Bill C-59

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and 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) limiting the deductibility of net interest and financing expenses by certain corporations and trusts, consistent with certain Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Group of Twenty Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project recommendations;
(b) implementing hybrid mismatch rules consistent with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Group of Twenty Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project recommendations regarding cross-border tax avoidance structures that exploit differences in the income tax laws of two or more countries to produce “deduction/non-inclusion mismatches”;
(c) allowing expenditures incurred in the exploration and development of all lithium to qualify as Canadian exploration expenses and Canadian development expenses;
(d) ensuring that only genuine intergenerational business transfers are excluded from the anti-surplus stripping rule in section 84.1 of the Income Tax Act ;
(e) denying the dividend received deduction for dividends received by Canadian financial institutions on certain shares that are held as mark-to-market property;
(f) increasing the rate of the rural supplement for Climate Action Incentive payments (CAIP) from 10% to 20% for the 2023 and subsequent taxation years as well as referencing the 2016 census data for the purposes of the CAIP rural supplement eligibility for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years;
(g) providing a refundable investment tax credit to qualifying businesses for eligible carbon capture, utilization and storage equipment;
(h) providing a refundable investment tax credit to qualifying businesses for eligible clean technology equipment;
(i) introducing, under certain circumstances, labour requirements in relation to the new refundable investment tax credits for eligible carbon capture, utilization and storage equipment as well as eligible clean technology equipment;
(j) removing the requirement that credit unions derive no more than 10% of their revenue from sources other than certain specified sources;
(k) permitting a qualifying family member to acquire rights as successor of a holder of a Registered Disability Savings Plan following the death of that plan’s last remaining holder who was also a qualifying family member;
(l) implementing consequential changes of a technical nature to facilitate the operation of the existing rules for First Home Savings Accounts;
(m) introducing a tax of 2% on the net value of equity repurchases by certain Canadian corporations, trusts and partnerships whose equity is listed on a designated stock exchange;
(n) exempting certain fees from the refundable tax applicable to contributions under retirement compensation arrangements;
(o) introducing a technical amendment to the provision that authorizes the sharing of taxpayer information for the purposes of the Canadian Dental Care Plan;
(p) implementing a number of amendments to the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) as well as introducing a new penalty applicable to transactions subject to the GAAR and extending the normal reassessment period for the GAAR by three years in certain circumstances;
(q) facilitating the creation of employee ownership trusts;
(r) introducing specific anti-avoidance rules in relation to corporations referred to as substantive CCPCs; and
(s) extending the phase-out by three years, and expanding the eligible activities, in relation to the reduced tax rates for certain zero-emission technology manufacturers.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, 2001 .
Part 2 enacts the Digital Services Tax Act and its regulations. That Act provides for the implementation of an annual tax of 3% on certain types of digital services revenue earned by businesses that meet certain revenue thresholds. It sets out rules for the purposes of establishing liability for the tax and also sets out applicable reporting and filing requirements. To promote compliance with its provisions, that Act includes modern administration and enforcement provisions generally aligned with those found in other taxation statutes. Finally, this Part also makes related and consequential amendments to other texts to ensure proper implementation of the tax and cohesive and efficient administration by the Canada Revenue Agency.
Part 3 implements certain Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) measures by
(a) ensuring that an interest in a corporation that does not have its capital divided into shares is treated as a financial instrument for GST/HST purposes;
(b) ensuring that interest and dividend income from a closely related partnership is not included in the determination of whether a person is a de minimis financial institution for GST/HST purposes;
(c) ensuring that an election related to supplies made within a closely related group of persons that includes a financial institution may not be revoked on a retroactive basis without the permission of the Minister of National Revenue;
(d) making technical amendments to an election that allows electing members of a closely related group to treat certain supplies made between them as having been made for nil consideration;
(e) ensuring that certain supplies between the members of a closely related group are not inadvertently taxed under the imported taxable supply rules that apply to financial institutions;
(f) raising the income threshold for the requirement to file an information return by certain financial institutions;
(g) allowing up to seven years to assess the net tax adjustments owing by certain financial institutions in respect of the imported taxable supply rules;
(h) expanding the GST/HST exemption for services rendered to individuals by certain health care practitioners to include professional services rendered by psychotherapists and counselling therapists;
(i) providing relief in relation to the GST/HST treatment of payment card clearing services;
(j) allowing the joint venture election to be made in respect of the operation of a pipeline, rail terminal or truck terminal that is used for the transportation of oil, natural gas or related products;
(k) raising the input tax credit (ITC) documentation thresholds from $30 to $100 and from $150 to $500 and allowing billing agents to be treated as intermediaries for the purposes of the ITC information rules; and
(l) extending the 100% GST rebate in respect of new purpose-built rental housing to certain cooperative housing corporations.
It also implements an excise tax measure by creating a joint election mechanism to specify who is eligible to claim a rebate of excise tax for goods purchased by provinces for their own use.
Part 4 implements certain excise measures by
(a) allowing vaping product licensees to import packaged vaping products for stamping by the licensee and entry into the Canadian duty-paid market as of January 1, 2024;
(b) permitting all cannabis licensees to elect to remit excise duties on a quarterly rather than a monthly basis, starting from the quarter that began on April 1, 2023;
(c) amending the marking requirements for vaping products to ensure that the volume of the vaping substance is marked on the package;
(d) requiring that a person importing vaping products must be at least 18 years old; and
(e) introducing administrative penalties for certain infractions related to the vaping taxation framework.
Part 5 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Subdivision A of Division 1 of Part 5 amends Subdivision A of Division 16 of Part 6 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1 to clarify the scope of certain non-financial activities in which federal ‚financial institutions may engage and to remove certain discrepancies between the English and French versions of that Act.
Subdivision B of Division 1 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things, permit federal financial institutions governed by those Acts to hold certain meetings by virtual means without having to obtain a court order and to permit voting during those meetings by virtual means.
Division 2 of Part 5 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things, provide a leave of absence of three days in the event of a pregnancy loss and modify certain provisions related to bereavement leave.
Division 3 of Part 5 enacts the Canada Water Agency Act . That Act establishes the Canada Water Agency, whose role is to assist the Minister of the Environment in exercising or performing that Minister’s powers, duties and functions in relation to fresh water. The Division also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 4 of Part 5 amends the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the making of regulations respecting fees or charges to be paid by tobacco and vaping product manufacturers for the purpose of recovering the costs incurred by His Majesty in right of Canada in relation to the carrying out of the purpose of that Act;
(b) provide for related administration and enforcement measures; and
(c) require information relating to the fees or charges to be made available to the public.
Division 5 of Part 5 amends the Canadian Payments Act to, among other things, provide that additional persons are entitled to be members of the Canadian Payments Association and clarify the composition of that Association’s Stakeholder Advisory Council.
Division 6 of Part 5 amends the Competition Act to, among other things,
(a) modernize the merger review regime, including by modifying certain notification rules, clarifying that Act’s application to labour markets, allowing the Competition Tribunal to consider the effect of changes in market share and the likelihood of coordination between competitors following a merger, extending the limitation period for mergers that were not the subject of a notification to the Commissioner of Competition and placing a temporary restraint on the completion of certain mergers until the Tribunal has disposed of any application for an interim order;
(b) improve the effectiveness of the provisions that address anti-competitive conduct, including by allowing the Commissioner to review the effects of past agreements and arrangements, ensuring that an order related to a refusal to deal may address a refusal to supply a means of diagnosis or repair and ensuring that representations of a product’s benefits for protecting or restoring the environment must be supported by adequate and proper tests and that representations of a business or business activity for protecting or restoring the environment must be supported by adequate and proper substantiation;
(c) strengthen the enforcement framework, including by creating new remedial orders, such as administrative monetary penalties, with respect to those collaborations that harm competition, by creating a civilly enforceable procedure to address non-compliance with certain provisions of that Act and by broadening the classes of persons who may bring private cases before the Tribunal and providing for the availability of monetary payments as a remedy in those cases; and
(d) provide for new procedures, such as the certification of agreements or arrangements related to protecting the environment and a remedial process for reprisal actions.
The Division also amends the Competition Tribunal Act to prevent the Competition Tribunal from awarding costs against His Majesty in right of Canada, except in specified circumstances.
Finally, the Division makes a consequential amendment to one other Act.
Division 7 of Part 5 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act to exclude from their application prescribed public post-secondary educational institutions.
Subdivision A of Division 8 of Part 5 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that, if a person or entity referred to in section 5 of that Act has reasonable grounds to suspect possible sanctions evasion, the relevant information is reported to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada;
(b) add reporting requirements for persons and entities providing certain services in respect of private automatic banking machines;
(c) require declarations respecting money laundering, the financing of terrorist activities and sanctions evasion to be made in relation to the importation and exportation of goods; and
(d) authorize the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada to disclose designated information to the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, subject to certain conditions.
It also amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1 in relation to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts and a regulation.
Subdivision B of Division 8 of Part 5 amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) in certain circumstances, provide that a court may infer the knowledge or belief or recklessness required in relation to the offence of laundering proceeds of crime and specify that it is not necessary for the prosecutor to prove that the accused knew, believed they knew or was reckless as to the specific nature of the designated offence;
(b) remove, in the context of the special warrants and restraint order in relation to proceeds of crime, the requirement for the Attorney General to give an undertaking, as well as permit a judge to attach conditions to a special warrant for search and seizure of property that is proceeds of crime; and
(c) modify certain provisions relating to the production order for financial data to include elements specific to accounts associated with digital assets.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Seized Property Management Act and the Forfeited Property Sharing Regulations .
Division 9 of Part 5 retroactively amends section 42 of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to specify the payments about which information must be published on a Government of Canada website, as well as the information that must be published.
Division 10 of Part 5 amends the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to increase the number of directors in the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, as well as to provide for consultation with the portion of the National Joint Council of the Public Service of Canada that represents employees when certain candidates are included on the list for proposed appointment as directors.
Division 11 of Part 5 enacts the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Act , which establishes the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, confers on the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities various responsibilities relating to public infrastructure and confers on the Minister of Housing various responsibilities relating to housing and the reduction and prevention of homelessness. The Division also makes consequential amendments to other Acts and repeals the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund Act .
Division 12 of Part 5 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things, create a benefit of 15 weeks for claimants who are carrying out responsibilities related to
(a) the placement with the claimant of one or more children for the purpose of adoption; or
(b) the arrival of one or more new-born children of the claimant into the claimant’s care, in the case where the person who will be giving or gave birth to the child or children is not, or is not intended to be, a parent of the child or children.
The Division also amends the Canada Labour Code to create a leave of absence of up to 16 weeks for an employee to carry out such responsibilities.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

moved that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise in the House for the last time, I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

I hope that territorial recognition will soon be included at the opening of the House every day.

Some members, especially my karaoke friends, might have thought that I would start by singing my best karaoke version of Wind Beneath My Wings and then dedicate it to all the staff, volunteers and colleagues, or maybe I would just reiterate my advice to women in politics: no high heels and never check a bag. I hope members are not disappointed.

I have now represented the engaged citizens of Toronto—St. Paul's for more than 26 years. It is longer than I practised medicine, and next year will be my 50th anniversary of graduating from medicine, “class of 7T4”, U of T. When I got to my 18th year in Parliament, I joked that the over 2,000 babies I had delivered could now all vote. I promise that was never the long-term strategy of “the doctor delivers”.

After being a family doctor for over 20 years and our successful fight for the independence of Women's College Hospital, I had an unsuccessful run in provincial politics in 1995. I remember that when I was first asked to run, I answered that I know nothing about politics. The response was, “What do you think you just did? Saving Women's College Hospital was politics.”

Whenever I visit the grade 5 classrooms, I ask the students why anyone would leave the respected profession of medicine to become a politician, which is one of the least-respected callings there is. Sometimes after much discussion, there is an answer that makes me smile: “You wanted to make a difference. You wanted to help more people.” As difficult as it was to make a decision to leave my patients, I have never regretted the choice.

I have loved the work here in Parliament, but also the inspiration of the Toronto—St. Paul's community: the farmers' markets at Wychwood Barns and Little Jamaica; the transformation of the Spadina Museum and Casa Loma to better reflect the diversity of Toronto, ensuring that everyone feels included. I love walking in the ravines, along the Beltline Trail and being stopped by neighbours with great suggestions for building a better and fairer community, country and a sustainable planet; working on the Toronto—St. Paul's summits with Josh Matlow and Shelley Laskin; and conspiring at Aroma with my Yonge and Eglinton MP neighbours, the member for Don Valley West and the member for Eglinton—Lawrence. I am grateful to William Watson, who has been my riding president for over a decade, for his leadership, friendship and invaluable editorial skills, especially grammar and punctuation.

As an MP, like a doctor, every day we are learning something new and helping people. In 1995, when introducing Liberal leader Lyn McLeod at a campaign event in downtown Toronto, I defined leadership as vision, values and risk-taking. I still believe that. Leadership is not defending the status quo. We have all come to this place to build an even better Canada. I am proud that from the very first day I stepped onto Parliament Hill as an MP, I have profoundly understood the responsibility and the privilege of being part of a small group of Canadians who steer the direction of the best country in the world. That has not changed in over 26 years. Every day, I come to this place still acutely aware of my responsibility to do the best I can to support the policies that are good for the most people or the people who need it most.

In 1997, I knew that I had been elected in a bellwether riding: Roland Michener, Ian Wahn, Ron Atkey, John Roberts, again Ron Atkey, John Roberts, Barbara McDougall and Barry Campbell.

