeckers, whereas a few months ago it was around 20%. These sorts of movements organize very rapidly.

Members might be surprised at the alliance that exists, not between the Liberal Party and the NDP, but between the Parti Québécois and the Bloc Québécois. I think there is a strong synergy there to watch out for.

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

Madam Speaker, people often call my riding office to ask about services for seniors and children of low-income families.

Right now, my riding is particularly well off. Since dental care is a service for low-income people, what does my colleague have to say to voters in my riding and his riding who need help and who want this budget to be passed?

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

Madam Speaker, off the top of my head, there is not much in the budget about that.

Perhaps I missed part of my colleague's question. There is not much there when it comes to funding or content. Yes, obviously, there are some good measures.

However, in 2023, we would have hoped that this budget would contain more social democratic measures and something tangible to back them up. We are not seeing that.

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

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to speak tonight to this budget. I do not want to go the usual route, because we have heard a lot tonight about the dynamics around the government saying that we do not care about the people and we do not care about all of the things it has within the budget that it wants to provide Canadians. I think what is missing here is the difference in our perspectives and how polarized they are. Our view is that we want to empower Canadians in every way possible, whereas the government empowers big government. That is a huge difference in the way we process policy and perspectives on how to manage government and serve Canadians.

As a matter of fact, we believe in a balance between fiscal responsibility; compassionate social policy that empowers the less fortunate by promoting self-reliance and equality of opportunity; and the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and free associations. We believe in a federal system of government as the best expression of the diversity of our country and believe in the desirability of strong provincial and territorial governments. It is not a case of a strong federal government saying it will do what it wants at the provincial level.

We believe that the best guarantors of the prosperity and well-being of the people of Canada are as follows.

One is the freedom of individual Canadians to pursue their enlightenment and legitimate self-interests within a free, competitive economy. Our economy is being very much controlled and managed by our government right now.

Another is the freedom of individual Canadians to enjoy the fruits of their labour to the greatest possible extent. The federal government should be doing only what it must do to empower and encourage Canadians to succeed and, of course, to take care of those who need assistance, a hand-up or help in that process.

We believe in the right to own property. There is a sense that Canadians do not need to have these responsibilities anymore, and that is very contrary to what our perspective is.

We believe that a responsible government must be fiscally prudent. We are not seeing that here. This should be limited to responsibilities that cannot be discharged reasonably by the individual or others. I believe that it is the responsibility of individuals to provide for themselves, their families and their dependants, while recognizing, of course, that the government must respond to those who require assistance and compassion.

We believe that the purpose of Canada as a nation-state and its government, guided by reflective and prudent leadership, is to create a climate where individual initiative is rewarded, excellence is pursued, security and privacy of the individual are provided and prosperity is guaranteed by a free, competitive market economy. Right now, our public service has ballooned exponentially, again under a Liberal government, and I would be really curious to see what portion of the debt-to-GDP ratio the public service represents.

I believe that Canada should continue its strong heritage of national defence, supporting a well-armed military, honouring those who serve and promoting our history and traditions. We believe that the quality of the environment is a vital part of our heritage, to be protected by each generation for the next. These are the truths, the realities, of where the values of this party are, in spite of the rhetoric that comes from the other side of the floor.

We believe that a good and responsible government is attentive to the people it represents and consists of members who at all times conduct themselves in an ethical manner and display integrity, honesty and concern for the best interests of all. I think the government has had a significant issue with meeting that expectation.

We believe that the greatest potential for achieving social and economic objectives is under a global trading regime that is free and fair.

That is not all of them, but that gives members a sense of where our priorities are. They are not in growing government. This is not about saying that government knows best, as our leader has talked about. It is about giving those on assistance the opportunity to earn a living and earn money and not have it taken away before they have reached a point where they are truly self-sufficient. Those are the kinds of values we function on.

When we look at this budget and where we are today under the Liberal government's financial leadership, we simply cannot support this budget. The record continues of higher taxes and inflationary deficits.

Conservatives only asked for three things. As a matter of fact, we are demanding three things that we believe are crucial to giving the economy and the values of this country back to the people who work. Budget 2023 should end the war on work and lower taxes for workers, not raise them; end inflationary deficits, which at this point in time are incredibly out of control and are driving up the cost of everything; and remove gatekeepers to increase the building of homes for Canadians.

These are the three things that are important to us with these values. I believe that Canada and Canadians are in the dire straits they are in right now because of the Liberal government not functioning within what I see as the true values that a government should have in caring for its people.

We believe that we need to bring home powerful paycheques for Canadians with lower taxes, and we need to scrap the carbon tax, as we have said over and over again, so that hard work pays off again. Right now, in Canada, we know and we hear it constantly, the cost of food is out of control, people are skipping meals and food banks are busier than ever. The government's idea of dealing with that huge issue, which is here because of its high inflation and its inability to control spending so that we do not find ourselves in the circumstances we are in now, is to give a grocery rebate.

The Liberals talk about this as though we are against that. What we are against is ending up in this place in the first place. The unfortunate thing about that rebate is that it is less than half of what Canadian families of four would spend in addition to what they normally spend on groceries. In other words, this grocery rebate does not do anything to help them with their month-to-month costs. It is simply taking away a little less than half of what they are going to spend in larger amounts of money on their groceries because of the high inflation that Canada is experiencing.

That is not enough, but that is where we find ourselves because the Liberal government has allowed our economy to slip so significantly.

A worker making above $66,600 would be forced to pay an extra $255 to the Canada pension plan and an extra $50 to employment insurance. That is a $305 increase. It does not sound like much, but when people are not making their bills every month, it is huge.

We need to bring home lower prices by ending inflationary debt and deficits that drive up inflation and interest rates. Canada's federal debt for 2023-24 fiscal year is projected to reach $1.22 trillion. I do not think any Canadian could really fathom that, but when we break it down, that is a debt of $81,000 per household in Canada. Canadians understand that. It is huge, and adding to that the cost of servicing this enormous debt, which continues to grow. In 2023-24, it is projected to be $43.9 billion just to service that debt.

What could we be doing with that money if we had not spent the cupboard bare, then borrowed to the nth degree and then printed money on top of that? It is totally irresponsible behaviour on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada. The debt load is huge. The cost of servicing that debt is out of control.

Finally, we need homes that people can afford to live in. Under the Liberals, down payments have doubled, rents are doubled, mortgages are doubled, and the whole situation is out of control. I would just end by saying that none of our demands have been met and the Conservatives will not support an anti-worker, tax-hiking, inflationary budget.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member says, “scrap the carbon tax”, but she also talked about the importance of the free market.

It seems to me there are numerous groups that believe in the free market and support the carbon tax and carbon pricing. For example, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Mining Association of Canada, the Business Council of Canada and the Fraser Institute, which is hardly a Liberal institution.

What would the member say in response to the Chamber of Commerce, which said that carbon pricing is generally the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to lower costs? Does the member not believe in climate change?

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

Madam Speaker, once again, that is ridiculous rhetoric. Do not tell me I do not believe in climate change. Of course I do. I come from Saskatchewan, where we understand exactly what that is and we have been managing it very effectively. We do not need a “green the prairies” bill, with all respect to the individual who brought it forward who is no longer with us, because we continue to improve in how we care for our environment. Do members know why? It is because it is very important to us and not only for agriculture and for mining and all of those different things that bring GDP to our country, but because we care about our kids.

Please, on that side of the floor, stop it. Canadians know that is not the truth. They see how we manage our environment and they will be thrilled when we form government.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe the member is sincere when she talks about environmental values and protecting the environment. However, I still see a contradiction. I would not wish to praise the current government's policies on climate change, far from it, because they fall short. Protecting the environment means investing substantially to counter the effects of climate change. I believe this value is completely contrary to what her party is advocating, which is to continue to contribute to the growth of the oil and gas sector.

Could the member explain how it is possible to protect the environment while at the same time continuing to build on an energy source that is no longer—

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

I have to give the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville the chance to answer the question.

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

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

Madam Speaker, I truly appreciate that question. The truth of the matter is that valuing what we need to do for the climate is not something that Canada can take a responsibility for just for Canada. When I hear about the fires that we are experiencing and the floods and the hurricanes, these are all truly taking place, but Canada is not an island unto itself in its own environment. We are part of a global ecosystem. Therefore, the reason I support Canadian oil and gas is because I do not support Venezuelan oil and gas. I do not support these companies that are in countries that do nothing to improve the climate and also do not do what should be done with their products. We have the best products that are needed until they are no longer needed. Right now—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not often agree with my colleague. However, she raises an important point, which is the budget's inadequacies when it comes to housing.

The NDP sees that there is a housing crisis. We want social and affordable housing. We want co-operative housing.

The budget is far from perfect, and we would have done things differently. However, there is something in there that the NDP is very proud of, and that is the fact that we forced the Liberals to provide accessible dental care for the most disadvantaged and the middle class. This year, the program is going to be expanded to cover teenagers and people 65 and over who may never have been able to access dental care.

If the member votes against Bill C-47, is she prepared to abandon the idea of dental care that is paid for by Canadian taxpayers with insurance from Parliament?

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

Madam Speaker, I think I have made it clear what I am voting against. It is a government that is irresponsible and out of control and has put Canadians in this very dire situation. I am all about bringing supports for those who truly need them and for those who need a hand up to get out of a bad situation. I personally, during the Pierre Elliott Trudeau government, experienced 22% interest rates and the loss of my business, so I know what it is like to have nothing and have to come back. That is something that our government should be doing to help people.