I decided that I needed to take my family doctor's understanding of patient as partner into my my new role as an elected representative and have it shape a respectful two-way relationship with the people I was representing. The parallel was important. As a doctor, I would ask what was wrong, I would listen and then together with the patient we would make a plan. The patient knew their body best. I knew the system best. It was a partnership, with the sum greater than the parts.

From the beginning, it was clear that the people I represented knew what was working and what was not, and they so often had impressive advice and solutions.

I took Jane Jacobs' advice that good public policy comes when the decision-makers can keep in their mind's eye the people affected.

I also learned from Professor Stephen Coleman, the British expert on citizen engagement, that citizens do not want to govern, but they do want to know that they have been heard. I learned from my friend Richard Allan, now in the Lords at Westminster, on the potential of e-democracy.

Over the past few months, I have been sorting through many boxes. There are boxes from my early years in this House as chair of the subcommittee on persons with disabilities, chair of the Canada-Israel parliamentary friendship group, chair of the women's caucus twice, minister of state for public health, and in opposition, my various critic roles. From 2011 to 2015 was a life-changing experience, as Bob Rae appointed me the critic for indigenous affairs. There were boxes from my cabinet roles in this government.

I found that the biggest box by far dealt with the ongoing theme of democratic reform. Democratic reform to me has always included four things: parliamentary reform, party reform, electoral reform and meaningful citizen engagement. The last one I call democracy between elections. It became my brand. I actually found another box at the cottage. It was research and outline for a book I began 10 years ago, “Democracy between elections: a politician's guide to listening and a citizen's guide to being heard”. I may have to get back to that.

I have had the benefit of a posse of inspiring feminists who have kept the titanium in my spine: the late Doris Anderson, Ursula Franklin and Monique Bégin. The status quo was not okay.

Ursula helped me understand that government must be fair, transparent and take people seriously. She warned that if we were not fair, transparent and respectful of what people had to say in our small organizations and in our political parties, why would anybody think we would govern in a serious representative democracy?

Doris, who was chair of Fair Vote Canada, often asked if my support for electoral reform was a career-limiting move.

Monique and my constituent, the late John Turner, were always in our corners as MPs to make sure our voices were heard. As we know, Monique and her posse of députés had been responsible for getting MPs offices in their ridings instead of just on Parliament Hill.

In 2006, I ran for the party leadership on a platform of the urgent need for party reform. I said that we had to do things differently. No longer could we act as though we were the natural governing party. I was proud when the late Star journalist, Jim Travers, characterized my candidacy as “the reformer”.

We need to remove the barriers to women in politics, the nomination processes and fundraising. We need to listen to the riding associations from coast to coast to coast, not just in those ridings that are considered to be winnable. Parliamentary reform will require MPs to take a less partisan approach, especially at parliamentary committees.

The analysts at the Library of Parliament do an amazing job. We need to do everything we can to have unanimous reports, as Bill Young did with us when we had the subcommittee on persons with disabilities. Unanimous reports inform government of a consensus reached because all the members listened to the witnesses and were able to distill recommendations that would chart a way forward.

Committees need to travel more. They need to get out across the country to be available to hear first-hand the points of view of the regions. In my experience, committee travel was where colleagues in Parliament got to know one another across party lines and find out that we actually liked one another, with maybe a few exceptions.

Committee travel is also where we hear the stories we need to know and harvest solutions to the problems Canadians face every day. We also must insist on proper disaggregated data in all formal policy-making exercises. Stories and data; we need them both in order to deliver in our work Canada's core value: fairness.

I hope that wherever the privilege of being an MP has taken me, I have been there to listen and learn. In order to do the best for Canada, MPs can not only represent their own ridings and understand their own regions; they also need to understand the challenges we face from coast to coast to coast. From Cape Spear to Haida Gwaii, and from Grise Fiord to Point Pelee, our complex federal system requires MPs to have a deep understanding of the needs and aspirations of every region of this country.

I used to think that inclusive decision-making was a feminist value. I later learned that it was actually indigenous. Haudenosaunee women advised the first wave of North American feminists about the principles of indigenous leadership of asking, not telling, and how to work in a circle where everyone gets to speak.

People may find that there is already a consensus or that people are asking for more information before they are prepared to weigh in on a decision.

I have learned so much from extraordinary indigenous women. My fondest memories are of berry picking with Mary Simon in Kuujjuaq, tea with Maria Campbell at Gabriel's Crossing in Saskatchewan and ceremony with Sylvia Maracle at her office in Toronto. So many first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders and young people have been there to teach and correct my mistakes.

I have described seven settler learnings, which could help all of us join on the journey of humility and reconciliation. What if we had listened to the first peoples and respected their imperative of protecting mother earth, thinking seven generations out? What if we understood the important teachings of the medicine wheel, focused on keeping people well, physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually, rather than relying on the medical repair shop model that I was taught in medical school? What if we were to practise the indigenous pedagogy of learning by doing, so that the land and the water themselves were the teachers of biology, chemistry and physics? What if we respected our elders instead of dismissing the elderly, if we listened to wise women and if we put children first in all decisions? What if we practised the indigenous leadership of asking, not telling? We can imagine these things.

The foundation of our democracy is that great people will run for public office. I have had the privilege of persuading many great women and indigenous people to run. Some were elected. All affirmed the importance of our democratic institutions by leaving jobs they loved and spending time away from their families in order to campaign for the opportunity to contribute to making this country even better than it is now.

I am a feminist and a politician. I look forward to a day where neither “feminist” nor “politician” is treated like a four-letter word. I am so proud to have served under this feminist Prime Minister, whose vision and values inspire us all. He has always been a leader, not a boss. He has always demonstrated that he knows that good ideas can come from many places. He is curious. He listens. He walks the talk of hope and hard work. He has always had my back. Every day, he shows us that better is indeed always possible.

In election campaigns, it has been important for me to explain that the Prime Minister is a true leader, not a boss. Leaders see themselves at the centre of a circle. Bosses see themselves at the top of a pyramid, barking orders, in their singular view, to those below. “Father knows best” has never worked. The Prime Minister has vision and values, and he can take risks. I am proud that we have been able to implement the ambitious risk-taking platform of 2015, even the legalization of cannabis.

We have changed history, but I am worried. Cynicism is at an all-time high. Voter turnout is down. The safety of parliamentarians is under threat. I truly believe that it is essential for us to re-engage in a meaningful way with citizens. Consultation that is shallow or not genuine is bad for democracy. It fuels cynicism. People are turned off by it, and then they tune out. People either believe that we get better policy when we include the views of those who will be affected by the policy, or they do not. If they do not, if they already think they know everything, then they should not waste people's time. Cynicism is also being fuelled by the ideology that proclaims that all government is bad and all politicians are bad or useless; it asks, “Why bother to vote at all?” It is wise to remember that the perma-mad people always vote.

We need to acknowledge that democracy is fragile. We should tackle, as a priority, the proliferation of mis- and disinformation, as well as the toxicity and anonymity of social media. There are ways to protect or immunize people from the onslaught of mis- and disinformation. People's ability to perform critical appraisal is heightened by greater civic literacy, health literacy, mental health literacy and digital literacy.

However, we must be concerned about more than mis- and disinformation. We cannot ignore that those who were once only keyboard warriors are now actually throwing stones and vandalizing, as well as threatening people in person. The safety of parliamentarians and those groups that are most often victims of hate and discrimination is at risk. At this dangerous time for democracy, it is important to remember the teaching of Ursula Franklin: Good government must be “fair, transparent and take people seriously.”

People are truly worried about so many aspects of our world today: the economy, the environment, their future and their children's well-being and opportunity. We need to let people know their concerns are being heard and taken into account, and we need to explain government decision-making in ways that will make sense.

As I look back, I remember how devastated I was in 2006 when we lost. We lost Kyoto, kids and Kelowna. The progress on climate change, child care and reconciliation were instantly rolled back. We had to fight back, and we did. I am proud now that Canada has made serious advances on climate change, child care and reconciliation.

As minister responsible for public health, the TRC calls to action, MMIWG and later mental health and addictions, I hope I have been able to help government bust through the silos and address complex issues across all government departments. I believe there is a role for government in people's lives. Our complex federal system requires real relationships among all orders of government, municipal, provincial and territorial, federal and indigenous, in order to deliver effective supports and services to the people who need them most.

In closing, I want to thank Barry Campbell for asking me to run in 1997. I want to thank the wind beneath my wings for 26 years, the EAs: Michael Spowart, Rob White and Tricia Geddes. They all came back to work in my office when I was minister of state for public health in 2003. Lynne Steele, Rick Theis, Sarah Welch and Carlene Campbell put together teams that shared our vision and values of accessibility and democracy between elections. They were always able to give fearless advice.

These are amazing teams, and I want to thank every single one of them. They continue to work on this truly important project of democracy. Thank yous are dangerous; I do not want to leave people out. Today I wanted to thank those who have travelled with me for almost a quarter century: Mary Eberts, Bill Young, Philippe Bussy, Michel Amar, Frank Graves, Jim Anderson, Robin Sears, Susan Delacourt, Don Lenihan, Anna and Paul Brehl, Constance Backhouse, Karen Breeck, Nora Spinks, Terry Hancock, Margo Greenwood, Will Falk, Stan Kutcher and, of course, Paul Martin and Bob Rae.

Today especially, I miss Bill Graham and Andy Scott.

I am so grateful to all my colleagues here. Many of my friends outside politics have paid me the biggest compliment, saying that being elected did not change me. I am still Carolyn, or Dr. Carolyn to some.

I want to thank my French teachers Géraldine, here in Ottawa, and Michel and Huguette from Logibec, in Quebec City, as well as my host family, René Courchesne and Claro Picard.

Their love for the beauty of the French language and culture was absolutely contagious.

Peter O'Brian is the best political spouse in the world. When graduating from college, he put “support a politician” on his bucket list. I am not sure he meant sharing these decades of ups and downs. Once, while canvassing, he asked at the door of a household in our neighbourhood if the resident wished to meet the candidate. He was told, “I would rather have my eyeballs taken out with fish hooks.” He quickly moved to become sign chair.

As all my colleagues in the House present and past know all too well, an MP's family has lots of these fish-hook moments over the years, of all different types, intensities and durations. I am grateful for the love of my sons, Jack and Ben, and the sacrifices they have made, happily and unhappily, to allow me to serve Canada as I have for over a quarter century.

For 26 years, I have been able to honestly reply to the critics with a question: “What country would you rather live in?” For 26 years, the answer has been the same, which is a moment of silence and then an acknowledgement that as much work as there still is to do, we are proud Canadians. I have never heard one word of other country envy.

I will miss my amazing parliamentary colleagues. I think we remember that moment in the House this fall when President Zelenskyy from Ukraine quoted Governor General Mary Simon with a word in Inuktitut: “ajuinnata”. As he said, it means “Don't give up. Stay strong against all odds”.

In these difficult times, I have every confidence that we will continue to fight together to make the best country in the world even better.

Merci. Meegwetch. Thank you. Ajuinnata.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to ask a question of my friend from St. Paul's for the last time in this House. For 15 years, we have served together in various corners of the House. For 15 years and more, she has been a source of inspiration and sound advice to me on how to be a better feminist, how to recruit extraordinary women from across this country to build the kind of government that Canada deserves and how to move forward on reconciliation.

As Canada's first minister of Crown and indigenous relations, she blazed a trail in deepening the relationship that matters so much to all Canadians and to the future of our country. As the very first minister for mental health and addictions, she demonstrated the compassion, the perseverance and the drive that carried her through a storied career as a family doctor to have an impact on Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Even during the depths of the pandemic, I had the benefit of turning to the very first minister of state for public health and the creator of the Public Health Agency of Canada for advice on how to handle a once-in-a-century event for Canada.

I look forward to continuing to draw on her advice in many ways, but right now, given all the things that she spoke about and all the pieces of advice that she has given to us, I guess my last question for her would be this: How do we make sure that the House has more like her, more people dedicated to this country, more young women growing up and seeing a place for themselves here and the responsibility and, therefore, the opportunity to shape this country for the better? What are the best pieces of advice that we should carry with us as we reach out to find even more extraordinary women to sit in this House, to lead and serve this country?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with your help, I think we have to make sure that teachers will feel that they can bring their students in here again and not just come to pick up bad habits. I also think that we all do the country a great service by getting into the grade five classrooms and putting a human face on what a politician is.

I hope that we can move to make sure of the diversity of this place, so people can see themselves here. I think it is also similar to Equal Voice's, “Be Her or Support Her” campaign, the idea that someone does not have to actually run, but they can help with policy, fundraising or organization. There are many ways, but the project of democracy cannot be taken for granted.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her many years of service. It gives me great pleasure to comment on her very long career. As the member and I share a great love of Georgian Bay, I expect to see her spending more time there, perhaps finishing her book on democracy, which we will all take great lessons from.

When I was first elected, I was provided advice by many people, and someone said I should get to know members in all parties. Shortly after being elected, when the member was the then minister of mental health and addictions, she reached out to me. She said I had a mental health hospital in my riding and she would love to visit it with me, which we did this past summer. We have heard the member talk about the things that she is passionate about. She has dedicated her life of public service to indigenous reconciliation, of course, as well as mental health and increasing the number of women in politics and getting women involved in politics at all different levels.

The member had an opportunity to continue serving her community well as a doctor, but she put that aside to make thousands of Canadians' lives better through her 26 years of public service. I will not say what I was doing in 1997, or my age then, but I was not quite yet in high school. This is the length of the member's dedication to public service.