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

Madam Speaker, I always like to start off my speeches by talking about the preceding speech. I noticed the exchange between the member for Yorkton—Melville and the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, when she said that Conservatives absolutely believe in climate change.

I do not necessarily disagree with that, but what I want to know is whether or not Conservatives believe that humans cause climate change. Less than a week ago, her seatmate, the member for Red Deer—Mountain View, said that there was nothing to see here because the rocks he picks out of his garden were caused by climate change, and the rivers we have in our country are just an effect of climate change. Literally, her seatmate, less than a week ago in this House of Commons, talked about climate change as though it is just a natural cycle of the planet and as there is nothing to see here there is nothing to worry about.

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

Come on, get on with your points.

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

Therefore, I take exception when a Conservative tries to suggest they believe in climate change. That is fair. However, do they believe that humans cause climate change? That is what I would love to know.

I also found it very—

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

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. This is not a dialogue between members. I am sorry. It is the hon. member's turn for his speech. He did not interrupt the hon. member when it was her turn for her speech, so I would like to allow the same courtesy to the parliamentary secretary.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, I also found it very interesting that the member for Yorkton—Melville, in the exact same speech, said that a $467 grocery rebate was pretty much insignificant and that nobody would care about it because it really did not mean anything, but that later on in the same speech she said that a $330 CPP increase would mean something significant to people. In the same speech, she tried to downplay the grocery rebate because it was not going to be impactful, but apparently a CPP contribution amount increase that is lower than that will have a devastating impact on Canadians. We can see the hypocrisy coming from the other side. That was not just from day to day, but within the exact speeches they gave in a 10-minute period.

I am really glad she talked about forest fires and what we are seeing outside. If someone walks outside the doors of this place, they are going to smell the smoke, as we all have for the last day or so. These are the impacts of climate change. I am not trying to fearmonger. I am not trying to suggest that the entire city is going to be burnt to the ground in a couple of days, but we have to be realistic about this. The reality is that forest fires in this country have been increasing significantly since the 1980s. Despite the incredible work we have done with respect to prevention and suppression, they still tend to increase. Why is that? Someone may say it cannot just be climate change. They might ask how climate change does that.

The fire season, the season in which we see forest fires, now starts a week earlier and ends a week later than it did historically. We have drier conditions, which allow fires to start in the first place, to burn quicker and to be more impactful. We also know that half of the forest fires started in Canada are caused by lightening. Where does lightening come from? It comes from increased weather events, and we are seeing increased weather events. It is no mystery to anybody that the weather events happening throughout this country are much more dire than they used to be. Conservatives are heckling at that. I do not understand why they would, as it is a serious issue. These are Canadians' lives we are talking about

We have to make a meaningful impact. We have to realize we cannot do what the member for Yorkton—Melville said, which is that we are just one little country within a globe and this is a global ecosystem, so there is nothing we can really do and we should just throw up our hands. No, we work together with other countries on this planet, like Brian Mulroney did when he saved the world from the depletion of the ozone later. Brian Mulroney brought together 42 representatives from different countries throughout the world, in Montreal, to sign the Montreal Protocol on dealing with the depletion of the ozone layer. That is how we get things done.

Yes, members should clap for Brian Mulroney, a great progressive Conservative.

The problem is that the Conservatives of today do not look at it like that. They say we are just one little country in the world, and our emissions, comparatively speaking, are so low that we should not even worry about them. That is a very defeatist approach, and if that is the approach one wants to take, I guess it is their prerogative. I much prefer the approach of Brian Mulroney, a true progressive Conservative, who knew how to tackle world issues on the national stage and how to tackle world issues. He comes from a country that is so vast in size and limited in population compared to other countries in the world, but he knew what to do. We had a reputation of being able to do that. I find this defeatist attitude of “there is nothing we can do about it and we should just go on living our lives”, while there is literally smoke outside the doors of this building right now, so alarming.

I am very happy to see that, in this budget, we are continuing to support initiatives to get us away from burning fossil fuels. This is a transition we have to make, and it is a transition that is going to happen whether the Conservatives, or the House for that matter, are interested in being part of it or not. We are transitioning away from fossil fuels; it is happening.

One in 10 cars sold in 2022 in Canada was an electric vehicle. Do I have to explain to Conservatives how, when a new technology comes along, it takes off and the curve is exponential? By 2030, I predict, there will be very few cars sold in this country that are not zero-emission vehicles. That is the reality. This budget would provide for ensuring that we incentivize the production of EVs, the production of the batteries and the proper recycling of those batteries, because that is key as well. We want to be at the forefront of the new industries that are coming.

We can have the approach of just pretending it is not happening, and we can just keep burning fossil fuels, turn our backs on it and pretend that the world is not changing around us, like the Conservatives want, or we can be at the lead of it. We can be at the forefront of it. We can be bringing the talent and developing the talent right in our country to produce these products, patents and new ideas and concepts so Canada can be an exporter of that technology and not an importer of it. This is what we are poised to do right now with the countless number of EV manufacturers and EV battery plants that have expressed an interest and have decided to set up in Canada. In my opinion, we are genuinely at the forefront, and that is what is so absolutely key in this budget. This is why, every time I have spoken to the budget, I have spoken specifically to that.

Now, of course, what we are going to hear are multiple arguments about why electric vehicles are not sustainable or how our electricity grid will never be able to handle it. However, I have great confidence in Canadians' ability to innovate, to create and to develop new technologies that will help us deal with the challenges we face on any particular day. I have no doubt we will get through it, but we have to stay focused on the goal, and the goal is to transition to cleaner energy and away from fossil fuels.

I realize that the Conservatives will say that we have some of the cleanest standards and some of the cleanest fossil fuels, which I do not necessarily disagree with. However, I do not think it is fair, from the position of a first world country and G7 partner, one of the leaders in the OECD, to point fingers at other countries, developing countries in particular, and say “Well, look at what they are doing.” We have a responsibility in this world to be leaders, and Conservatives of the past knew that. As I mentioned, Brian Mulroney did that. He knew that about the ozone layer and when it came dealing with acid rain, and he took action. He did not care where the problem originated. He did not care who was ultimately responsible for the problem, but he believed in finding solutions everybody could agree on, and he believed that Canada could be part of the leadership on that.

Rather than Conservatives sitting on their hands and saying, “Oh well, there is nothing we can do. We are emitting only 7% of the emissions, blah, blah, blah”, why do they not start coming into the House with ideas on how we can encourage other nations to follow in our path and encourage them that the way Canada is doing it is right? That is Canada's role in this world, and it has been its role in the past. Conservative governments in the past have known that. It is just unfortunate that the reform party of today, which wears the colour blue, does not know that.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry that you had to reprimand me before for interjecting into the member's speech, but he is always so engaging, and I was overcome with a desire to respond. The parliamentary secretary, if nothing else, is always very entertaining.

The Liberals and the NDP would like to give Canadians the impression that the carbon tax they are paying is what they can see on their fuel bills, either at the gas pump or on their energy bills at home. However, that does not completely address the increased cost and the inflation that Canadians are actually experiencing as a result of the carbon tax, because the carbon tax is being applied to every single process of getting something to the consumer, whether it is the manufacturing, the harvesting or the moving of goods to the market. Everything is incurring the carbon tax, and that increases the price of goods and services, which is making it very difficult for Canadians to live, because that inflation is overwhelming.

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

Madam Speaker, I am willing to accept and agree that there are inflationary impacts on various policies that come forward. I am not disagreeing with that. It is the impact and the degree to which it does this that we have to consider. We should reflect on the fact that I am at least willing to have that discussion and to accept the fact that it is a possibility. Conservatives will not even accept the possibility that inflation is not limited to Canada; they think it is something uniquely Canadian. They think we can have a trading country like Canada, with one of the most trading relationships and partners in the world, and still not be impacted by inflation in other countries.

Yes, we are experiencing inflation. It is tough on Canadians, but we are also helping them with it through this budget.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his fiery speech, as usual. Quebec made a choice to have an emissions trading system. That is its own system, which is why the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec.

My colleague spoke eloquently of the Montreal Protocol on CFCs. Obviously, we eliminated the threats to the ozone layer. The whole reason this came about was that an emissions trading system was implemented, increasing the price of these polluting products.

The higher price was an incentive, as the Conservatives like to think, to develop new technologies, which is why, today, the problem has largely been resolved.

If the western provinces, which do not like the carbon tax, had implemented this strategy that was used by the Mulroney government, they would not be getting the carbon tax in their provinces. Is it not somewhat their own fault that they are getting a carbon tax?

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

Madam Speaker, the member is right. I am sure he has heard me speak about this many times before, but he is right, Quebec does not have a price on pollution, which many other provinces in the country do, exactly because of that cap-and-trade deal. Ontario was a partner in that cap-and-trade deal until Doug Ford was elected as premier and got out of it. That is the reality of the situation.

We can look at how, in those five or six short years, Quebec has advanced in terms of electrifying its grid, setting up EV charging stations and taking the electrification transition seriously, and compare it to Ontario. Ontario is lagging behind, yet only five or six years ago, both provinces had joined the western initiative with a number of states in the U.S. at the same time: California, Montana and a number of other states. Right now, Ontario, to its detriment, is not doing it.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for drawing that direct line between the smoke that is choking the capital, the fires across the country and climate change. Where I live, on the west shore of Vancouver Island, last week, firefighters stopped 10 potential brush fires from taking over our communities, and I want to shout out thanks to all those firefighters, both professional and volunteer.