While we may disagree on ways to make this country better, we do agree that we live in the best country on this planet and that we can work together to make it better. As I said, when opportunities arise that allow us to work together, visit institutions or work on a file, we can do great things for Canadians.

I look forward to what is to come for the member. I know her life of service will not be over. I am sure she has other things planned to continue serving in different ways. I and all my colleagues wish the member good luck and thank her for her service.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my member of Parliament in Georgian Bay. There will be many more trips on the Georgian Bay, and I will continue to conspire with the member for his wise advice.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech and her years of service.

I see that she, like me, has a passion for karaoke. Maybe we could go do karaoke together sometime and have some fun. I will take her advice about high heels to heart. In fact, I lost one of mine on the stairs earlier. We can chat about that later too.

On a more serious note, I would like to congratulate her on her years of service. I was not very old in 1997 either, but if not for the women who came before me in politics, I would not be here today. There are still so many glass ceilings to break in this boys' club.

I also see that we also share an obsession with democracy. I look forward to seeing what she does next. Maybe, in response to my question, she can tell me a bit more about how she perceives the issue of disinformation in our time. I would like her to tell us how this contributes to diminishing democracy, how social media and online hate sometimes contribute to deterring women from entering politics, and how excessive partisanship and petty politics can put women off a career in politics. We have a vision that is much less partisan and much more collaborative.

Perhaps she can advise us on how women can make a greater contribution to our democracy. She may also be able to tell me how, as parliamentarians, we can help halt the further erosion of democracy. What is happening now is very worrisome.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the future will bring opportunities to improve civic literacy as well as physical and mental health literacy. The ability to ascertain the truth is very important. It is foundational for every young person. It is important to truly hear people's concerns and, I believe, to truly hear women.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Toronto—St. Paul's for her years of service.

I did not know until today that she loves karaoke. I too love karaoke. Perhaps we could have had a Broadway kickoff at a local karaoke club in Ottawa, but I am sure we will have time to do that in the coming years.

I really appreciated the hon. member's acknowledgement of the importance of territorial recognition, the understanding that we all sit on lands that were dispossessed from indigenous peoples. I think it is foundational to reconciliation in this country to recognize the privileges that have been borne on the backs of indigenous peoples. I truly respect that.

I thank her, as well, for the barriers she broke down for women in politics. We still do not have enough women in politics, but it is folks like the member for Toronto—St. Paul's who really broke those glass ceilings to even let us have a space in here. As we work within a new trajectory of intersectionalities, I hope, one day, to be an example, just as the member for Toronto—St. Paul's is for women, for other indigenous women who are trying to find space in a place that was never supposed to house us. I thank the member for her sacrifice.

I am also a proud feminist. At a time when we see women's reproductive rights under threat, even in this House, with bills trying to be passed that attack women's reproductive rights, I thank her for bringing up the discussion about women's right to bodily autonomy before it was even a discussion.

I share her concern for the threat to democracy with populist, extreme right-wing politics and a rise of white supremacy in this country, which is not just flourishing outside these walls but within these walls as well, in the House of Commons. For people who have already been marginalized by systems, that is very scary.

I wanted to take this opportunity to thank the member for doing her best to be such a good ally to indigenous peoples through the years, taking the time to learn when needed. I want to thank her for that.

I also want to take this opportunity to ask the member for her wisdom on how we protect democracy at a time of rising hate and what we can do to ensure that we can protect the rights of all people living in Canada going forward.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the ability to work with her in her riding on all of the things she cares about.

I also thank her because, in my comments I said that thanking people was dangerous, and I now realize I forgot some of my best coaches, such as Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux, Steve Koptie and Michèle Audette, who should have been there in the top rung of all of this, but they have always been. Even though Cynthia ran against the distinguished members for York—Simcoe and Simcoe North, my two colleagues here, she has never stopped being there to support me and give me wise counsel

I think part of it is to be able to instill that coaching from the very youngest age. There is a grade one teacher in my riding, just at the end of my street, who has a unit on leadership. I think that we cannot start early enough in teaching people to understand how to do a critical appraisal and what civic literacy is.

I think of the amazing Ilona Kickbusch at the WHO, and some others who are really focused on digital literacy so that people can sort out what is true, what is not and what a bot is. How do we help people seek out those kinds of advice and truths? I am a doctor so I always talk about immunization, but we have to immunize people against this really evil threat.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish it did not take a great parliamentarian to retire to turn down the partisan temperature in this place, but it may be fitting because, in the short time I have been here, it is everything I have known of the hon. member for Toronto—St. Paul's.

When she was the minister of mental health and addictions, she was keen to hear from me about advice on the upcoming budget and to push for a really critical program, the substance use and addictions program.

When it came to announcing funding on behalf of the Government of Canada, when she arrived in my community, she was keen to ensure that all parliamentarians from this place were represented and supportive there. We heard it from her again this afternoon. I join colleagues in thanking her for her service to this country over the last 26 years. We are all better for it.

One aspect of her advocacy I particularly appreciated was her advocacy for improving our democracy through electoral reform. As a parting thought, I would love to hear more from her, if she would be open to sharing with us her reflections, on how to continue to move forward on electoral reform.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the push on electoral reform. I think we are learning, as we choose our leaders and so many things on ranked ballots, that it is a good way to start in municipal politics. I have always thought, on electoral reform, that we have to start by having citizens understand it.

In 1993, Conservatives were able to get 20-something per cent of the vote and two members, and we see that we could get a separatist government in the Province of Quebec with really less than a majority, so I think there is a risk. We have to teach that first, and then we move on to what would be the best thing to do in this huge country, from coast to coast to coast, where the land and the people are important.

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

I thank everyone for their interventions for the hon. member.

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, Automotive Industry, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Carbon Pricing, and the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, Carbon Pricing.

Now we go back to the hon. leader of the official opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House of Commons to talk about the $23 billion in inflationary deficits added by this bill alone. Here is yet another example of a Prime Minister who, after eight years, is not worth the cost.

When I say that he is not worth the cost, I am talking about his false advertising. Normally, in the private sector, false advertising is a criminal offence. If, for example, a business advertises a product at a certain price and does not deliver the promised product, that business may have to face criminal charges in court. Governments do it all the time. They ask for money to deliver a product to Canadians. We see the Prime Minister do that all the time.

For example, in very general terms, take his program to help the middle class. Eight years down the road, nine out of 10 middle-class young people are unable to afford a house and believe that will never change. Eight years on, the number of employed Ontarians using food banks has increased by 86%. These are middle-class people. They are suffering. They never needed to use food banks before, but eight years after the government floated the idea of helping the middle class, they need it now.

We have a Prime Minister who promised to help the media by giving them big subsidies to buy their love. How did that turn out? Media articles are now being erased from social networks.

There is also talk about a program to help kids get lunch at school. However, if we read the bill to find out what the program is about, no food is included. The money is for two federal ministers to hold consultations with provincial ministers and interest groups and write a report about a plan to create a policy to someday feed children. Here is just another example of a government that says it is going to feed kids, but then turns around and feeds bureaucracies instead.

Now let us move on to housing. While criticizing Jean Chrétien for eliminating housing bureaucracy at the federal level, the Prime Minister announced that the feds would once again fund housing by setting up major, $87‑billion programs for affordable housing. Eight years later, what has happened? Housing prices have doubled. The cost of a mortgage on an average home has more than doubled, with payments increasing from $1,400 to nearly $3,500 a month. The cost of a one-bedroom apartment has risen from an average of $900 to almost $2,000, and the down payment for the average home in this country has increased from $20,000 to more than $50,000.

The program proposes spending billions and billions of dollars on affordable homes and apartments. The result is that costs have doubled. That is exactly the opposite of what the ads said. Unfortunately, these ads sometimes appear in documents voted on in the House of Commons. For example, there are affordable housing programs that increase the price of homes, and millions or billions of dollars are provided to fund them.

In the private sector, charging money for a product and then failing to deliver that product would land a CEO in jail. The Prime Minister does that all the time, but he keeps his privileges while the population suffers.

That is why I created a monumental documentary on the housing hell that this Prime Minister has caused. The bought-and-paid-for media had a meltdown. They had a meltdown across the country, but they had a problem. They could not find a single error in any of the facts that were presented. I presented around 55 facts. The documentary introduces a new fact roughly every 20 seconds. There is not a single journalist who could find one factual error.

Let me review some of these facts. I found many of these facts in articles published by the media that attacked me for my documentary. They published those same facts. That is the problem. They published facts about the housing crisis, but failed to mention the Prime Minister who caused this housing crisis, who is in power and who has seen prices double.

Here are the facts.

First, nine out of 10 Canadians believe that they will never own a home. The journalist who wrote that is Shazia Nazir from Milton, Ontario. That is a fact. There is no denying it. Which Prime Minister created this phenomenon, which had never been seen before in our history? It is this Liberal Prime Minister.

Second, I demonstrated that it takes 66% of an average paycheque to make the monthly payments on the average single-family home. A Radio‑Canada journalist said that figure was made up, but it comes from the Royal Bank of Canada. It is published on the RBC website. Radio‑Canada could have found it, if its journalists had wanted to share the truth. It takes 66% of an average paycheque to make the average payments for an average home in Canada. The remaining 34% is needed to pay taxes, leaving nothing after that. People will not be able to buy groceries, do anything fun or go on vacation. They will have barely enough money to pay their mortgage. This is compared to 39% when I was the minister responsible for housing. Eight years ago, it took 39% of an average family's paycheque to buy an average home and pay the monthly expenses. That means the percentage of a family's monthly income needed to afford an average home has increased by half. That is after eight years under this Prime Minister, and it is a record. It has never been the case before now.

A 57-year-old grandmother had to live in her van because of the housing crisis caused by this Prime Minister. Refugees have to live in the streets because the shelters are full. After eight years of this Prime Minister, there is no more room. Eight years ago, the average price of a house in Canada was $454,000. Now, it is about $700,000. With the higher interest rates, monthly payments are even worse.

The Liberals and their bought-and-paid-for media are trying to blame a global phenomenon, but that is not going to fly. Other countries are not experiencing the same crisis as we are here, in Canada.

All the international data show that prices in Canada have gone up much faster than in nearly every other country. Housing costs in Canada have outpaced wage growth faster than in all but one OECD country. On affordability, Canada ranks next to last out of almost 40 industrialized countries for the period from 2015 to 2023. Interestingly, the Prime Minister has been in power that entire time.

According to UBS Bank, Toronto has the worst housing bubble in the world. This is not a phenomenon observed in all of the world's biggest cities; it is just in Toronto. Moreover, Vancouver ranks sixth. According to UBS, these two markets were reasonably priced 10 years ago. That is another fact that the Prime Minister's bought-and-paid-for media tried to contradict, but they failed.

Houses near the border on the Canadian side can be three times more expensive than those on the U.S. side. How does that make sense if it is an international phenomenon? In general, prices in the United States are 25% to 40% lower than in Canada, even though the U.S. population is eight times the Canadian population and their land mass is smaller. After eight years of this Prime Minister, people can buy a Swedish castle for less than it costs to buy a two-bedroom house in Kitchener.

Of all the G7 countries, ours is the largest by landmass. A Radio-Canada reporter who was trying to save the Prime Minister's reputation said that that argument was ridiculous because people cannot live in Canada's far north, for example. He was suggesting that the only land available in Canada is in the far north. That is what is ridiculous. There is plenty of land around our big cities. If those claims are true, then why is the U.S. able to provide housing at a much lower cost, even though its population is concentrated in New York, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles and other large cities?

Even if the population is concentrated in big cities, houses are a lot less expensive in the U.S. than they are in Canada after eight years of this Prime Minister. Those who say it is irrelevant to talk about the amount of land that we have to provide Canadians with property are forgetting that the reality is that supply and demand always determine the price. Prices should be very low in Canada because there is land available around cities, in southern Canada, western Canada, eastern Canada and even northern Canada, land on which we could be building housing, if we could cut through all the red tape put in place by governments at all levels.

The fact is, since this Prime Minister came to power, there are fewer houses per capita than before. Of all the G7 countries, Canada has the fewest houses per capita, even though it has the largest landmass available for housing. I find it very interesting that there were more houses per capita eight years ago, when there were no bureaucratic programs to make properties more affordable. Do my colleagues not find that interesting?

According to the Prime Minister, $87 billion was spent on building affordable homes. However, eight years later, there are fewer houses per capita. It is unbelievable. It is like being in a restaurant, ordering something that tastes terrible, getting the wrong order and terrible service, and then being told it is going to cost $500. Then we turn around and say it was a great meal because it cost so much. That is the Prime Minister's argument. His programs are expensive, so they must be good.

He just attacked us for voting against the money allocated for programs because he believes that money equals results, even if that spending results in the opposite of what the programs promise. He criticizes me for not having spent enough on housing. I delivered affordable homes and apartments when I was minister at a lower cost to taxpayers. That is good, common sense: lower costs for taxpayers and lower costs for those buying or renting homes. That is what it means to know the value of money. The Prime Minister does not understand that because he has never had to work in his life. He inherited his wealth and kept his wealth in a tax-sheltered trust fund. I understand why it is hard for him to grasp the value of money.

I will give an example. In 1972, 232,000 housing units were built in Canada. In 2022, 219,000 homes were built in Canada. In 1972, there were 22 million Canadians. Last year, there were 39 million. The Canadian population has practically doubled, but fewer houses are being built after eight years of this Prime Minister and after $87 billion of government spending to build more. This government spends more to build less at a higher price. That is its approach.

What is the highest cost of building a home today in Vancouver, for example? Is it lumber, the workers' wages, the land? No, it is not even the construction company's profits. It is government fees and red tape. Yes, the red tape is local. It comes mainly from local governments, but it is funded by the federal government.

The Prime Minister boasts about the fact that he is sending bigger cheques to municipal politicians to build a bigger bureaucracy to prevent construction in the name of affordable housing. In Nova Scotia, after completely failing to provide a decent quality of life for people in Halifax, after 30 homeless encampments cropped up around the city, the housing minister came along with money from the housing accelerator fund and gave millions of dollars to his friend, the Liberal mayor of Halifax. He said that it would speed up housing construction.

We later learned what that money will be used for. It is going to be used to hire more public servants, the same public servants who are preventing construction in Halifax. There is going to be more red tape thanks to the money the federal government is sending. The Prime Minister has learned absolutely nothing. That is why we need to make a common-sense change that will build houses, not bureaucracy. That is our approach.

Some people have criticized my monumental documentary. According to them, nothing can be built because there is not enough land in places where people want to live.

The Squamish people have proven otherwise. In Vancouver, the Squamish are building 6,000 apartments on a 10-acre property. On 10 acres, they are building an unbelievable 6,000 apartments. That means they are building 600 apartments per acre. These are outstanding results. This would have never happened if they had been forced to listen to the bureaucrats in downtown Vancouver. On their traditional land, a traditional reserve of their people, they did not need permits from local bureaucrats. That enabled them to build housing.

This proves that if we could cut out the bureaucracy, we could build more large apartments downtown and more houses in the suburbs at the same time. That is exactly the opposite of what the Prime Minister is doing right now.

I have heard other excuses from staunch defenders of the Prime Minister, who set up a huge fund to financially support the media and buy their loyalty. They say it is not the Prime Minister's fault that the cost of housing has doubled, because it was COVID-19 that drove up housing prices.

A Journal de Montréal columnist I admire said that COVID-19 has become a scapegoat. COVID-19 should have lowered housing prices, because there was less immigration during COVID-19. The immigration system was practically shut down for nine or 10 months, and it slowed down for another nine or 10 months after that. The figures show that there was less immigration, fewer jobs and lower wages.

All these factors would normally reduce demand in the real estate market. I am not the only one saying this. In spring 2020, the federal government's housing agency predicted that housing prices would drop by 32% because of COVID-19. They were wrong, but it is understandable why they predicted that prices would fall. When the country loses jobs and wages and closes its doors to immigration, the results are lower prices and less demand. However, prices have gone up. Why did prices rise in the two years following COVID-19? Because the central bank printed $600 billion. Money was created out of thin air.

The media said that that was not true and had nothing to do with it, but my documentary includes a Bank of Canada graph that shows the number of houses bought by investors doubled. It started in the spring of 2020, right when the Bank of Canada started printing money and buying bonds from banks and financial institutions, which flooded the financial system. All that money was loaned to investors that have relationships with the bankers. They are the ones who helped double the amount invested. Prices jumped by 50% after that massive injection of newly printed money. It was not COVID‑19. It was the sense that people had money that caused a sudden spike in housing prices.

In fact, the Liberals and their supporters in the bought-off media will say that all that government spending was necessary because of COVID-19. Is that really true?

There was a $100-billion deficit before the first case of COVID-19. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 40% of new spending during the COVID-19 pandemic had nothing to do with COVID-19. The pandemic has been over for a year or two, but the deficits continue. The government can no longer blame COVID-19 and say that COVID-19 ate its homework, when the deficits were there before COVID-19, the deficits during COVID-19 were not related to the pandemic, and the deficits after COVID-19, in some cases, are increasing. Although COVID-19 is disappearing in the rear-view mirror, deficits continue to increase. We cannot accept the Prime Minister's excuse that the dog ate his homework. Printing money to spend recklessly was an irresponsible decision, and I warned against it. That is continuing to this day and it is driving up interest rates.

It just goes to show, once again, that every time this Prime Minister stands up in the House of Commons and says he has no other choice, he is spending money on all kinds of slogans. However, when we look at the results behind those slogans, it is the exact opposite of what has been promised. It is false advertising. That is why we often vote against spending that, according to the slogans, sounds great, but in reality does exactly the opposite of what the slogans promise. That is why we need a common-sense government. That is what I can offer as Canada's future prime minister.

A few months ago, the Bloc Québécois asked me what common sense actually is. I admire their humility in admitting that they have no idea what common sense is. I was able to help them by defining common sense. It struck them as a strange idea, because they live in a utopia. They are here in the House of Commons to make life more miserable, arguing that Canada should be split up into pieces. Again, to help the Bloc Québécois, commons sense actually means many things.

First, we need to bring back lower prices. How do we do that? We do that by axing the carbon tax that is increasing the price of everything. I know that the government wants to quadruple the carbon tax on farmers who produce food, on fuel and on all our industries. I know that the Bloc Québécois wants to radically increase the carbon tax. I know that there is a second carbon tax under the name fuel regulations. However, the Bloc Québécois is not satisfied. It wants to radically increase it. Only the Conservative Party will axe the tax on carbon to reduce the price of energy for all Canadians.

We will rely on technology to fight climate change. I know that the Bloc Québécois is against technology. For example, it is against the nuclear energy that France uses to produce electricity without any greenhouse gas emissions. The Bloc Québécois is against that. It is so ideologically radical. It is against nuclear energy and other sources of energy that do not produce carbon emissions. We will use these technologies instead of taxing F-150s in Saguenay or in Trois‑Rivières, where workers and farmers need their truck for work. These are good people. They work hard, and we are the only party for the vast regions of Quebec. That is all. That is the truth.

Another common-sense solution is to control spending. I find the Bloc Québécois funny. It always wants the federal government to do more. It is strange. The Bloc says that it wants to get rid of the federal government, but at the same time, it is always voting to increase the federal government's costs at Quebeckers' expense. The Bloc voted for all the spending increases that the Liberal government proposed. It voted against the financial discipline that we are proposing.

The common-sense idea I am proposing is a dollar-for-dollar law, which says that if we spend a dollar on one thing, then we need to save a dollar somewhere else. A law like that existed during the Clinton administration in the 1990s. It enabled the Democratic president to balance the budget and eliminate $400 billion in debt. That resulted in an enormous increase in jobs and wages, an increase in the stock market and plenty of other things. However, just after the law expired, the U.S. plunged back into a deficit and they are still in that situation today. That shows that politicians need a legal limit to control their spending. We are going to do things the same way that single mothers, small businesses and families do them. Every time a Canadian with common sense increases their spending in one area, they find a way to decrease it in another so that they can pay the bills, instead of just continuing to add expenses to their credit card. That is how we are going to impose discipline.

We will also eliminate waste. The Canada Infrastructure Bank costs $35 billion and has not delivered one single infrastructure project. We will get rid of ArriveCAN. We will get rid of the Asian Infrastructure Bank, which sends our money to China to build pipelines. We are building pipelines in China and banning them here in Canada. That makes no sense. We are not here to build the ancient Chinese empire. We are here to build a good quality of life for Canadians here at home. That is common sense.

We will tell municipalities that, if they want infrastructure money, they have to approve more housing construction. The reason we do not have enough homes is that there is too much bureaucracy getting in the way of construction. Canada is the second-slowest OECD country when it comes to granting construction permits. How will we get municipalities to speed up the permitting process? We will say that the amount of infrastructure money they are going to get is tied to the number of houses built. It will be based on results. I will tell every municipality to allow 15% more construction. If they do more, they will get bonuses. If they do less, they will lose money. Those bureaucrats will be paid like realtors. Realtors get paid according to how much they sell. The federal government will pay municipal bureaucrats according to how much construction they allow. We will demand that every public transit station be surrounded by apartments. The money will flow once those apartments are built and occupied by people.

We are going to sell off 6,000 federal government buildings and thousands of acres of federal land to build new homes. We are going to ask the federal agency that approves financing for apartments do so in two months instead of two years, or else we will fire their executives. It is easy. If you work in a senior position in my government and you do not keep your commitments, you will be fired. That is life. That is the real world. That is how life works for a carpenter or a mechanic. That is also how it will work for executives in my government. Eventually, this will speed up construction, after eight years of delays and people finding they can no longer buy houses.

Common sense also means putting real repeat offenders in prison instead of allowing them to commit the same acts of violence against Canadians over and over again.

We understand that some young people make mistakes. I get that, and we are going to rehabilitate them. However, we are not going to let people commit 40, 50 or 60 crimes over and over, each one more violent than the last, by releasing them, like the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals want to do. We want these criminals to go to prison. We do not want to let them out on bail or stay at home. We are going to offer treatment to people who are addicted to drugs, and we are going to stop targeting hunters and sport shooters.

The Bloc Québécois tried to help the Liberals ban hunting rifles. When the Liberals published 300 pages of hunting rifles that they wanted to ban, the Bloc member was there. It is on the video. They can deny it if they want, but there is video evidence. He was there and even said that it was his dream to see 300 pages of hunting rifles banned. Then all of a sudden, the Bloc members realized that there were hunters in the regions in Quebec.

That was quite a realization for the Bloc members, who spend most of their time with the lefties in Plateau-Mont-Royal, so it never occurred to them that there were hunters in Quebec. Like the Prime Minister, the Bloc Québécois had to back down because of Conservative pressure. The Bloc had to apologize and say that they would not try to ban hunting rifles after all, after hearing the Conservatives' strong arguments. Now that is common sense.

We know that this radical coalition will once again try to ban our hunters. People in the regions of Quebec will have to depend on the Conservative Party to protect their traditions, which have existed in Canada for thousands of years among indigenous peoples. I want to thank first nations for defending their right to hunt and opposing the Prime Minister's plan to ban their hunting rifles.

We are the only party that believes we should instead invest money in tightening the border against illegal guns. At the same time, we will put the real criminals in jail, while respecting hunters and sport shooters. That is common sense. Common sense is such a strange concept to our Bloc Québécois friends.

Common sense also means protecting our freedom. The Conservative Party is still the only party that voted against the censorship law. The Bloc Québécois voted to give Canada's federal bureaucrats in Ottawa the power to prevent Quebeckers from watching certain things online. Imagine a supposed sovereignist from Quebec saying that an official from a woke agency in Ottawa should be able to control what Quebeckers see and say on the Internet. We will never agree to that. The Conservative Party is the only party that will defend freedom of expression. Accordingly, we will scrap Bill C-11.

We cannot have freedom of expression without national freedom. That is why the Conservative Party is going to rebuild our army. This Prime Minister has wasted so much money by bungling procurement and delaying the F-35 aircraft replacement, for example. We are going to wipe out incompetence and waste and invest in helping our soldiers and rebuilding our army. We will stop giving money to dictatorships, terrorists and international bureaucracies and bring that money back here to Canada to rebuild our armed forces. We will defend our freedom by defending our military.

In conclusion, I know that, for most Canadians, things are miserable in Canada right now. Everything is broken. Do not take it from me. That is coming from two-thirds of Canadians polled. We have a Prime Minister who always wants to promote negativity. He is always negative. He tries to divide people.

I am here with a positive message, a common-sense message that gives hope to Canadians across the country. Yes, the future will be better than the eight years we have just gone through. Yes, we can have a country where people are free to earn big paycheques to buy food, fuel and affordable homes in safe communities. That is the goal of the Conservative Party. That is the goal of bringing home common sense.

Now in English.

[Some hon. members]

More, more.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can only go where my caucus leads, and they are asking me to continue speaking. I can do no other. I am but their humble servant. The member across the way is also very humble, and he has much to be humble about, indeed, as does his entire government.

Today, I rise to speak about false Liberal advertising. What we have in the private sector are laws that could lead to the criminal prosecution of any business that advertises one thing and delivers the opposite. If somebody goes on television, tries to sell a product and then fails to deliver it after collecting payment, they can be sued civilly and maybe even charged criminally.

Weirdly, in politics, we call it law-making. We have a Prime Minister who literally brings programs before the House of Commons that do exactly the opposite of what they say. For example, he said he was going to spend millions of dollars buying back hunting rifles. What has this resulted in? A 100% increase in violent crime. He has a program that he says will help protect the media that has actually removed the media from social networks. We have a Prime Minister who has an $87-billion affordable housing program that has doubled the cost of housing. This the exact opposite of what he promised, and yet he took billions of dollars from Canadians in order to pay for it.

The Liberals were trumpeting their idea of an affordable food program for kids, and then we found out that there is no food in the program. We found that the program does not provide a single dollar for food. Here is what it does, and I have it right from the bill:

The Minister must, in consultation with the Minister of Health, representatives of the provincial governments responsible for health and education, other relevant stakeholders in those fields and representatives of Indigenous governing bodies, develop a national framework to establish a school food program

Let us just walk through all the steps, because we know that normally, in the real world, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but there were many points that were unrelated to kids actually having food in their belly. One minister would consult with another federal minister, who would consult with provincial ministers, who would consult with stakeholders, which is code for lobbyists, who would then develop a national framework to establish a school food program.

I note that the bill actually did not provide a single dollar to source anything of nutritional value, not a single calorie of nutrition is funded by the bill. It does not feed kids, it feeds bureaucracy.