We seem to have missed an opportunity in this budget implementation act to increase the tax credit for volunteer firefighters, and I wonder whether the member would commit to making sure we consider that for the next round of budget talks.

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

Madam Speaker, one thing I know is that firefighters have a much higher approval rating than politicians, so I would always be very careful about what I say as it relates to firefighters. The reality of the situation is that if there is a missed opportunity, if it is something we did not talk about or is something we did and it needs to be resurfaced, I am certainly always interested in having those discussions. What we do know, and we can see it from the historical trends, is that the number of fires is increasing, and it has been over the last number of decades, as I indicated in my speech. We are going to need to make sure we have the resources and supports there for firefighters, moving forward, if we are going to expect them to do these jobs.

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

Madam Speaker, nostalgia is a strange thing. Sometimes it is quite surprising and remarkable what kinds of longings it can spark. When we start to skim through the contents of the 2023 budget, it is almost enough to make one nostalgic for the days, not so long ago, when the Liberal government failed to table a budget for over two years.

I say that mostly in jest, of course, but the point I am making is that, while this budget is being tabled by a Liberal government, it is certainly not a classically Liberal budget. For that, we have to think back to the 1990s when fiscal policy was something that the then Liberal prime minister at least spent a bit of time thinking about. This was when the then prime minister's finance minister at least viewed deficits as an obstacle along the road to prosperity and not a destination in and of itself.

The incarnation of the Liberal government under the Prime Minister and the finance minister would certainly be unrecognizable to Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. Members across the way who remember when their leaders held at least some concern for fiscal responsibility ought to reflect on just how far off path their party has wandered. Maybe if they did that, they would feel a little nostalgic themselves.

With contents such as bigger government, higher taxes and more debt, this document reads less like a budget and more like a 270-page love letter from the Prime Minister to the spendthrifts who have overtaken the Liberal Party, and to those already well-established among its partners in the New Democratic Party. At a time of massive debt, this budget proposes $67 billion in new spending, and all of this is being thrown on the heap of huge debt and deficits that has already been racked up by the Prime Minister over the last eight years, which amounts to more than all of the debt accrued by all previous prime ministers combined.

This 2023 federal budget would add significantly to the high debt, deep-deficit turbulence that is shaking our economy. A cost of living crisis is ongoing, and inflation is eroding Canadians' paycheques at the same time it is increasing their bills. Therefore, naturally, the Liberal government somehow sees this as the ideal time to add to their burdens by increasing their taxes and the debt they owe. With this budget, every Canadian household's share of the federal debt is now in the range of about $81,000.

This debt is unaffordable, as $43 billion would be syphoned off, away from services for Canadians, to service the interest on that debt. That money would have to be replaced through that much more borrowing. It is unsustainable. Canadians not even born yet, and even their kids, their grandkids and their great-great-grandkids, will be on the hook to pay back the bankers for the Liberals' eight-year spending spree. Hopefully, that is where it stops.

It is unfocused because, if the purpose of a federal budget is to present a path forward to future prosperity for Canadians, this document clearly misses the mark. It sacrifices the dinner table concerns of everyday Canadians on the altar of the costly coalition's big government ideology. The real problems facing this country get eclipsed in deference to the partisan priorities of the Liberal-NDP partners.

This budget has the dubious distinction of being notable not for its contents, but for what it does not contain. Canadians seeking relief from the inflation crisis will not find here a reversal of the inflationary deficits and taxes that would allow workers to bring home more of their own earnings. Lowering taxes and leaving more of their money in Canadians' pockets is the single most effective way the government could have helped citizens in a cost of living crisis. The Liberals do not want to do that because that would mean more cash for Canadians to decide how best to spend it on their own priorities and less for the government to hand out on what it perceives that to be.

Instead of empowering Canadians through more powerful paycheques, the budget proposes yet more new programs for them to fund through Canadians' paying more taxes. This increases taxpayers' obligations too, and therefore their reliance upon, bigger government, and that is exactly the way the Liberals want it.

The Liberals fancy themselves as gatekeepers. This paternalistic government does not trust Canadians to best deploy their own dollars, so it sets itself up instead as the arbiter of how Canadians' money can best be used. This is a spoiler alert, but in their minds, that best use is not for the priorities of Canadians. Rather, it is to fund the Liberal-NDP agenda.

Canadians will also not find in this budget a blueprint for a freer, more responsive economy, one that removes the government gatekeepers who use restrictions and red tape to complicate problems rather than streamlining processes to provide solutions.

We need more housing in this country, but we have too many gatekeepers running interference. Canadians are looking for a smart, responsive policy that enables the free market to work as it should, respond to demand and provide the affordable housing stock a growing population needs.

Canadians will not find measures along that line in this budget. Rather than creating solutions to the problems that exist, the Liberals create new problems that impact housing, such as the way they have implemented their underused housing tax, for example. Taxing Canadians under the guise of going after foreign speculators, costing Canadians massive amount of accounting and administrative fees and making them fill out all kinds of forms to force them to justify the use of their own properties will not do anything to address the housing crisis that has vastly worsened under the Liberals. These are the kinds of things the government does instead of getting serious about addressing the real problems facing Canadians.

Not only that, but young Canadians looking to save up for their first home would find that task just a bit easier if the budget had simply ended the carbon tax hikes and the deficit spending that continue to drive up inflation and interest rates, and make life more unaffordable. Instead of listening to Canadians, Liberals are continuing with their war on work and increasing taxes, which means workers are punished for working, and taking home even less of their pay.

What they do take home, the Liberal fiscal policy driving the affordability crisis is steadily eroding. Items as essential as food are becoming increasingly harder for Canadians to afford. Good nutritious options are becoming luxury items for far too many pantries as household budgets are stretched to the breaking point. In my riding, for example, food banks in Airdrie, Cochrane, Morley and Bow Valley are struggling with at least a 50% increase in demand over the previous year, yet the government continues to find ways to fuel that inflation with further spending, and more families in communities in my home province of Alberta are struggling, just as families right across the country are.

For example, an oil and gas worker in Alberta, with a family of four to feed, is forecast to spend up to over $1,000 more on food this year, according to “Canada's Food Price Report 2023”, and that is almost $600 more than the rebate they will receive. That money has to come off of an already smaller paycheque that worker is trying to make do with, so it is that same trend. The government insists on taking more of the hard-earned dollars from Canadians for its big government agenda, while leaving Canadians with less to fend for themselves.

The government is not also forcing Canadians to make do with smaller paycheques, but also penalizing their community to earn them. The carbon tax increased to 14¢ per litre on April 1, making it more expensive for Canadians to get to work. The Parliamentary Budget Officer shows the carbon tax will cost the average family somewhere between $402 and $847. That is even after the supposed rebates. That blows a huge hole in the Liberals' claim that their scheme is revenue neutral. By 2030, the government's carbon taxes could add 50¢ per litre to the price of gasoline. That is all in addition to the new payroll taxes the government is putting on workers and employers as well.

These tax-and-spend policies, and others like them, have a human cost, with everyday impacts on people struggling just to get by, and giving back some of the crumbs of the feast the government takes for itself is not going to fix those impacts. Acting on the financial mess they are causing will be the solution, but it is clear that nothing is going to change with the Liberal government.

Canada's federal debt for 2023-24 is projected to reach $1.22 trillion. The 2023-24 deficit is projected to be $40.1 billion. Eight years of the same old has become this tired group's stock and trade. There is no path to balance in Canada's future budget projections. It is just another Liberal promise broken. No matter what the challenges are that are facing the nation, the Liberals always default to their instincts for bigger government, higher taxes, more restrictions and fewer freedoms, to the detriment of hard-working Canadians. Their record proves it.

We need a Conservative government in this country that will prioritize the needs of people instead of its own friends, like the Liberal Party has done. It is time for change, and it cannot come soon enough for Canadians.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member was speaking about nostalgia, I was thinking nostalgically of when I used to think the Conservative Party of Canada knew something about the economy and was a business champion. What I heard in the speech were things about tax increases. I was looking for a chapter on tax increases and, unfortunately, I could not find it, but I did find a chapter on growing a clean economy and looking at what we are going to do to capture the $100-trillion investments between now and 2050 in clean technologies and the global clean economy.

I saw, “Clear and predictable investment tax credits to provide foundational support for clean technology manufacturing, clean hydrogen, zero-emission technologies, and carbon capture and storage”, all things that will get Canada into a better economic position by participating in the clean economy of the future, including not only predictable increases in our carbon pricing but also increases in money going back to Canadians.

Could the hon. member talk about the opportunities we have in the clean economy and how this budget addresses that?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would comment that only a Liberal would stand to say that increasing a tax, the carbon tax, is somehow going to be better for the economy. Only a Liberal would say that this is the way to a better economy, to tax people a bit more. That will solve all the problems that people face. That is the first thing that just astounds me, no matter how many times I hear it from that Liberal Party.

Secondly, to his question, certainly, there are a lot of opportunities. I want to point out very clearly that there is a need for oil and gas in this world for many years to come yet, and we need to make sure that Canadian oil and gas is being used rather than that from some foreign dictatorship.

There is obviously opportunity, as he has pointed out, in some of these new emerging sectors and technologies. The problem is that Liberals talk about putting money into things, but they also set themselves up as the gatekeepers. They make it so impossible for anyone to actually invest and do anything within any of these opportunities that Canada falls behind, as it has done with the opportunities we had in natural gas.

We could have been providing the needs of clean energy in Europe right now, to displace the Russian energy, but no. This government has set up all the roadblocks it could possibly put in the way, and that is what it will do again with everything else.

It continually makes itself the gatekeeper and makes it impossible to anyone to move ahead with these things.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with some aspects of my colleague's speech but disagree with others. That is the beauty of being human. We can agree and disagree while respecting each other.

That said, I would like to know the member's opinion on a surprise tucked away in the deepest recesses of the bill, in clause 510, on page 325, concerning the proclamation of Charles III as Canada's head of state.

If it is in the budget, does the member think that means that huge amounts of money will be spent on it? If there are no exorbitant amounts involved, why is it in the budget, in his opinion? Would it have been better to introduce this proclamation in a separate bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague is talking about is not a priority for Quebeckers or Canadians. I think that their priority is the economy and the need for life to become more affordable.

I just really believe that Quebeckers and Canadians want to see politicians here in Parliament focused on how to make their lives more affordable and how to ensure that we grow better economies, so people have greater opportunities in the future to get into housing for the first time, as a first-time homebuyer, for example.

That is what people are looking for here. I may agree with her somewhat that a budget is probably not the right place for something like that. I also do not think it is the biggest priority facing Quebeckers and Canadians to be worried about that. We should be focused on the economy and making sure that we are making life more affordable for Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I have not had to give this reminder in a while. Members should make sure to keep their questions and answers as concise as possible so that everybody can participate in the debate we are having.

Continuing debate, the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member who just inquired about the inclusion of the Royal Style and Titles Act in the bill will find my speech, which is on that very subject, to be helpful.

I thought I would start my remarks today by explaining, for the benefit of anyone who does not already know this, what an omnibus bill is and where such bills got their name. In the 19th century, the ancestors of today's diesel and electric municipal buses were horse-drawn coaches, typically with benches along both sides of the interior and sometimes with an exterior staircase to a further set of seats on the roof. They were typically crowded, uncomfortable and hot, and people with nothing in common were forced to sit or stand side by side and sometimes on each other's laps.

As a result of the endless comedic possibilities afforded by the numerous random and uncomfortably close encounters across otherwise impenetrable barriers of age, gender and social class that were created every day in the crowded interiors of rush-hour omnibuses, and even more on the overstuffed rooftop seats, omnibuses became a favourite subject for contemporary painters and cartoonists. Anyone who does a Google search for “omnibus” and “painting” will see what I mean.

It should come as no surprise, then, that when Victorians were searching for a word to describe enormous pieces of legislation that crammed many unrelated subjects into a single bill, the jostling and smelly omnibuses of their cities came to their minds. Today, more than a century has passed since the term “omnibus” has been replaced, at least when referring to means of transport, with the contraction “bus”, but the word “omnibus” survives, robust as ever, as a term for describing vast, multiheaded bills.

To say that Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, is an omnibus bill is to make an understatement. The bill is 681 clauses long, and if printed it runs to hundreds of pages. It is a bill that would make Marcel Proust green with envy. It is to legislation what Wagner's Ring cycle is to opera and what Gormenghast castle is to domestic architecture. It is what the SS Great Eastern was to shipping when it was launched in 1858: six times larger than any other vessel then afloat, and propelled forward by a bizarre combination of propeller, sails and two colossal paddle wheels.

Lost in the middle of this vast, ramshackle legislative edifice is clause 510, which would enact the royal style and titles act, 2023. It reads as follows:

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.

This provision really ought to have been enacted on its own as a stand-alone bill, as it involves no expenditure of public funds and therefore truly has no relationship whatsoever to the budget. If it had been enacted in such a manner, the debates in this place would have provided a record of the government's rationale for the royal style and titles act, 2023. The responses of the various opposition parties would have provided some useful feedback as to how the rest of us feel. However, since that is not to be, I thought I would make a few comments outlining my own observations on this matter.

The first thing to note is His Majesty's current title, which would be changed by this enactment. Currently, the king is titled “Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith”. The new, shorter title would eliminate the reference to the United Kingdom and would remove the title “Defender of the Faith”.

I note that the current title was adopted in 1953 by the Parliament of Canada shortly after the accession to the throne of Her late Majesty, our much-loved Queen Elizabeth II. At the time, the goal was to have a title as close as possible to the one in use in the U.K. With that goal in mind, titles similar to the one that is still in use in Canada were adopted by parliaments throughout the Commonwealth. However, since that time, most Commonwealth realms have chosen to drop the reference to the United Kingdom and to eliminate the title “Defender of the Faith”.

In Australia, for example, the King is “King Charles the Third, by Grace of God King of Australia and his other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth”. To take another country whose name starts with “A”, in Antigua and Barbuda he is “Charles the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Antigua and Barbuda and of His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth”. In Australia, this style dates to 1973. In Antigua and Barbuda, the title dates to 1982. In the Solomon Islands, the title was altered to something similar in 2013, and so on. Similar titles are used in over a dozen other independent Commonwealth countries.

Canada is merely bringing its title into conformity with the ones used in most of the other Commonwealth realms. In doing so, I think we keep with the spirit of the 1952 Commonwealth heads of government conference, at which assembled prime ministers agreed that there should be a non-binding but sincere effort to maintain a relatively uniform style for the monarch's titles in each of the different realms.

In Australia in 1973, the goal of removing the reference to the United Kingdom was to make it clear that the Queen's role as monarch was no longer simply a historical artifact of that country's colonial past and was most certainly not due to Australia retaining a subordinate relationship to Britain. Rather, her constitutional role was a consequence of her direct relationship with the Australian people, a relationship that was confirmed in a referendum 26 years later, when a majority of Australians in every one of the country's six states voted against becoming a republic.

This seems like a reasonable goal for Canada as well. Constitutionally speaking, we would remain a monarchy even if Britain chose to become a republic, and it is odd that our head of state does not have a title that reflects this reality. As a historical side note, it is worth observing that in the 1650s, when England did briefly become a republic under Oliver Cromwell, Newfoundland, which was then the only part of Canada under British rule, refused to abandon the Crown. David Kirke, Newfoundland's proprietary governor, was captured by a force sent from the American colonies and was forcibly repatriated to England, where he died in prison for his monarchist sentiments.

Now let me turn to the subject of the title “Defender of the Faith”.

Famously, this title was given to King Henry VIII by Pope Leo X in 1521 in honour of the king's defence of the seven sacraments against the challenge that had been made four years earlier, when Martin Luther had published his 95 theses. A few years later, Henry too broke with the pope when he was unable to obtain a divorce, but he kept the title.

“Defender of the Faith” is a title that might be viewed by some people as being appropriate for the U.K., where the King is the nominal head of the established church, but there is no established church in Canada. Thanks to the efforts of two generations of pre-Confederation reformers, the last traces of an established church in this country were abolished by an act of the Parliament of the Province of Canada in 1854. From 1854 onward, even though our successive kings and queens have retained the title “Defender of the Faith”, it is solely because we were using the same titles used in the United Kingdom.

Ninety-nine years after the abolition of the established church, in 1953, the title was then adopted by statute for reasons I have already discussed. However, “Defender of the Faith” was by then an anachronism, and it was already controversial. Its departure from the King's title is welcome.

I note that the King himself is not enamoured of this title. The title "Defender of the Faith" implies a kind of religious uniformity that is out of step with our times. Frankly, state-sponsored religious uniformity was pretty undesirable in King Henry VIII's time too when viewed from our vantage point. In the 1500s, dissenting Christians were persecuted across Europe, the Inquisition was burning heretics at the stake in Spain and Jews were banned from living in England. In today's world, where the U.K., just as much as Canada, is home to robust communities of Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and Buddhists, there is no such thing as “the faith”. It is worth noting that the current British Prime Minister is a Hindu.

It is for this reason that when he was still Prince of Wales, His Majesty speculated that a better title would be “Defender of Faith”, and I can also see merit in the title “Defender of all Faiths”. However, newfangled and novel titles would be inappropriate to include in a statute that is stuffed into a vast omnibus bill, with little opportunity for the kind of public discussion that would be needed to establish their legitimacy. Simply dropping the title seems the best solution of all.

My conclusion, therefore, is this: I will be voting against Bill C-47, but I do support the Royal Style and Titles Act, in clause 510.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that riveting history around clause 510 in the budget implementation act. I appreciated learning more information about that.

I was reflecting, when the member was sharing his speech, on some of the things he was not talking about. I am wondering if the member could talk about the important work of ensuring that the ultrarich and banks are paying what they owe. Currently, thanks to the work of the NDP, we are seeing in the budget the alternative minimum tax rate increasing from 15% to 20.5%, which would recoup over $3 billion in five years.

I am wondering if the member supports this work and why we never hear from the Conservatives about the importance of having the ultrarich and large corporations paying what they owe so that money can go where we need it most.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I have to confess, Mr. Speaker, that I had come prepared to talk about the Royal Style and Titles Act, not about some of the other aspects of the budget bill.