This is an example of all of the wonderful labels and slogans Liberals put on their spending that actually does not deliver anything to the end-user. It is more self-service, not public service but self-service, of the bigger and fatter bureaucracy and the ecosystem of lobbyists, interest groups, researchers, bureaucrats, Crown CEOs and contractors who feast off all of the money that is hidden under these beautiful and unimpeachable slogans. There is the beautiful “Let's Protect Innocent Kittens Act”. Liberals will spend a billion dollars on that, but they will hire a bureaucrat who will create a department that will consult with paid interest groups, which will contract out their report writing to those who have expertise in PowerPoint. They will have hundreds of people feeding off this program, and the poor little kittens will be forgotten about in the end. Who thinks of the kittens? They do not actually get anything, not even a little bit of milk, because Liberals will carbon tax that as well.

That is the system of the government: It spends more to achieve less. As I said, there is an $87-billion housing program that is supposed to make housing affordable but that has doubled the cost of housing, doubled the rent, doubled the mortgage payment and doubled the needed down payment. Let us go through the numbers. When I was housing minister, the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment was about $950 a month; now it is just under $2,000 a month. The average mortgage payment on an average home, newly purchased, was $1,400; today it is $3,500. The average down payment for a newly purchased standard-price home was $20,000. Imagine that. We almost cannot imagine it. The $20,000 amount for a down payment almost seems quaint. That was only eight years ago. Now, it is over $50,000.

The Prime Minister's main criticism of me is that I did not have big enough bureaucracies at the same time as I was making housing affordable. His measurement of success is not whether one delivers an end product to the end-user; it is whether one builds a big enough bureaucracy and line item in the budget to pay for it. Failing is bad; failing expensively is worse, and, boy, has he ever failed.

I recently produced a documentary called “Housing Hell: How we got here and how we get out”. Has anybody heard of it? I see that even some random Liberals on the backbench have heard of it, and that is nice, because they do not really get put to any good use. It is good that they were able to have a quiet 15 minutes to soak in the production.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I will make a few more that will add up to an hour, and then the member will have something to do with himself when he is away on Christmas break. Maybe that will be the Christmas gift that appears under the member's tree when he wakes up and opens his phone.

We have seen an absolute meltdown by the bought-and-paid-for media. First of all, they were furious that I went around them. How dare I communicate directly with Canadians, they asked. They proceeded, with no success, to try to poke holes in the documentary, which introduces a new fact roughly every 20 or 25 seconds for the entire 15-minute period. The media was desperate to find an error or a problem, and they could not find a single factual error in the entire documentary. They tried.

Let me review some of the undisputable facts, because they are all publicly sourced, with proof to show where they come from. For example, one headline said, “Nine out of 10 Canadians believe they will never own a home, survey shows”. That is right out of the Milton Reporter on April 25, 2022. It is so much worse now than it was back then. This headline was in The Globe and Mail: “This 57-year-old grandmother didn’t choose the van life. The housing crisis chose it for her”. That was in May 2023. Imagine the miserable life of this wonderful grandmother after eight years of the Prime Minister. Another news headline was that students are forced to live under bridges.

One might ask why I am quoting the media, of which I am critical, and it is because they fail to mention in any of these articles who the Prime Minister is who presided over the housing hell. They fail to assign blame to the person who actually caused the problem in the first place.

CBC/Radio-Canada, desperately flailing around trying to find fault with my documentary, recently said that I had no proof that it takes 66% of an average family's monthly income to make payments on the average home. The report comes from RBC, in its quarterly housing affordability calculation. It has been doing it for 40 years, and it is now higher than it has ever been in its recorded history. That is because housing costs have not only grown but have also vastly outgrown our very poor and miserable wage growth under the Prime Minister.

CBC/Radio-Canada then went on to its next excuse, claiming that Canada's housing hell is just part of some global phenomenon. That is an easy claim to dispute and disprove because, of course, our housing hell is so much worse than that of any other country on earth. For example, Toronto is rated by UBS Bank as the worst housing bubble in the world. Vancouver is the sixth. Both of them were rated as moderately expensive only 10 years ago.

If one wants a different measure, go to Demographia, which has a very simple formula. It divides the average house price in a country or a city by the average income. Based on that measure, Vancouver is the third and Toronto the 10th most overpriced housing market in the world, worse than Manhattan; Los Angeles; Chicago; London, England; and even Singapore, a country with 2,000 times more people per square kilometre than Canada has. Look at the comparison with the United States. The average American housing prices, depending on the measurement, are 25% to 40% cheaper. In border towns, house prices on the Canadian side, 15 minutes away, are often double or even triple the prices of those south of the border.

A two-bedroom house in Kitchener now costs more than a castle in Sweden. In fact, the OECD did a measurement of the growth in house prices relative to the growth in incomes in all of the roughly 40 OECD countries, and Canada saw the second-worst deterioration of housing affordability since the Prime Minister took office in 2015. No, one cannot blame it on some global phenomenon; it is a uniquely Canadian hell and a uniquely here-and-now hell. The Prime Minister is responsible.

I find they say that the Prime Minister really has nothing to do with housing—

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

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I noticed the time. Of course, the leader of the official opposition is entitled to take as much time as he wants, but some of us are beginning to wonder whether he is running out the clock so he does not have to take questions, if he is afraid to take questions from the floor, or whether he will be leaving some time for members to ask him questions about his dissertation.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we then went on to demonstrate in the documentary another indisputable fact: that Canada has the fewest homes per capita in the G7 after eight years of the Prime Minister, even though we have the most land to build on, and that we built more homes in 1972 than we built last year. In fact, in 1972, there were 22 million Canadians. Last year, there were 39 million. In other words, we have doubled the population while reducing the number of homes we are building, because of the massive bureaucracy the Prime Minister continues to build up. As a result, the number of homes relative to the number of families who need them is in stark decline.

What do colleagues think is causing the rising cost of building a home? In Vancouver, for example, what would colleagues think is the leading cost of building a home? Is it land, labour, lumber or even the profit of the builder? No, it is the government: the cost of permits, delays, consultants, red tape and taxes. All of these costs add up to more than all of the other costs combined. They add up to $1.3 million for every newly built home. In Montreal, the city has blocked 25,000 new homes in the last two years. In Winnipeg, the courts had to shoot down a decision by the city hall to block 2,000 homes right next to a transit station that was built for those homes. Why was that? It was because the city councillor said his constituents did not want neighbours. Many Ontario municipalities have raised development charges 900%. Have the costs of servicing communities gone up 900% over the last several decades? I would like to see why.

Granted, those decisions are municipal, but they are federally funded because the Prime Minister happily forks over billions and billions of dollars more, rewarding bureaucracies for blocking the way. For example, he has created the new housing accelerator fund. After two years and $4 billion, it has not completed a single solitary home. Recently, the minister had a great photo op in the city of Halifax, in your province, Mr. Speaker, and boy, did we ever need a housing announcement there, because, after eight years of the Prime Minister, there are now 30 homeless encampments in that city. Can people imagine that?

Mr. Speaker, you are from Nova Scotia. Would you ever have imagined that there would be 30 homeless encampments in Halifax? Eight years ago, if I had told you that would have happened, you would not have believed me. This is after eight years of the misery and poverty that the Prime Minister has imposed on our people. We were all a little bit relieved when, all of a sudden, the minister decided he was going to show up and do something on housing. He announced millions of dollars for the Liberal mayor. What did we find out the money was for? It was for hiring more—

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

We have another point of order from the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Mr. Speaker, I asked whether the leader of the Conservative Party was trying to run and hide from the Q and A, but I did not get an answer. Will he be leaving time for us to ask him questions about his dissertation?

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

That is not a point of order, but we know that we will be moving on to the next item at about 5:42 p.m., so the hon. member does have unlimited time.

The hon. leader of the official opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not only would I be prepared to answer that member's questions, but I would also like to up the ante. I am prepared to put partisanship aside and put on a multi-party screening of my documentary, “Housing hell: How we got here and how we get out”. I know that I have offered that before, but what I am prepared to do is up the offer and make myself available for an hour of questions and answers after the screening is done so the member could come and enjoy. I have only an hour. I am very busy, but I would be happy to have the member come and enjoy the documentary. We will be showing it in both official languages, of course.

We will show it in both official languages. The members from the Bloc Québécois can come. I know that they are allergic to common sense. It is going to be tough.

We do not want them to get an allergic reaction to the common sense in the documentary, but we will be inviting them all to join in the spirit of camaraderie as we build homes and reverse the housing hell that this Prime Minister, with the help of the NDP, has caused Canadians. They cannot say that I never did anything for them.

The facts of this documentary continued as we went through it to demonstrate that Canada has really no excuse to have a housing crisis. We have the second-biggest land mass in the world. We have by far, by many orders of magnitude, the most land per capita of any country in the G7 and the sixth-biggest supply, give or take, in the world per capita. If we spread Canadians out evenly, we would have something like 33 NFL-sized football fields for every single Canadian. It would be the perfect place to be a hermit. People would never see another person because we have so much land.

Obviously, critics will say, “Well of course we have all this land that is far away and nobody can live there.” That is nonsense. We have land all around and even inside our big cities. We have land right along the strip of the Canada-U.S. border. People can take a drive around Ottawa and see all of the land that is undeveloped, or the tiny government buildings on thousands of square metres of land that is unused, which could be used for housing if the federal government would unlock it. There is no excuse. The only thing stopping the construction of housing is the government.

By the way, if members doubt this, they can explain this to me. The United States has most of its population concentrated in large metropolis centres like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, etc., and yet somehow, housing is 25% to 45% cheaper there. How is it that housing in Tokyo is more affordable than it is in Vancouver, if the issue were just that we are all crunched into small metropolitan spaces? That is totally false. It is yet another excuse that government-funded media makes for government failure.

We know it is a failure that can be fixed, because look at the incredible work of the Squamish people. Because they did not have to worry about the bureaucracy at Vancouver City Hall, they were able to approve and begin building 6,000 apartments on 10 acres of land. That is 600 units per acre. If they had to go through city hall, it never would have happened, and those 6,000 wonderful families and couples would not have those homes. They have demonstrated that if they get the government out of the way and let builders build, then they have more apartments. Unfortunately, that is exactly the opposite of what this—

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

I have a point of order from the hon. member for Milton.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am also eager to ask questions, but I am also eager to point out that it was a $1-billion CMHC loan, the largest ever from the federal government, to the Squamish Nation.

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

We are falling into debate. Do not forget that once the member is finished, there will be an opportunity for questions and answers.

The hon. leader of the official opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I love how when the first nations people do extraordinary things, Liberals show up to take all the credit. The member reminds me of the rooster who thought that just because he crowed when the sun came up, he made the sun come up. He did not make the sun come up; he just crowed about it. It is actually the first nations people who are building this project, and it is a shame that Liberals try to take credit for it.

If we could just get the Liberals and the government out of the way, we could do many more great things because we know that, prior to the current government, housing was affordable in this country, taking a fraction out of a family paycheque to afford a home. The good thing is that housing was not like this before this Prime Minister and it will not be like this after he is gone.

The second cause of the housing hell, which I pointed out in my documentary, was the rampant money printing that the government unleashed. While it was technically done by the Bank of Canada, it was clearly in total collaboration with the elected government and with the total support and the lack of discipline from the government to print $600 billion. The government has created 32% more cash in a period of time when the economy has grown by 4%. In other words, the cash is growing eight times faster than the stuff the cash buys.

The Liberals did this through a program called quantitative easing, where the government sells bonds to the private sector and the Bank of Canada buys them right back at a higher price, profiting the financial institutions, freeing up easy money for government to spend, but also flooding the financial markets with easy cash that is lent out to wealthy investors.

In my documentary, I use a Bank of Canada graph demonstrating the total liftoff in the number of homes bought by investors that happened exactly—

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

I believe we have a point of order from the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, and I am hoping that it is a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give an opportunity to the member. I thought that somebody trying to be prime minister might want an opportunity to answer questions, but I see instead he is practising avoiding answering them.

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

That is not a point of order. The hon. member has unlimited time on this.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sad to see what is happening with my NDP colleagues.

I want to hear the leader of the official opposition tell us about cryptocurrencies. I would like to hear his thoughts on that. Cryptocurrency is very interesting. It is probably in this documentary.

I would like him to share his simplistic reasoning—

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

That is also a matter of debate.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition has unlimited time to make his presentation. At 5:42 p.m. we will proceed to the next item.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no limit to my speaking time, just like there is no limit to Canada's potential, if only we had some common sense.

The reality is that when we create $600 billion of cash and we flood it into the financial system, that money is then lent out to those who have connections to that system, and those people bid up the cost for everybody else. That is why, in the early months of the pandemic when everything was crashing, the billionaires were suddenly getting richer.

Why were they getting richer? The economy was crashing. Well, of course, all of their asset values were being inflated by insane money printing supported by every party in the House except for ours. Ours was the only one that worried that this crazy money printing would do exactly what it has done every single time it has been tried.

When I produced the evidence of this in the documentary, all of the “bought and paid for” media said, “Oh, this is an outrageous explanation”, but they have not once provided a shred of evidence that it is not true. Look at the graphs the Bank of Canada itself produced. It demonstrates there was a massive flooding of cash into the real estate market through the vector of the same financial institutions that had profited off of quantitative easing.

I find it interesting that the NDP, which claims to be so concerned about the gap between rich and poor, saw absolutely no problem with the government creating all of this cash and pumping it into a select group of financial institutions, which happen to have the privilege of being members of Payments Canada. They had been eligible to receive the cash before anyone else and before it lost its value, and saw all of their net worth explode all of the stock values artificially pumped up. Then the resulting consumer price inflation chewed up the paycheques of the working poor. It was a direct transfer of wealth from the have-nots to the have-yachts, and the NDP supported it 100%.