I will make the general observation that in Canada, we do have a problem with too much taxation, not too little. I recognize the member's point that she feels this is frequently inequitable, and while I might disagree with her on some specifics, it is a good point that in Canada the welfare state increasingly is focused on taxing all of us, but very inequitably frequently, and then transferring that money to those who are politically connected and who are in a position to receive benefits from government funds. Therefore, in fact, it is not a distribution from the wealthy to the less wealthy, as it ought to be. On that point, the NDP, like its CCF predecessor, has a good general point.

On the specific questions she asked, I am less capable of giving an informed answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the scholarly history lesson. I have enjoyed a lot of the speeches tonight. They have been quite wide-ranging. I heard a bootstrap argument about the agency to make more decisions about one's own economic future. I agree with that. However, I would note that it came from a member who would like for women to have fewer choices about their own reproductive futures. I also heard a comparison saying that $467 in support would never do anything to help a Canadian family but $330 was an extraordinary burden. There has been some difficulty on math.

I know that the member did not touch on carbon pricing tonight, but he did mention taxation. He said there is too much tax in Canada. I observed that in the last election, he, like all 338 MPs and candidates, ran on a carbon pricing scheme in one form or another. Oftentimes, people point to Brian Mulroney's ability to abate acid rain. I would point out that the Conservatives did that with cap and trade and a ban on burning certain types of coal. These are the types of advancements that come from really good government programs.

I will ask a question directly about the member's previous commitment to run on a carbon price. Where does he stand now on carbon pricing?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, of course, came intending to talk about the Royal Style and Titles Act, and I was hoping for a question that would relate to that, but let me try answering this question, seeing as it was raised.

Speaking of having promised one thing and then going in a different direction, I cannot help but note that one of the most effective ways of capturing carbon is through reforestation. Of course, trees are composed largely of carbon. Wood is carbon. I cannot remember if it was in the last election or the one before, but the Prime Minister promised to plant two billion trees. He has produced less than one-tenth of 1% of that promise, despite the fact that a number of years have gone by.

If we are looking for concrete action to make this planet a greener place, a less carbon-intensive place, he is not setting a very good example.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time getting a clear picture. We are currently looking at Bill C‑47 and the member is talking about clause 510. His party seems to want to delete it as an anti-monarchy gesture, but he seems to be in favour of this clause. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the proposal being made on this monarchy issue.

Again, I see that there is a divide and a disconnect between the Liberal and Conservative members, who talk about the monarchy, and us, who simply want to abolish it. When we talk about the monarchy it is to say that it is archaic and costs the government money. To us, the issue of seniors calling for an increase in old age security is a priority. Also, we are short on housing and we need EI reform to take care of people who lose their job in a period of economic uncertainty. Again, I am feeling the difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that the presidencies of republics like the United States and France are not without cost. It is very expensive to have a big building like the Élysée Palace in Paris for the President. He is not a king, but there is a real cost.

The same thing goes for the White House in the U.S. and all the other trappings that go with the presidency.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to Bill C-47 at report stage.

I want to share some reflections, particularly about the process the bill has undergone in its journey in the House of Commons and some of the debate that has arisen today on the subject of the bill. I apologize that the thoughts are not in any particular order, but there are some things that are nevertheless worth noting about the bill.

If you were to listen to the debate today and you were a Canadian who had not studied the bill, you might be under the impression that the recent increase in the carbon tax is somehow in this bill. It is important to say that it is not. There has been a fair bit of confusion around that, given the focus of the debate.

You might also think that a lot of the major spending items the government committed to in its budget are in this bill, or you might even think that this bill is the budget itself, given the nature of some of the conversation that has been had around the bill.

It is important to distinguish between the budget itself, which was already debated and voted on in this House some time ago, and budget implementation bills, which do not always legislate commitments from the most recent budget. In fact, sometimes they go back to previous budgets, but effectively, when the government is ready to move on some previous budget commitments and there is legislative work that needs doing, this is what we see in the budget implementation bills. There are some items from the most recent budget in this bill. There are some items from previous budgets in this bill.

One of the things that is important to emphasize is that as far as spending authority goes—that is, this bill giving permission to government to spend taxpayer money—there is not anywhere near the level of spending in this bill that some have said there is. For instance, even in respect of the dental program, this bill does not authorize the money for the dental program. It does have some legislative measures to facilitate the program, ultimately, once it is ready to be operationalized, like better sharing of information between government departments so that they can that ensure people who are making claims under the program are properly eligible.

In other words, there are some provisions designed to ensure eligibility up front and to move away from the attestation system, which is something Conservatives have said they do not like, and that there should be upfront checks of eligibility so people do not mistakenly receive benefits that then need to be clawed back. That is something this legislation seeks to do.

This legislation would reduce the excise tax increase that was going to be 6.3%, because it was tied to inflation through an automatic escalator, down to 2%. That is not a spending item. It is a reduction of government revenue, because it reduces a tax. It reduces a tax that Conservatives said they wanted to see reduced and takes on a tax increase that they thought was inappropriate in the circumstances. We agreed with that as New Democrats and we are glad to see that small brewers and small vineyards across Canada that are facing difficult times are not going to be hit with an outsized increase in the excise tax. However, that is only true if this legislation passes.

This legislation would also close a lot of loopholes in tax law and other law that is used by money launderers in order to avoid paying taxes and to mask their criminal activity. This bill would crack down on predatory lenders or payday loan places that are charging really inordinate amounts of interest. Canadians do not typically choose a payday loan centre as their first choice for banking. It is usually because they do not have a lot of options, and that is how they get there.

Somebody shared with me a statistic, and it was something like Canadians are 40% more likely to end up declaring bankruptcy if they just walk in the door of a payday loan place. There is clearly a close connection between payday lending and people on the financial margins. This bill seeks to do something about that by lowering the criminal rate of interest.

It also improves the Canada workers benefit, something that a colleague of mine on the finance committee likes to talk a lot about, which is the marginal effective tax rate for working-class Canadians and how it disincentivizes people to leave social assistance for work. That is his claim. He likes to reference the C.D. Howe Institute report to that effect. In fact, the changes to the Canada workers benefit would help reduce that marginal effective tax rate and make the transition from social assistance to employment easier.

The legislation also removes Russia and Belarus from a list of countries that get preferential tariffs for trading in Canada. In other words, it extends and strengthens sanctions that Canada has put in place since Russia's illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine. These are the things that are being held up. They are not being held up because there is another huge spend that goes along with them.

In fact, the biggest spending items in this bill were the doubling of the GST tax credit and $2 billion in health transfers to the provinces that was negotiated between the federal government and the provinces. That was by far the biggest direct spend in this legislation. With the consent and participation of the Conservatives, all parties in this House expedited another bill, Bill C-46, that had those spending items in it. There are now some coordinating amendments in this legislation to make sure we do not do the same thing twice.

The fact of the matter is that the biggest spending items, with the full participation and knowledge of the Conservatives, have already passed through the House of Commons. What is left are a number of administrative changes to set up the administrative infrastructure for the growth fund and some legal changes to facilitate the administration of a dental care program. This is not actually where the money is being authorized.

We would think that a former finance critic, which the leader of the Conservative Party is, would know that. We would think that the current finance critic might know that. Perhaps the finance critic for the Conservatives might have known that if he had bothered to show up much at committee during the Bill C-47 process, but apparently he had other things to do. He left it to other members of his caucus to hold down the fort while the finance committee was studying Bill C-47 to the extent that it did.

Of course, we did not do as much extensive study of that bill as I would have liked, because Conservatives chose to talk out the time we had. First they talked out the time we had for hearing witnesses. They did that in the lead-up to the Minister of Finance's appearance.

Was it on a grand principle? I am not sure. Did they have an important point? I think so. It is one that I supported on the record many times. I thought the minister should have committed to come for two hours. As it was, she came for an hour and 40 minutes, but she told us she would only come for an hour. I do not think that was helpful to the process. I think more forewarning by the minister about how long she was actually prepared to appear would have been more helpful.

In the end, it meant that the Conservatives chose to talk over all of the time that we would have had to hear from Canadians who are concerned and from stakeholders who represent various concerns.

Then there was an agreement at the committee to have a process to move to clause-by-clause study. It would have allowed us some time to debate the clauses and various amendments and subamendments. Instead, Conservatives chose to talk through that time as well. Then they said that they wanted to hear from witnesses after talking through all the time we had for witnesses. They say the agreement they signed on to with the Liberals to do clause-by-clause study provided for another 10 hours of witness testimony that they never got.

Did they raise it when we still had three or four days to hear from more witnesses and come to an understanding? No, they raised it afterward. All the time to hear from witnesses had elapsed, so they knew when they raised the issue that there was not going to be a positive outcome and that they were not going to get what they wanted, and then they repeated this kind of behaviour in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from my colleague from the New Democratic Party.

For most of the evening, we have been hearing some pretty fanciful stuff with respect to climate change and the efforts by previous prime minister Brian Mulroney to abate acid rain, which was historic and so important. However, the way that this former prime minister worked to deal with the issues of the time have been stretched a little bit. Of course, he and the president of the day, George Bush, used things like cap and trade and changes in products used to produce electricity.

I note that my colleague's home province is Manitoba, which generates almost all of its electricity through renewable resources like hydro and wind. Most of the members who are so against carbon pricing are from provinces that still generate a lot of their electricity from coal and natural gas, like Saskatchewan and Alberta. Currently over 80% of the power from those provinces is from fossil fuels.