NDP members talk about these little, itty-bitty wealth taxes that they claim to want to bring in that amount to $100 million here and $1 billion there when we are talking about $600 billion that was flooded into the financial system to the benefit of the wealthiest—

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

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Kings—Hants.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am looking for some clarification. I have sat here intently, hoping to ask the leader of the official opposition a question.

I will get to the point. There has been a lot of actual points of order that have delayed the time for the leader of the official opposition to continue his unlimited time. However, does that time continue and extend out? When does Private Members' Business actually start?

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

As I said before, at 5:42 p.m., Private Members' Business will start, but the length of speeches pursuant to Standing Orders 43 and 74 have the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition with unlimited time.

The hon. leader of the official opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every time I get interrupted, I think of something else to say. It just prolongs my remarks. In fairness, maybe that is the goal of the members across the way who seem to be, in fairness and I appreciate it, quite enjoying the presentation. I thank them for being part of this today.

As I was saying, I find it incredible that the NDP, which claims always to be so concerned about the gap between rich and poor, has expressed zero concern with the central bank ballooning the asset values and the net worth of the super-rich by creating cash and burning the purchasing power of our working-class people. Taking money from wage earners to give to billionaire asset owners is not exactly what we would expect in the name of a working-class party.

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

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Mirabel.

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

Madam Speaker, on the point of order, we know that Private Members' Business will begin at 5:42 p.m. If the leader of the official opposition continues until 5:42 p.m., I would like to know if he could come back tomorrow morning to answer questions.

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

It is up to the Leader of the Opposition to decide whether to continue his intervention tomorrow when the House reconvenes.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the NDP was happy to see all these financial institutions and billionaires increase their wealth, not because of the invention of any new, great product, but because they had the government shovelling printed cash into their vaults.

We believe in entrepreneurial capitalism where someone can make money by producing goods and services that make other people better off. They believe in the state crony capitalism where someone gets rich by favours from the state. We believe that people should be able to make money. They believe that people should be able to take money. We want businesses that get ahead by having the best product. They want businesses that get ahead by having the best lobbyist. We want businesses that are obsessed with consumers. They want businesses obsessed with—

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

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Madam Speaker, I noticed the leader of the Conservative Party does not want to answer questions. He has ditched his glasses. His hair is getting more voluminous. Is he trying to replace the Prime Minister?

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

The member has unlimited time and it is his right.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can understand why the NDP is so sensitive, because their betrayal of the working-class people they have so long claimed to represent is becoming more clear the longer I speak, and they are desperate to silence that voice. Everywhere I go, I meet working-class New Democrats, people who voted for the NDP their whole lives, who say that they have been betrayed and that is why they are now standing with the common-sense Conservatives.

The reality is that when $600 billion of cash is created, is funnelled through the financial system and is lent out to wealthy investors, they are obviously going to bid up land and housing costs, which they did. One of the critiques, of the bought-and-paid-for Liberal press gallery, of my documentary is to claim that it was COVID that caused housing prices to go up. First of all, that does not explain why they went up so much more in Canada than in all the other countries in the world, where they also had COVID.

Second, it does not make any sense. All of the phenomena related to COVID should have brought house prices down. Immigration was ground to a halt. Wages dropped. Job losses occurred. A recession happened. All of those things are typically associated with declining house prices, not rising house prices. Do not just take my word for it, CMHC predicted, in the spring of 2020, that these COVID phenomena would lead to a 32% drop in house prices. What caused the market to reverse what otherwise would have been such a serious drop and instead turned into a 50% increase in two years in house prices? Obviously, it was the massive flood of new cash into the financial system, which was lent out. We need to have accountability for that.

Why does this matter, given that the quantitative easing program seems to be over for now? We have to elect a government that would never use the central bank as a personal ATM, to print cash, to inflate costs and to destroy the purchasing power of the working class. When I am Prime Minister, we will get the central bank back to its core mandate of stable, low prices, not paying off politicians' spending. That is common sense.

What we are really talking about here is common sense. I am proposing common-sense measures that are attracting the support of Canadians across the political spectrum and in every corner of the country. Let us start with my first priority of common sense, which is to bring home lower prices. How are we going to do that? We are going to start by axing the tax.

Everything the Prime Minister said about the carbon tax has proven false. First, he said the tax would never go above $50 a tonne. Well, it has gone above that already, and he admits he is going to quadruple it. It is going to go up to $170 a tonne, plus there will be a second carbon tax caked on top of it, which would have the effect of quadrupling the current tax from roughly, depending on the province, 15¢ or 16¢ a litre, up to 61¢ a litre. That is his radical and insane plan, fully supported by the NDP. The NDP wants to raise taxes on working-class Canadians for the crime of heating their homes, gassing their trucks or feeding their family food grown on a farm.

That is the choice in the next election. We are going to have a carbon tax election. The Prime Minister could try to avoid it—

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to seek unanimous consent to ask the member opposite a question specific to what he is talking about right now.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that member stood up. I know the question he was going to ask. He was going to say—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am confused. The Leader of the Opposition just said that the next election would be a carbon tax election, but I would like to know what will happen in Quebec, since the carbon tax does not apply to Quebec.

I want to know what—

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

I am sorry, but that is a point of debate.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the member for Kings—Hants was going to ask me about the monstrous axe the tax rally I held in his community. Roughly 1,000 people crammed into that room. If I could pay the member a compliment, he represents some great people. They are wonderful, common-sense people, but I am afraid they are very unhappy with the member.

I am told that what happened is he found out about the size of the rally and the number of people who were going and had a total meltdown. He burst into tears. He called the PMO and said that, when he was growing up, he was told he would always be somebody. He was going to be an important guy, and now he was on the verge of losing his seat. He said that if the PMO did not give him a pause on the carbon tax, he was going to march out of the caucus. He then whipped up a group of Atlantic MPs, and they marched over to the Prime Minister's Office and began banging on the door and said—

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

The member for Kings—Hants is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to ask the member a question.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, all the Atlantic MPs were banging on the door. The Prime Minister was behind the door in a fetal position, sucking on his thumb and crying his eyes out, because his Liberal MPs were threatening to walk out of caucus. He walked out—

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

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, when the leader of the Conservative Party decides to get his first job outside politics, I wonder if he too will be a drama teacher.

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

I could not even hear what the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona was saying, so I will ask him to repeat it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sorry I was not loud enough the first time.

I was wondering aloud if, when the leader of the Conservative Party decides to get his first job outside politics, he will be a—

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

That is not a point of order, but a point of debate.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, so says the guy who has been living off a parliamentary paycheque since he was born, because his dad was a member of Parliament. He still is.

The reality is that the member for Kings—Hants was among those Liberal MPs banging on the door, begging the Prime Minister to relent on his carbon tax.

The Prime Minister, shaking on the ground, finally agreed to relent. Out he walked to an unannounced, unscheduled press conference, without any written materials. It was not even in his itinerary moments earlier. He announced that he would put in a temporary three-year pause, but just for some people, in regions where his poll numbers were plummeting and his caucus was revolting. There is now that temporary pause on the carbon tax, a carve-out.

His environment minister said there would be no more carve-outs. There already have been. For example, there is no carbon tax on the industrial sector in Canada. It has a carve-out. There is no carbon tax on large cement plants or concrete factories—

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

The hon. member for Jonquière is rising on a point of order.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if there is a problem with the interpretation, but this is very confusing. The member is talking about a documentary and a carbon tax that does not apply. I do not know whether it is a problem with the interpretation, but perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could speak a little more slowly. It is difficult for the francophones to understand what he is talking about.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is not a language issue. It is just that the Bloc Québécois does not understand common sense. That is the problem.

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

Madam Speaker, can the member for Carleton tell us if he will be continuing, so I can ask my question when he actually has a chance to re-engage on this?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to let the leader of the official opposition finish this wonderful speech, which is teaching us such great and marvellous things.

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

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I truly believe if you ask again, people would be so excited to hear the end of the story from the member for Kings—Hants.

[Some hon. members]

No.

The House resumed from December 12, 2023, consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Happy new year, Mr. Speaker.

This is my first time rising in the House in 2024, and I want to wish everyone a happy new year.

It is 2024, and the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. That is the reality. That was the reality in 2023 and 2022, but the cost keeps going up every year.

That is why the Conservative Party has a very focused common-sense plan. We have four priorities that we want to work on in Parliament, and they are to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop crime.

After eight years in office, this Prime Minister has managed to drive up the cost of living at the fastest pace in 40 years by doubling the national debt and printing $600 billion. He has increased inflation and interest rates at the expense of the working class and our seniors, and he did so with the support of the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois completely agrees with the exorbitant spending increases and the cost of government, which are creating a burden for Quebeckers. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of all of this government spending in the fall of 2023. It supported the tax increases on gas, which punish Quebec farmers and workers.

The common-sense Conservative Party is the only one offering an alternative to this destructive and costly policy implemented on the backs of Quebeckers.

First, we will eliminate the second carbon tax, which does indeed apply to Quebec.

Second, we will control spending by eliminating waste. We are going to get rid of the $35-billion infrastructure bank, which has not delivered a single project for Canadians. We will get rid of the ArriveCAN app and the so-called green fund which, according to the officials involved, is now a scandal on par with the sponsorship scandal. We will cut spending on consultants, who now cost every Canadian family $1,400. In eight years, this Prime Minister has doubled the amount spent on outside consultants. These are extraordinary costs that do not produce results for Canadians. It is work that could have been done by the government, by public servants, whose numbers have ballooned by 50%.

We are going to introduce a common-sense law, a dollar-for-dollar law. Every time ministers in my government increase spending by one dollar, they are going to have to find one dollar in savings to offset that spending. Instead of increasing the national debt, inflation and taxes, we are going to cap spending. Once the government is forced to reduce the cost that falls on the backs of our people, it will enable workers, businesses and our economy to grow.

Let us talk about our workers. There is a war on work right now. Workers are being punished with sky-high tax rates that claw back more and more of every dollar they earn. A common-sense Conservative government will lower taxes and reward work here in Canada, for our workers, small businesses and all Canadians, so that we can be a country that rewards work.

We will protect the paycheques of ordinary Canadians and ensure that they can earn bigger paycheques by doing away with unconstitutional laws that prevent natural resource projects from going ahead. We will allow Quebeckers to build dams and develop mines and other projects that generate wealth for our country, instead of sending money to China or other countries that are dictatorships. We will keep that money for ourselves, so that Canadians can have bigger paycheques. We are also going to build houses.

After eight years under this Prime Minister, the cost of housing has doubled, rent has doubled, the money needed for a mortgage on an average house has doubled, and the down payment needed to buy that same house has also doubled. In Montreal, it has tripled.

After eight years under this Prime Minister, the cost of a two-bedroom apartment in Montreal has increased from $760, when I was the housing minister eight years ago, to $2,200 now. Red tape has blocked the construction of 25,000 housing units over the past six years. Thousands of construction projects across the country are in limbo because of red tape. In Vancouver, whose former NDP mayor is incredibly incompetent, it is even worse. He added additional costs of $1.3 million to each housing development built. These increases are tied directly to the red tape and taxes charged by the governments.

In Quebec City, I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Trudel with my Quebec lieutenant. He told me that $500 of the monthly rent for these apartments goes toward taxes and red tape, the costs charged by the government. For apartments that rent for $1,000, half of that amount covers only the taxes and the bureaucracy. That cost is too high. That is why a common-sense Conservative government will encourage municipalities to speed up construction instead of obstructing it.

The federal government pays out $5 billion to municipalities through the sales tax program. Quebec receives about $1 billion. There are already a lot of conditions attached to that money, a lot of federal conditions. However, those conditions do not include accelerating construction. That is why we are going to work with the Quebec government on a new infrastructure agreement that incentivizes construction. We will tie the amount of money that each municipality receives to the number of houses and apartments completed in the previous year. That would mean that municipalities like Victoriaville, Saguenay and Trois-Rivières would receive substantial bonuses, because there has been a huge boom in construction there. Last year, for example, construction increased by 30% in those municipalities. That should be rewarded. Real estate companies are paid according to the number of homes they sell. Construction companies are paid according to the number of houses they build. We should pay local bureaucracies on the basis of the number of homes they allow to be built. This would encourage the acceleration of construction.

We should also insist that every transit station be located near apartment buildings. Transit stations should be surrounded by large apartment towers. Across Canada, in Vancouver, Montreal and elsewhere, we see beautiful transit stations, yet there is almost no housing around them. It is ridiculous.

The federal government provides funding, but often a third or a half of the amount needed. We should insist that this money not be invested if there are no apartment buildings where our seniors and young people can live next to a public transit station. That is how we are going to speed up home construction. We are going to insist that CMHC provide funding for apartment buildings within two months, not two years. Executives should be fired unless they meet that deadline. Finally, these homes should be located in safe communities.

After eight years under the leadership of this Prime Minister, crime has increased by nearly 40%. He has increased crime by allowing the same small groups of repeat offenders to keep committing the same crimes over and over, and by letting them out on bail the very same day they are arrested.

A Conservative government will replace bail with jail. We will target real criminals who use guns and seal our borders instead of targeting hunters and sport shooters. We will treat and rehabilitate people with drug addictions instead of decriminalizing crack, cocaine and other drugs, as the Prime Minister has already done in partnership with the NDP in British Columbia.

What I have been describing here is common sense. This is the kind of common sense used by ordinary Canadians. For decades, there was a common-sense Liberal-Conservative consensus that led to our extraordinary success. A Conservative government will rebuild that consensus to give Canadians back the country they love and deserve. That is our goal. We are going to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and, finally, stop the crime. It is common sense, and that is what we are going to do.

Madam Speaker, I wish you a happy new year. It is 2024 and the Prime Minister is still not worth the cost. He is not worth the crime. He is not worth giving up the country that we know and love. After eight years, everything costs more, crime is running rampant, housing costs have doubled, the country is more divided than ever before, and the Prime Minister seeks to distract and attack anyone who disagrees with him in order to make people forget how miserable he has made life in this country after nearly a decade in power.

Our common-sense counterpoint is very focused. In this session of Parliament, we will fight to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. That is how we are going to turn around the mess the Prime Minister has created in eight years.

Let us quickly touch upon that mess. After eight years of the Prime Minister, housing costs have doubled. This is after he promised that those housing costs would go down. In fact, they rose 40% faster than incomes, the worst gap in the G7 by far and the second worst among all 40 OECD nations. It is twice as bad as the OECD average, with roughly a quarter of OECD countries actually seeing housing affordability improve over the last eight years. Here in Canada, under the Prime Minister, we have seen it worsen at the fastest rate in the entire G7.

The Prime Minister has created a situation where only 26% of Canadians are able to afford a single-family home. It now takes 25 years to save up for a down payment on the average home for the average Toronto family, when 25 years used to be the time it took to pay off a mortgage. After eight years of the Prime Minister, it is now more affordable to buy a 20-bedroom castle in Scotland than a two-bedroom condo in Kitchener.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, a criminal defence lawyer reported on Twitter that numerous clients have asked if she can help extend their prison sentences so they do not have to live in this housing market and find a place to rent. In other words, the Prime Minister's housing market is worse than prison by the judgment of several people who actually live in prison.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, we have 16 seniors crammed into a four-bedroom home in Oshawa according to its food bank, which told me it had to house middle-class seniors together. They are all losing their homes because of the incredible rent increase the Prime Minister's policies have caused.

We have homelessness skyrocketing across the country. Every town and centre now has homeless encampments. Halifax has 30 homeless encampments for one medium-sized city. After eight years of the Prime Minister, who would have imagined that we would have 30 homeless encampments in one city, but that is the misery that he has created through his policies that are not worth the cost of housing.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister makes the problem worse. He gives tax dollars to incompetent mayors and bureaucracies to block homebuilding. The worst incompetence, of course, has been by the former mayor and the present mayor of Toronto, and the former mayor of Vancouver blocking construction in those cities and making it uninhabitable for many of the people who should be able to afford a home. We now have the second-slowest building permits of any country in the OECD. That is why we have the fewest homes in the G7, even with the most land by far to build on.

We were told that the media darling Minister of Housing, who was brought in in the fall, was going to fix all of this. He was going to hold photo ops right across the country, and all of a sudden there would be more building. What happened was that housing construction actually went down. There was a 7% reduction in housing last year under the leadership of the current housing minister.

Is it any surprise, when the guy who destroyed our immigration system was put in charge of housing, that we got a destructive result? It is not me accusing him of ruining the immigration system. It is his own Liberal successor. The current Liberal Minister of Immigration says that the system is out of control. In his own words, he claims that his predecessor was giving study visas for students to come and study at what he calls “puppy mills”. Those are his terms. I would never have used that term. It is insulting. They are actually human beings, not dogs. That is the language we get from the current immigration minister to describe the chaos that his own predecessor caused in the international student program and the temporary foreign worker program, not to mention countless other programs that have now been overwhelmed by fraudsters, shady consultants and bureaucratic incompetence. Now they take the guy who ruined all of that and say that this is the guy they are bringing in to resolve the housing crisis.

It is no wonder it gets worse and worse by the day. The Liberals' only defence is that they are spending lots of money. Failing is bad and failing expensively is even worse. That is what the Prime Minister has done after eight years. It is not only in housing. It is in generalized inflation. After eight years, inflation hit 40-year highs. After eight years, the Prime Minister has increased the cost of food so quickly that there are now two million Canadians, a record-smashing number, who are required to go to food banks in a single month. We have students forced to live in homeless shelters in order to afford food. We have seniors who say they have to live in tents in order to be able to shop and feed themselves, because food prices have risen so high.

In Toronto, one in 10 Torontonians are now going to a food bank, enough to fill the Rogers Centre seven times. If the monthly users of the food bank in Toronto alone were to go to the Rogers Centre, the place would have to be filled seven separate times, just to accommodate them all. Who would have thought we would have this many hungry people in Canada's biggest city, a city that has elected no one but Liberals since 2015? This is the result from that.

In that same city, crime and chaos rage out of control. In the adjoining suburbs, we now have stories of extortion, where small businesses receive letters saying that if they do not fork over big dollars to international crime syndicates, they will be shot at, their houses will be burned, their families will be targeted, and the government does nothing to protect them. Who would have thought that Canada would be so vulnerable to this kind of criminality and chaos that these foreign criminal syndicates would think Canada so weak and so easy to target that they could go after innocent small business leaders and their families in order to shake them down for money? Yet that is what has happened.

These same business owners go to bed at night with one eye open, because they know their car could be stolen as they sleep. I told some stories yesterday to the caucus, incredible stories of people in Brampton whose cars just vanished in the middle of the night. The cars go over to Montreal where they are put on a ship and sent off to the Middle East, Africa or Europe where they are resold at a profit. They are not even inspected as they go onto the ships in these containers.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister spends billions of dollars trying to buy back the legitimate property of licensed law-abiding firearms owners. He believes that the problem is the hunter from Nunavut or the professional sport shooter from Nanaimo, when in fact the real problem is the criminals.

Common-sense Conservatives are going to put an end to this madness. We are going to bring home the country we know and love. Let us go through the common-sense plan.

We are going to bring home lower prices by axing the carbon tax. It starts with passing Bill C-234 to axe the tax on farmers and food so farmers can make the food and Canadians can afford to eat it. Let us pass the bill unamended today and let Canadians eat affordable food. It is very easy. The House of Commons passed it once before. The Senate, under duress and pressure from the current Prime Minister, then sent it back with unnecessary amendments. Now the other opposition parties are flip-flopping and wavering. They agree in principle with the Liberal plan to quadruple the carbon tax, but say they might consider giving farmers a break on it. Now they are not so sure. They are siding with the costly Prime Minister again on keeping the tax on our farmers. Every time our people go to the grocery store and see those rising prices they will know that the NDP has betrayed working-class people in favour of greedy government with higher taxes on farmers and the single moms who are struggling to feed their families.

We are going to axe the tax on home heat not just for some or for a short time, but for everybody, everywhere, always. Common-sense Conservatives call on the Prime Minister to be consistent and not just temporarily pause the tax in regions where his polls are plummeting and his caucus is revolting, but rather let us axe the tax for every Canadian household to heat their homes in this devastatingly cold winter. It is incredible how cold it was in Edmonton, -50°C, and the Liberal member for Edmonton Centre voted to tax the heat of Edmontonians. Not only that, the Liberal member for Edmonton Centre wants to quadruple the carbon tax on the home heat of Edmontonians, so over the next several years, as the winter cold comes in and people crank up their heat, their bills will rise increasingly faster. In some places now the carbon tax is more expensive than the actual gas that people are buying. We are going to be sharing the bills that some of my caucus members have so that everybody knows how badly the Prime Minister and his NDP coalition are ripping off Canadians for the crime of heating themselves in -50°C weather. We are the only party that will axe the tax for them and for everyone, everywhere, always.

Our common-sense plan to bring home lower prices includes capping the spending that has driven inflation, the $600-billion increase in spending and debt, which means printing money. Printing money bids up the goods we buy and the interest we pay. In fact, government spending is up 75% since the Prime Minister took office. He has nearly doubled the cost of the government at a time when the economy has barely grown at all. In fact, it is shrinking while the government is expanding, which means it is gobbling up an increasing share of a shrinking pie and there is less left for everyone else. Right now the government is rich and the people are poor, because the Prime Minister cannot stop spending, and his greedy NDP coalition counterparts push him to spend even more of other people's money. Our common-sense plan would cap spending and cut waste. We would get rid of the $35-billion Infrastructure Bank, the $54-million ArriveCAN app and the billion-dollar so-called green fund, which is really a slush fund.

We would cut back on the money wasted on consultant insiders, who now consume 21 billion tax dollars a year, an amount that is equal to $1,400 for every family in Canada. We would cut back on this waste to balance the budget, and bring down inflation and interest rates, so that Canadians can eat, heat and house themselves.

We are going to unleash the growth of our economy. Instead of creating more cash, we would create more of what cash buys. We have the most powerful resources, perhaps the greatest supply of natural resources per capita of any country on earth, and we are very good at harvesting those resources to the benefit of our people and our environment at the same time.

The Prime Minister, with the help of the NDP, has been driving the production to other countries, where they pollute more, burn more coal and add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The Prime Minister would drive the production away from Canadians, who use among the cleanest electricity grids on Planet Earth, instead of bringing it home to this country. Our common-sense plan would repeal Bill C-69 and replace it with a new law that would not only protect the environment and consult first nations but also get projects built so that we can bring home paycheques for our people and take the money away from the dirty dictators of the world.

I was able to recently announce our new candidate in the Skeena—Bulkley Valley riding, the great Ellis Ross, former chief of the Haisla Nation. He is responsible for bringing Canada the biggest-ever investment in its history, which is the LNG Canada project. It is a project that was approved by the former Harper government, and the only reason it was able to go ahead under this government is that it gave the project an exemption from the carbon tax. Had the tax applied, the project never would have occurred. Had Bill C-69, the anti-resource law, been in place, the project never would have happened.

By the government's own admission, this project will reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world by millions of tonnes because it will displace dirty, coal-fired electricity in Asia by sending clean, green Canadian natural gas, liquefied using hydroelectricity and our natural cold weather, and sent abroad on our shortest shipping distance, which means burning less fossil fuels to get it to market. This will displace more emission-intensive forms of energy in countries where they need to cut back. That is a solution to fight climate change and protect our environment, and thank God we had the visionary leadership of the great Ellis Ross to make that project happen, along with that of Stephen Harper.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has blocked every other LNG project from coming to fruition. There were 18 of these projects on the table when he took office, not one of them is completed. Only the aforementioned—

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we got a cheer over there. It was the Marxist member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. He took that Marxist comment as a compliment, by the way. Believe me, he has told me that off the record. He tells us that he is speaking on behalf of the NDP. He cheers when he hears that the Prime Minister has blocked every LNG project.

That is going to be very interesting news for me to take to northern British Columbia and the first nations people, such as the Nisga'a. He cheers at the thought that the Nisga'a will lose out on their proposed liquefied natural gas project. That is the NDP of today. They used to stand up for the workers who had lunch buckets. They used to stand up for first nations people. That is a bygone era. Now, they cheer every time a working-class person loses a job and a community loses its industry. Shame on them. The good news is that they will not be part of my government.

We will stand with the Nisga'a. We will stand with the Haisla. We will stand with the other first nations of northern Ontario that want to see the ring of fire go ahead. The first nations people want to harvest our resources to empower their people and end poverty. We, as Conservatives, will remove the government gatekeepers and the radical ideologues, such that NDP member and the current environment minister, so we can get things built and bring it home to our country.

Those powerful paycheques would fund schools, roads and hospitals. They would improve our finances. That is what I mean when I say, “Fix the budget”. Yes, we have to cap spending and cut waste. That is the spending side of the income statement. However, we also have to bring in more revenue at lower tax rates.

How would we we do that? We would allow more production. We would have bigger and more powerful industrial projects and resource achievements, and we would have more paycheques for the people in the communities who would work on those job sites. We would generate the tax revenue at a lower cost to the overall population so that we could fund our cherished social safety net, with real money, sustainably into the future. That is how one fixes the budget: make more and cost less to deliver better results for the Canadian people.

The most basic result, though, would be for people to have rooves over their heads. After eight years of the Prime Minister, that is not possible. We would remove the bureaucracy that stands in the way of homebuilding. The reason we have the fewest homes per capita in the G7 is that we have the worst bureaucracy and the slowest permitting. My common-sense plan would require local bureaucracies to permit 15% more homes per year as a condition of getting federal money. Those who beat the target would get more money, and those who miss the target would get less, in exact proportion to their success or failure. We pay realtors based on the homes they sell, and we pay builders based on the homes they build. We should pay local bureaucracies based on the homes they permit. That would speed them up and get them moving. By the way, we would do it in a non-prescriptive way.

There are countless different ways a municipality could allow more housing. For example, today we learned one of the ways that cities block housing is by making renovations harder to permit. People might think, “What does a renovation have to do with new homes?” If one wants to renovate their home to create a basement suite, an over-the-garage suite or perhaps a guest house converted from an old garage or something like that on their property, they would need a renovation permit. That might be holding up housing. My plan would give a credit to the city, and therefore more federal money, if it were to allow a rapid conversion of one house into two or of a basement into a suite.

The reason I focus on this is that the Prime Minister has a proposal right now that he calls the “housing accelerator”, where he is having federal bureaucrats assess the processes of municipal bureaucrats, and the bureaucrats talk about the way things work. That would be like scoring a hockey game by having the referee go to the practices of the players to test whether they are doing the right skating drills, whether they are doing the right pre-game stretching and whether their diet plan is the best plan, rather than the simple and obvious way we score hockey games, which is by counting the number of pucks in nets. I want to judge a municipality's results based on keys in doors. There are pucks in nets and keys in doors.