Perhaps the member from the NDP could comment on how carbon pricing is an effective measure to move provinces toward using renewable resources to generate electricity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly think that carbon pricing is one piece of the puzzle. It is meant to be a kind of market tool.

Putting a price on carbon gives companies an incentive to come up with more ways to try to get carbon out of their supply chains so that they can offer a more competitive price. Folks will be more likely to buy those cheaper products, so companies that have a lower carbon supply chain are rewarded. That is the idea. It was not originally a left-wing idea; it was a kind of right-wing idea, designed by folks who are on the political right but who nevertheless accept the reality of climate change.

I would remind my Conservative colleagues that the oil and gas industry in Alberta was built with a lot of public funds and a lot of upfront public investment. In fact, a lot of public investment continues to go to the industry, which is why we know that if we want to shift the economy somewhere else, that too will require a lot of public investment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had a lot to say about the previous speech on royal titles, but I will focus on the subject matter of the speech that was just given.

In terms of this issue of carbon taxes being a market mechanism or whether it is a market thing or not, I think the important point is that of course they involve the possibility of incentives and training and they recognize those realities, but fundamentally they are taxes that require Canadians to pay more. They are intentionally driving up the price of gas and the commodities that have gas as an input, making those things more expensive in an effort to incentivize changes in behaviour. The fact that the carbon tax increases prices for Canadians is not a bug; that is actually the intention of the policy.

I wonder if the member would just acknowledge that in his and the NDP's support of this policy, they are seeking to promote the increase in gas prices, that they want higher gas prices and that this is why they support a carbon tax.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would note that New Democrats are quite firm in our belief that as we look at the record profits that oil and gas companies have been enjoying, we do not think that oil and gas companies should be able to walk away with that money and pay it out in dividends to their shareholders or squirrel it away in international tax havens, but that instead there should be an appropriate tax applied to oil and gas companies.

We, of course, have also been open to the idea of having some kind of a public utility board that would regulate the price of oil and gas. We recognize that long before the carbon tax, a long weekend was enough reason for oil and gas companies to jack up the price of oil and gas. We think that Canadians ought to be just as concerned about the advantage that those companies are taking of Canadians in their basic pricing structure; never mind what is added in tax.

There is a larger conversation to be had about how we get fair pricing for oil and gas. I think that the Conservatives' kind of monolithic focus on the carbon tax obscures a lot of ways that Canadians are getting screwed at the pump by oil and gas companies themselves in order to outsize their profits.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, this evening.

Canadians are facing a cost of living crisis; there is no doubt about that. Food, housing and fuel are all costing more these days. The more the Prime Minister spends, the more everything costs. Of course, even his finance minister has pronounced that the spending has driven inflation up. At a time when Canadians are already feeling the pressure of inflation on their personal finances, the Liberals' budget is adding $67 billion in new inflationary spending. These inflationary deficits are contributing to record-high food, housing and fuel costs, and I will briefly touch on the situation of each of these items.

The cost of food is at record levels. “Canada's Food Price Report 2023” predicts that a family of four will spend up to $1,065 more on food this year. That puts food-price inflation at a 40-year high, with costs pushing 20% of Canadians to skip meals because they cannot afford to eat. This is why the use of food banks has increased so dramatically. One in five Canadians says that they will likely need to get meals from a food bank this year; in fact, perhaps it will be longer than that in the future.

Some of the federal spending that has contributed to this inflation was the spending that took place during COVID. There was $500 billion that was spent or budgeted by the government and put into the hands of Canadians and out into the economy. Much of that was needed for things like housing, putting food on the table and keeping warm in our cold climate, but the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer came out and said that 40% of that, or $200 billion of the $500 billion, had nothing to do with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Therefore, 1.5 million Canadians are eating at food banks and one in five is skipping breakfast, lunch or dinner, because they cannot afford the cost of food. High home prices have left nine out of 10 young people who do not own a home believing that they will never own a home, and it is not just teens or people in their early twenties but many who are much older than that. The down payment needed to buy a house has doubled from $22,000 to $45,000. Mortgage payments for a new house doubled from $1,400 a month to over $3,100. If high interest rates and inflation continue, by 2026, Canadians may end up paying an additional $30,000 to $40,000 in interest per year on their mortgages.

Then there are the high fuel costs, which are made worse by the Liberal carbon taxes. There is not just one carbon tax; now, there are two. With the Prime Minister bringing in a second, hidden carbon tax, the cost of gas, groceries and home heating will only continue to climb. The first carbon tax did not succeed in reducing emissions. The second one will not either, but it will still make life more expensive. The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer has indicated that the second carbon tax will cost the average Canadian household an extra $573 a year without any rebate. Families in some provinces will face costs as high as $1,517. Combined, these two carbon taxes will cost some Canadian families up to $4,000 each year. This is an extra 61¢ for every litre of gasoline, with 37¢ a litre from the first carbon tax, 17¢ per litre from the second and another 7¢ accounting for the sales tax applied to the carbon tax.

In Manitoba, the second Liberal carbon tax will cost the average household an additional $611 a year, bringing the full cost of the two carbon taxes to $2,101 by 2030. That is asking a lot from Manitoba families at a time when costs are already skyrocketing. It should not come as a surprise that the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that this tax will shrink our economy. Families should not be left to struggle under the weight of the reckless Liberal approach, particularly after the pandemic that they have just been faced with.

That is why Conservatives are fighting to make life more affordable for families and pressing for two key things. First, the Prime Minister must give us a plan to end the inflationary deficits and spending and to bring down inflation and interest rates. Second, the Prime Minister must cancel his carbon tax hikes. Canadians are struggling, and acting on these proposals could help bring real relief to those struggling to make ends meet.

I have a parallel that I just want to refer to. When I was in the Manitoba legislature, we went through the years of Mr. Doer from 2000 to 2009, when he left. They were probably the best economic years in Manitoba's history. Mr. Selinger took over as premier from then until 2015, and those were very high-spending years. The province increased the provincial sales tax again. It increased the tax by 1%, but the province was debating whether it should be 2%.

Today, the Prime Minister's spending provides a great parallel to what happened in Manitoba, with the most high-spending NDP premier we ever had. This means that, today, we have the most high-spending Prime Minister we have ever had. Therefore, I would say we have already elected the first New Democratic prime minister in Canadian history, and he is the member for Papineau; it is ironic that he is in a coalition with the NDP to do it.

In order to deliver results for Canadians, Conservatives are bringing forward many amendments to the budget bill, and I hope all parties will recognize the importance of supporting these amendments to support all of our fellow Canadians who are struggling right now. The reality is that Canada's federal debt for the 2023-24 fiscal year is predicted to reach $1.22 trillion, as some of my colleagues have already said today. That is almost $81,000 for every household in Canada. The Prime Minister has added more debt than all the other prime ministers combined and has no plan to balance the budget or to control his inflationary deficits, which are driving up the cost of the goods we buy and the interest we pay.

There are consequences to the government's actions, and we are seeing them now, as inflation erodes the spending power of our families, friends and neighbours. Conservatives have advocated for a plan to make Canada work for the people who work. Their paycheques should not be diminished because of their government's inflationary spending. Nobody wants to spend more and get less, but that is what inflation does. Instead, people's hard work should pay off. Every dollar they earn should be able to cover the costs of their everyday needs and, as often as possible, the extra things they enjoy, such as a weekend away, a night with friends or just something special for the kids.

One's ability to buy a home should not be diminished because of the government's inflationary spending. The Liberals' one-size-fits-all plan for mortgage development does not work in every area of Canada. Home ownership should not be only for the wealthy, but the way prices are going under the current government, it is hard for many who want to enter the housing market to make their dream a reality. By removing the government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits, the government could have made a real difference in the lives of those who are looking to own a home.

I want to switch gears for a moment to talk about another important theme, and that is public safety. Again, in the budget, the Liberal government has failed to lay out a meaningful plan to respond to public safety issues in Canada. We are facing a 32% rise in violent crime since 2015. As my colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, has appropriately noted, 32% is not just a number. It represents 124,000 more very serious violent crime incidents that have impacted innocent Canadians across the country.

We want to bring home a nation that works for the people who do the work, bring home lower prices and powerful paycheques, and bring homes that people can afford. That is what we stand for on this side of the House, and we will keep fighting for that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat a question that I posed a little bit earlier, which was artfully dodged by the respondent.

Yes, there is a price on pollution, and it has added to the price of gasoline at the pump. However, in spite of all that, the oil companies have racked up an impressive $38.3 billion in profits, all coming straight out of the pockets of Canadians, straight off their after-tax income.

Would the member not agree that if he is talking about inflation, and if we know that food and big oil are the largest contributors to inflation, their profits are really the issue here, not anything that the government has done?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague could not be more wrong. That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard in the House, or one of them.

Particularly, he is saying that farmers are the cause of food going up. The government has put the carbon tax on all the inputs for all the industries in Canada.

The profits that he is talking about are coming right out of the pockets of the individuals that he is trying to say are saving the country. They are building the food, trying to keep crime down and providing industries with jobs. These are the companies that are providing jobs in Canada. They are also the ones that have to bear the government's taxation, and they are the ones that provide the government with billions and billions of tax dollars.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I have read the budget implementation act, and I see that there is going to be, in the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, a Canada health transfer. The Province of Manitoba will get a substantial amount if this bill passes.

Manitoba was making cuts to health care services earlier this year. Could the member describe to his constituents what is wrong with the Canada health transfer and the substantial increase that the Province of Manitoba will get so that it can deliver health care services?

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for raising that very good question. It is one that I did not get to in my speech.

The costs of health care, of course, have gone up dramatically, as well, over these years. One thing I know from my 14 years in the Manitoba legislature is that the former premier of Manitoba, Mr. Doer, in about 2006, indicated that the Liberal government cuts to health care from the federal government to all provinces in Canada were huge. However, in Manitoba, they amounted to $252 million in 1995 dollars.

If one extrapolates that to today's money, 28 years later, one can see the damage of the cuts made in those early days by the Liberal government. They decimated health care across the whole country of Canada and left all these provinces with a huge drain on their financial budgets. The government basically off-loaded huge percentages of support for hospitals and nurses and doctors in all our provinces.

I would say that the transfers are more important than ever in health care. However, it is certainly a detriment to the province's abilities to be able to maintain and increase the services we have.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to push back on the hon. member's earlier interaction with the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells. Conservatives like to be oblivious to the fact that, since 2019, oil and gas companies have seen their net profits go up by over 1000%. To suggest that this has absolutely no role in driving inflation for consumers, when everything that families depend on is driven by trains or trucks, which rely on diesel fuel, is being completely oblivious to the elephant in the room.

Surely, my colleague could offer some commentary on the gross profiteering that is happening on the backs of constituents like his and like mine, right across Canada. Why do Conservatives continue to ignore this, to the detriment of all Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are several things one could say about my colleague's great question. One is that he knows in British Columbia there were something like 15 LNG projects that could have been built when the Prime Minister came into power, and not one of them has ever been completed. Those dollars could have been used for what natural resources have been used for in this country, and that is to build the coffers of the federal government to make those transfers in education and health care back to the provinces so that we can all have the same level of health care across the whole country.

The other thing is that the profits from those companies are being used to make those transfers, but the member knows full well that the government has stymied the development of those industries with Bill C-69. If we want to talk about percentages of profit increases, we are talking about $40 barrels of oil a number of years ago that are now $80 a barrel. There is a doubling right there. It is very hard to compare percentages when we have a product that has doubled in price over the last five years.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is another great night for democracy. It is always an honour to rise on behalf of Canada's number one riding, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, and share a few words in the people's House of Commons.

In this year's budget, Conservatives asked for a couple of things, or three things to be exact: to bring home powerful paycheques, to bring home lower prices on homes and to build more homes that Canadians can afford.

Budget 2023 does none of these things. It fails to create the good-paying jobs Canadians need to keep up with the ever-rising cost of living. It fails to stop the government's reckless spending and punishing tax hikes, which are driving inflation, and it fails to deliver a real plan to address the housing supply crisis and ensure Canadians can find a safe and affordable place to call home. Further, it fails to address the labour shortages that are holding small businesses back. It fails to cut the mountains of red tape that have made Canada an unattractive place to do business, and it cuts away the fiscal anchor the finance minister so proudly touted in budget 2022, a declining debt-to-GDP ratio.

For these reasons, I will be joining my colleagues and voting against the budget.

On bringing home powerful paycheques, paycheques are not keeping up with the cost of living. I hear this from constituents every single day. Canada's inflation rate for April 2023 sat at 4.4%. Groceries are seeing some of the highest increases. In April, food prices rose 8.3% over the same month last year. “Canada's Food Price Report 2023” predicts the average family of four will spend $1,065 more on food this year. All the government can offer Canadians is a grocery rebate that will not come close to covering the substantial increase to their most important expense every month. The average family of four will still be out $598.

The Prime Minister's advice to Canadians who cannot keep up with this inflation is to just put big, important purchases on their credit cards. With the cost of a home reaching all-time highs, does the Prime Minister think Canadians should put their down payments on their credit cards too?

Budget 2023 doubles down on the failed $70-billion national housing strategy. Since its implementation, we have seen a doubling of the cost of an average family home in this country.

Conservatives have a different plan. We are going to get municipal gatekeepers and nimbys out of the way. In fact, we are going to do what the provincial NDP government in British Columbia is doing and work with municipalities to incentivize them to get more homes built. We are going to tie infrastructure dollars to increased housing development, and we are going to sell off 15% of the federal government's buildings to be converted into affordable housing.

Turning to small businesses, the housing supply crisis is also preventing small businesses from attracting new workers, particularly in rural communities. Ashcroft and Lillooet in my riding have raised this repeatedly. On top of this, businesses struggle to bring in workers from abroad thanks to massive backlogs in our broken immigration system. In fact, just last week I had the pleasure of attending the B.C. Chamber of Commerce's 2023 AGM and conference, where it called upon the federal government, as one of its key policy planks, to address the immigration shortfalls.

A recent CFIB report highlighted that small business owners are working 54 hours a week on average, largely to make up for staffing shortages. Labour shortages have had a particular impact on small businesses in the hospitality and agricultural sectors, where 84% and 82% of owners report working more hours respectively.

On top of labour shortages, most businesses are having trouble simply staying afloat. Many took on large amounts of debt to survive the pandemic. However, they have yet to fully recover to 2019 levels and are drowning in debt payments. According to Restaurants Canada, there has been a 116% increase in bankruptcies among restaurants over the last year, and 51% are only breaking even or losing money every day.

Small businesses asked for no more carbon tax hikes, a reduction of the small business tax rate and action to address labour shortages. Instead, they got continued carbon tax hikes, no tax relief and no action to clear the immigration backlogs we face.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the Village of Lytton in my riding. We are coming up on the two-year anniversary on June 30, when Lytton was consumed by wildfire. Nearly two years later, the rebuild has yet to begin. Residents of Lytton have been unable to return home, and businesses have been unable to reopen their doors. Many businesses took out CEBA loans during the pandemic to stay afloat, but without the ability to reopen many are unable to repay them. With the deadline for repayment coming up this December, these businesses are running out of time and are desperate.

Earlier this week, I received a reply to one of my petitions in which the constituents of Lytton had pleaded with the government to give them some reprieve. We are only talking about a dozen businesses here. The government said no. It said no to the village that has been referenced in every conversation on climate change and every conversation on natural disasters. To the very people who want to be able to go back and rebuild the community, the government said no. Shame on it.

I will acknowledge the minister for Pacific economic development, who did follow through on some housing supports, but rental housing was excluded from that as well. I really hope the government revises its program on housing grants to include rental housing moving forward.

In British Columbia, we are also facing the opioid crisis. In 2016, an increase in the number of overdose deaths in B.C., particularly those linked to fentanyl, led the medical officer of health to declare a public health emergency in the province. In the seven years leading up to that declaration, 3,002 British Columbians lost their lives to a drug overdose, an average of about 430 a year. Since 2017, there have been 10,396 deaths from opioid overdoses, an average of more than 1,700 per year. At the federal level, more than $6 billion has been spent since 2017, yet the crisis worsens. Conservatives are committed to turning hurt into hope for those battling addiction.

A few weeks ago, I hosted a number of people who have combatted addiction in their lives and overcome it. They talked about the need in the Fraser health region to put more money into detoxification beds. The Fraser health region, my health region in British Columbia, has the highest number of overdose deaths in this country. We only have eight detox beds. Moving forward we need to be in a position, and the Government of Canada needs to support a policy position, such that, if someone who is suffering from an opioid addiction feels that they can enter treatment, it is available on demand.

The number of people who die from opioids far surpasses the number of people who die from COVID–19. We spent hundreds of billions of dollars on COVID–19, yet not a fraction of that for the people who are suffering from opioid addiction. Canada must do better. British Columbia must do better. Our children and the parents of those who have lost a child are pleading with us to do better. We have not done well enough.

In conclusion, budget 2023 will not address the ever-increasing cost of living we are facing in British Columbia and across Canada. It will not create the good-paying jobs that Canadians need to keep up with the cost of inflation. It fails to address the number one issue in my riding, the rebuilding of Lytton, as well as the overdose crisis that is plaguing my province at an alarming rate.

We have so much work to do in the House and the Conservative Party, His Majesty's loyal opposition, is going to fight every day to make sure that Canadians see a future for themselves and their communities that is drug-free and where people have hope to live their best lives once again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I regret having to play fact check. First, on foreign direct investment, the five-year snapshot of the foreign direct investments in the last five years is upward of $1,141 billion, so over $1 trillion is an average. In the Harper years, it was almost half of that, $617 billion over a five-year period per year. On foreign direct investment, there is really no comparing the federal Liberal government to the Conservative government. The Conservatives were just not able to attract the same level of investment.

Second, I am not sure why the member wants to compare COVID-19 to opioid deaths. However, more Canadians did die from COVID-19, tragically, than opioids. Opioids have consumed far too many lives in this country and we need to find solutions for both treatment and more safe supply. It is not a simple solution. It is complex.

Last, the member opposite lives in a province with carbon pricing, which has effectively demonstrated an ability to reduce carbon emissions. He ran on it in the last election. Will he stand up and tell his constituents that he no longer believes in carbon pricing?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me address the first and third questions to begin with.

The reason we have so much foreign direct investment is because of LNG Canada. In fact, much of the manufacturing and investments we are seeing in western Canada are related to pipelines and natural gas development. The natural gas development, which was the largest private sector investment in the history of Canada put forward by the Liberal Prime Minister, was exempt from the carbon tax. That is the only reason Liberals built it. It was because they knew that with carbon tax, it did not make economic sense for that project to go ahead. The Prime Minister and the premier of British Columbia decided not to apply the highest carbon tax in our country when that project went forward.

When that project is completed in the next five years, we are going to have an exorbitant number of skilled workers in northern British Columbia who will not have another project to go to because under the government's Bill C-69 from the 2015 Parliament, barely any single natural resource development project has been approved. We have to get more natural resource projects approved to supply Asia with clean LNG from Canada that is going to reduce global emissions and fight climate change.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has some complaints about the budget. Members of the official opposition do not like the budget, and neither do we. We think there are many things missing from this budget.

What are we going to do? We are going to respect Parliament and vote against the budget.

The Conservatives have been wrapping themselves in a cloak of virtue for some time, telling us that they have one, two, three or four conditions, that the carbon tax must be abolished, and so on. They are saying that as long as the government refuses to meet their conditions, not only will they not vote for the budget, they will filibuster it.

Everyone knows that this is all for show, just to waste time, and that they will never vote in favour of the budget. All they are doing is wasting parliamentarians' time.

To prove my point, I wonder if my colleague can give me just one example of a single time in Canadian history when the official opposition ended up supporting a government's budget, in one way or another.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not be making any excuses for the Conservative Party. We are here to stand up to the government in order to help Canadians maintain their ability to enjoy a high standard of living. We must oppose this budget because it is not good for Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's concern about the opioid crisis, as does everyone in this Parliament. I was pleased that he did not repeat some of the misguided falsehoods that his leader has been putting out there in the media when it comes to safe supply in the province. I am sure, as a British Columbian, he is familiar with the words of the chief coroner and the provincial health officer who have said there is no evidential basis for linking an increase in opioid deaths to the safe supply that we are seeing.

Where the member and I really strongly agree is the need for treatment programs, that one of the pillars of responding to the opioid and toxic drug crisis is having free treatment on demand. Would he support a federal fund directed to establishing those kinds of treatment centres in our province?

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. We would support treatment on demand and that is one area where we see some collaboration between two parties in the House of Commons.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals pat themselves on the back for their 2023 budget, but they should not. It is a budget that, at the end of the day, will hurt Canadians, it is short-sighted, irresponsible and ultimately incompetent.

Members do not have to take my word for it. The former finance minister, Bill Morneau, said the Liberals' fiscal policy was about “scoring political points” over good policies, specifically financial ones. He said the Ministry of Finance recommendations were disregarded in “winning a popularity contest”. Policies were made “on the fly”. Some things do not seem to be changing. That is to be expected from a Prime Minister who told reporters that he did not concern himself with fiscal policy because budgets balance themselves. It is incomprehensible.

Can members imagine what would happen to a small business or a family where there is no concern about how much is spent and how much is made? It would lead to hard times for them. They would go deeper into debt, and possible foreclosure and bankruptcy. The Liberals do not seem to care. They have doubled down on national debt. The Liberals and the Prime Minister have more than doubled the national debt since coming into power.

Canadians might ask what difference it makes. It very much affects the lives of all Canadians. We can look to how much everything costs and how much smaller the packages are. Everything has gone up. A family of four will spend $1,000 more after tax dollars on food alone. Even for those receiving rebates, they will spend many hundreds more on bread, fruit, vegetables and everything else.

The Liberals, when they saw the inflationary numbers and how they are impacting Canadians, said this was not good for them politically, so they raised interest rates by over 1,000% to cool things down.

What has that accomplished? Let us ask those who have been renewing their mortgages. It is thousands of dollars more per year just on mortgages because the interest rates were increased. I live in the greater Vancouver area. Homes cost $1 million, $2 million and up, and mortgages over $600,000 are just the standard. The fiscal policies of the Liberals are putting a squeeze on taxpayers.

The standard of living for Canadians is deteriorating. Canada has been sliding in the rankings as far as wealth is concerned. In 2019, we were in 10th place. In the past three years, we have gone down to 14th and are sliding. If we compare that to Taiwan, Israel and Ireland that are equal to us or have surpassed us in their per capita incomes, they do not even have the resources we have. We are a wealthy nation, but our fiscal policy is destroying us.

The government is more interested in the redistribution of wealth, making us dependent on government and killing wealth creation through taxation and regulation. There is a word for that and it is socialism. The regulations, red tape and bureaucracy are killing us. It is fiscal foolishness.

I have a couple of examples. One is the TransCanada pipeline. Kinder Morgan projected it to cost $6.7 billion. The Liberals got involved and the new cost for Canadian taxpayers is approaching $40 billion. It is like the Liberals have written a blank cheque. There is no fiscal responsibility.

A local example in my riding is the Harris Road underpass. It is an agreement between the CPR, Transport Canada and the port authority. It was projected four years ago, with an agreement, to make this underpass for $63 million. It has skyrocketed to $200 million and the project is on the verge of collapsing because of cost increases. Less than half of that cost is for actual construction. The rest is for management, enabling and management contingency. The bureaucracy is killing us.

There is one thing where the prices have been driven down, and that is the cost of street drugs with Liberal drug policies by both the Liberals and the NDP. It is killing lives. The price of hard drugs has gone down 70% to 95%. People are getting addicted and they are dying.

We need a change of government to get some fiscal sanity.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

It being 8:52 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion will also apply to Motion No. 2.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote please.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 3. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 4 to 14.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again, we would request a recorded vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 15. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 16 to 111.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote please.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 112. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion Nos. 113 to 121.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again, I would request a recorded vote please.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The recorded division on Motion No. 112 stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 122. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 123 to 125.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again I request a recorded vote please.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The recorded division on Motion No. 122 stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 126. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion Nos. 127 to 232.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, no surprise, I request a recorded vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 233. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 234 to 440.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 441. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 442 to 455, 684 to 689 and 691 to 729.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 730. A vote on the motion also applies to Motions Nos. 731 to 749 and 751 to 904.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we would request a recorded vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded division will stand deferred until Wednesday, June 7, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from June 6 consideration of Bill C‑47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C‑47.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 2.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #356

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 2 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 3.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 4 to 14.

(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #357

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare Motion No. 3 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 4 to 14 defeated.

The member for Mississauga—Lakeshore has a point of order.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I just want to clarify that because the vote has already been announced, we have to ask for unanimous consent.

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

How does the member vote?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I vote nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The question is on Motion No. 15. A vote on this motion will also apply to Motions Nos. 16 to 111.

(The House divided on Motion No. 15, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #358

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 16 to 111 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 112. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 113 to 121.

(The House divided on Motion No. 112, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #359

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare Motion No. 112 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 113 to 121 defeated as well.

The question is on Motion No. 122. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 123 to 125.

(The House divided on Motion No. 122, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #360

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare Motion No. 122 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 123 to 125 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 126.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 127 to 232.

(The House divided on Motion No. 126, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #361

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 127 to 232 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 233. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 234 to 440.

(The House divided on Motion No. 233, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #362

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare Motion No. 233 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 234 to 440 defeated.

We have a point of order from the hon. government whip.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure it has not been lost on the Chair that this sudden technological difficulty outbreak has been limited to one party in this House. I would just ask, as we are voting on the budget, that we show a bit of respect for this place.

Manifestly, these people are outside in the lobby—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I would just remind the member that we cannot say whether somebody is in the chamber or outside the chamber.

We have a point of order from the hon. member for La Prairie.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no interpretation. There is nothing but silence on the French channel. I am not sure why.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I think a phone was ringing while the member was talking.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time we have had technical problems that have only impacted one party. I believe it is showing profound disrespect for the interpreters, who do an excellent job each and every day on our behalf. They deserve more respect than that.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to undertake an investigation. This is the second time the Conservatives have turned votes into a circus. I would ask you to undertake a thorough investigation of this misuse of parliamentary time.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. I am going to make two comments on this.

I will refer people to chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”, under “Decorum During the Taking of a Vote”. We did see a lot of people get up and move during the vote, and I do not want that happening, because it creates a lot of confusion for the table officers. It reads:

During the taking of a vote, no Member is permitted to enter, leave or walk across the Chamber or to make any noise or disturbance from the time the Speaker begins to put the question until the results of the vote are announced. Members must be in their seats to vote and must remain seated until the result of the vote is announced.

I want to quote what the Speaker ruled on June 5, which was Monday morning after the Friday incident. He said:

The Chair has the utmost respect for the voting process. The success of the voting application depends on the good faith of members. All members are to treat their right to vote in this place with the sanctity and respect it deserves.

This applies especially to a budget vote.

Let us see how we get through the next vote. I will remind folks that if they are voting online, have trouble with it and join us by Zoom, I need a “yea” or “nay”. I do not need to know anything else. Please stick to that.

The question is on Motion No. 441. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 442, 445, 684 to 689 and 691 to 729.

(The House divided on Motion No. 441, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #363

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare Motion No. 441 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 442 to 455, 684 to 689 and 691 to 729 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 730.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 731 to 749 and 751 to 904.

(The House divided on Motion No. 730, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #364

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare Motion No. 730 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 731 to 749 and 751 to 904 defeated.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #365

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.