The municipality can figure out how to do it. It is not our job to micromanage how cities increase their housing stocks. Some might sell land. Some might get rid of zoning procedures. Some might get their bureaucrats working faster and smarter. Some might allow more renovations of homes into duplexes. Some might find any other manner of creative ways to do it. It is not the federal government's job to micromanage. What we would do would be to pay for the result. That is how we would get the homes built so that, just like when I was minister and housing was affordable, it could once again be affordable in the future, and our young people could hope to get married and start families, which is something that has become next to impossible in most of our big cities.

These homes would be in safe neighbourhoods. The Prime Minister has unleashed crime and chaos with his catch-and-release system, which allowed the same 40 violent offenders to do 6,000 crimes in one year in the city of Vancouver. A common-sense Conservative government would make repeat violent offenders ineligible for bail so they would stay behind bars rather than reoffend. We would bring jail, not bail. We would bring in treatment, not more drugs, for our addicts, so we could bring our loved ones home, drug-free.

We would also reverse the Prime Minister's ban on our sport shooters and our lawful hunters. Instead, we would go after the real violent criminals and seal our borders. We would put the billions of dollars the Prime Minister is wasting going after lawful hunters and put them into scanning the boxes that come into our country, which bring in the drugs and guns, and scanning those shipping containers that are taking away our stolen cars, so we can stop them from leaving the country and keep our cars here, getting our insurance rates down so people can afford to drive again and do not have to sleep with one eye open during this looting of our vehicles the Prime Minister has allowed to happen.

The Prime Minister wants to protect turkeys from hunters. I want to protect Canadians from criminals. It is common sense. That is the common-sense agenda of the Conservative opposition in this forthcoming Parliament. We would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

To axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime are things on which we should all agree, so I call on the other parties to dispense with their radical ideologies and plans and unite around this common-sense effort to set four clear priorities. Who is ready to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime? Is everybody ready to do that? Let us bring it home.

I would like to introduce the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“the House declines to give second reading to Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, since the bill fails to repeal the carbon tax on farmers, First Nations and families.”

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

The amendment is in order.

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

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party's fixation on the bumper sticker that reads, “Axe the tax” has caused the Conservative Party and the MAGA right to ultimately say things like they do not support the trade agreement with Ukraine. There are so many bizarre things coming from the far right under the leadership of the Conservative Party.

How does the member justify providing misinformation, or selected information, to the constituents I represent? When he says he wants to axe the tax, he is really telling the majority of the residents in Winnipeg North that he would also get rid of the rebate, which means there is going to be less disposable income because he has a desire for a bumper sticker. How does he justify that?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, that member is once again misinforming his constituents. Actually, I should not say that because they do not believe him, so he is not informing them of anything. He has misinformed himself because, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 60% of Canadians pay more in carbon tax costs than they get back in these phony rebates.

Now we have their big solution. They are going to give it a new name. They are going to rename the carbon tax. They think people will not notice their heating bills, gas bills and grocery bills are going through the roof under this tax if they just give it a new name. This is a carbon tax that rips off the people of Winnipeg, and he should be ashamed for allowing a temporary pause on the tax for some people in other regions while denying the people in his own riding, one of the coldest major cities in this country, that same pause. We will axe the tax in Winnipeg. We will axe the tax for everyone, everywhere, forever.

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

Madam Speaker, I see that my colleague is using his speaking time in the House to chant campaign slogans and even announce some new candidates for the next election, which is scheduled to take place in a year and a half, rather than talking about the bill before us.

That being said, I have not heard him mention the environment even once in all his famous election promises, even though he seems to want to win over Quebeckers. One thing I do know about Quebeckers is that they are worried about the climate crisis. We experienced unprecedented forest fires and floods this summer. One need only go to the Magdalen Islands, the Gaspé or my riding. In the last snowstorm, 30 feet of shoreline were lost to the sea because no more ice is forming. The well-known highway 132, which circles the Gaspé peninsula, will soon be under water. I think Quebeckers are worried about the climate crisis and expect their elected representatives to propose solutions to address it.

I would like to hear what the Conservative leader is proposing to fight the climate crisis.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and for being honest enough to say that the Bloc Québécois wants to keep this government in office for another year and a half. Her leader has said before that he wants to keep this Prime Minister in office. The Bloc Québécois voted for all of the economic policies that led to this increase in inflation and the doubling of housing costs. The Bloc Québécois completely agrees with the Prime Minister.

With regard to the environment, I did mention it in my speech. I said that the best way to protect the environment is to repatriate mineral and energy production to Canada. We have the highest standards in the world. The Bloc Québécois and the Liberals want to give that money to China, where they burn coal and use other processes to produce electric batteries.

I believe that we should repatriate production by giving the green light to projects such as hydroelectric dams in Quebec, carbon capture in western Canada and nuclear energy, which is emission-free. We should give the green light to those projects so that we can produce more emission-free electricity.

That is common sense.

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

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity on at least two separate occasions to listen to the Conservative leader speak at length to Bill C-59. It will come as no surprise to folks in the House and to many Canadians that there are certainly many things about which I disagree with the Conservative leader, and there are some things on which we may find some agreement.

However, one thing that continues to surprise me is that we hear an analysis from the Conservative leader about the hardships Canadians are facing and the problem of inflation, but nowhere is there a mention of the fact that over 25% of the inflation Canadians have been subjected to over the last while, according to some credible economists who have published studies to this effect, has to do with outsized price increases by corporations that are well above the increases in costs they have faced.

The fact is that corporate greed is playing an important role in the inflation Canadians are experiencing, but that is nowhere in the analysis from the corporate-controlled Conservatives. It is not a coincidence, it seems, because by glossing over this incredible contributor to inflation, the Conservatives are doing a solid for their corporate pals.

I would like to hear the Conservative leader talk about the role of corporate greed in inflation and what he would propose to do about it.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

The first point I would make, Madam Speaker, is that the member seems to be suggesting that corporations were not greedy eight years ago because food prices were much lower then and that suddenly now, maybe it is something in the water, the level of greed in the country has grown dramatically over the last eight years, and that is the sudden cause of food price increases.

The reality is that big corporations always do well in an inflationary environment, and the reason is very simple. If we have stuff, then we get richer when stuff goes up in price; if we need stuff, we get poorer when stuff goes up in price. That is why inflation is always a tax on the poorest people to the benefit of a tiny minority on top. It is not just those who sell stuff, but also those who own assets who become better off.

That is why I warned, in the House of Commons, in the fall of 2020, that printing $600 billion was going to lead the billionaire class to become extremely wealthy, and it did. The gap between rich and poor has grown. I knew this would happen because when hundreds of billions of dollars are funnelled into the financial system, it balloons the assets of the people who have, and it increases the costs on those who have not.

Inflation is the most immoral tax. It is the tax that takes from the have-nots to give to the have-yachts. Not only will Conservatives get rid of the carbon tax on food, but also we will get rid of the inflation tax on everybody.

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

Madam Speaker, I visited with three farmers in my riding over the Christmas break. The three farmers paid a combined total of about $630,000 in carbon tax in 2023 and got zero back.

I wonder what the Leader of the Opposition has to say about the Liberals' comment that people are getting back more than they are paying in when those three average farmers in my riding paid $600,000-plus in carbon tax in 2023 alone. That is with the 20% exemption rate and not the full carbon tax. They are only paying 20%.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is the story I hear from the farmers in my constituency. I stood and mentioned the Medeiros farm in south Carleton. I read their bills into the record and asked the Prime Minister how he expects them to pay those bills when he quadruples the tax. This is the worst part of the Liberal-NDP carbon tax. They plan to quadruple it.

As bad as one's bills are today, if they get re-elected, the NDP and the Prime Minister will quadruple the tax to 61¢ a litre for gasoline. Similar proportional increases on natural gas, propane and oil heating will follow. That is their plan.

To be very clear, the choice in the next election will be between the costly coalition, which will tax one's food, punish one's work, take one's money, double one's housing cost and unleash crime and chaos in one's community, and the common-sense Conservatives who will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by asking for unanimous consent to share my time.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Terrebonne.

Before I begin, I want to wish you, Madam Speaker, and all my colleagues, a happy new year. This is the first opportunity we have had to do so. I also wish a happy new year to everyone in Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

I would like to mention that today I am wearing a small green square, like many other members, because January 29 is the National Day of Remembrance of the Quebec City Mosque Attack and Action Against Islamophobia. This small gesture is made in support of the families and loved ones of the victims of the Quebec City mosque attack.

We are here to debate Bill C‑59, which seeks to implement the budget. This bill can be described as an omnibus bill. It is a bit of a hodgepodge. There is a tremendous amount of items in there that affect many different topics. Today, I will be talking about the environment, housing, pregnancy, vaping, business transfers, psychotherapy and tax havens. Why will I be focusing on all these topics? It is because Bill C‑59 addresses them all and many more, but these are the ones that interest me the most.

When I was in my riding over the holidays, I kept hearing the same thing when I met with constituents. Based on what I was told, people sometimes get the impression that they have no idea what we do in Ottawa or what measures we are working on. When they listen to the radio and watch television, they hear slogans from the different parties geared to the next election. The election is not due for another year and a half. In the meantime, we have work to do as parliamentarians, as elected members. That is what people elected us for.

There are bills that are currently before Parliament, including this economic statement. I think that we need to analyze them. Even though it may be a rather tedious job, we need to analyze everything in the bill and determine what is good and what is not so good. Obviously, as with any omnibus bill, there are some things that are good and some that are less good, and we need to strike a balance between the two.

Unfortunately, there are two key measures in Bill C‑59 that make it impossible for the Bloc Québécois to support it. Because of those two measures, we cannot vote in favour of the bill, despite the fact that, as I was saying, it does contain some good and important measures, although some of them could use a bit of tweaking. Quite simply, voting in favour of the bill would fly in the face of our party's values and those of Quebeckers. I am talking about our environmental values and the importance that we place on protecting the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. What poses a problem for us is the measures that the government describes as environmental, which I would say are more pseudo-environmental, and one of the housing measures.

I want to start with these two measures. First, the government is offering a total of $30.3 billion in subsidies, in the form of tax credits, primarily to oil companies. This means that taxpayers will be paying oil companies to try and pollute less. That is essentially my understanding of the tax credits that are being offered.

As for the second measure I was talking about, the government is going to create a federal department of municipal affairs. A similar department already exists in Quebec and the provinces, and it manages municipal affairs. The federal government has decided to legislate in this area and create a department of housing, infrastructure and communities. This means more interference, more disputes and more delays. Why is it taking so long for Quebec and the federal government to agree on certain projects? It is because the federal government wants to impose conditions, and that delays the process. I fail to see how creating another department will help facilitate that process.

Let us begin with the much-discussed tax credits for oil companies. Quite frankly, they do not need any handouts. According to the Centre for Future Work, the oil and gas extraction sector has raked in record profits in recent years, to the tune of roughly $38 billion over three years. Everyone heard me correctly. I said the government wanted to add another $30 billion to that $38 billion, as though they needed it. When I look at those astronomical amounts, I think about all the other areas where the federal government could invest money, for example to help people cope with the rising cost of living.

It is being reported that roughly 70% of shareholders in the oil and gas sector are foreign. In other words, that money is going to leave the country. In the last two budgets, the government announced its plans to introduce no fewer than six tax credits largely for oil companies. According to information and figures provided by the Department of Finance, these investments will total a whopping $83 billion by 2035.

People talk about the climate crisis and say that we need to do more to fight it. This government's solution is to give the oil companies more money to create more pollution. I have a hard time following that logic.

This bill will amend the Income Tax Act by creating two tax credits. The first is a tax credit for investments in clean technology. We are talking about a $17.8-billion investment in clean technology. That sounds promising and desirable, but on closer inspection, it becomes clear that the tax credit is tailor-made for increased bitumen extraction and gas exports.

The oil sands are essentially tar mixed with soil. Extracting it is energy-intensive. Hot water or steam has to be injected into the ground to liquefy the tar, which then floats on polluted water to be recovered. Oil companies currently use gas to heat this water.

However, the industry would rather export its gas than use it to extract oil. That is timely, since there is a new liquefied natural gas terminal being built on the coast of British Columbia. It is a gateway to Asia. TC Energy has almost completed the Coastal GasLink pipeline and the Shell and LNG Canada liquefied natural gas terminal should be operational in about a year. The only thing left is to make more gas available for export and that is where the clean technology investment tax credit comes in.

Under Bill C‑59 the oil companies would be paid to buy small nuclear reactors. That nuclear energy, which would replace the gas they are currently using, would allow them to extract more bitumen and make more gas available for export, all at taxpayers' expense. I am not going to get into that today, but we have already talked about how small nuclear reactors are not such a good idea, for various reasons.

Yes, the tax credit can be used for other purposes, such as a real transition to renewable energy. Some good examples are in the manufacturing sector, including the use of biomass by paper mills and the development of carbon-neutral aluminum. I think that would be a good way to use this tax credit. However, given the enormity of the investments needed for the oil companies to use nuclear energy to extract more bitumen, we can expect the oil companies to pocket most of the profits.

As for the second tax credit, the one for carbon capture, utilization and storage, we are talking about an investment of $12.5 billion. Since I have only two minutes left, I will unfortunately not have time to talk about the positive aspects. That is too bad, because I really wanted to explain to my constituents all the little measures I mentioned at the beginning. I will therefore continue to talk about the tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage, because I find it quite interesting that the government is touting this as an environmental measure when, once again, the government is merely helping the oil companies perhaps pollute a little less. Rather than accelerating the transition to renewable energy, the government would rather help them in that way. Oddly enough, this tax credit is only available to businesses in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

Carbon capture and storage is an experimental technology through which big polluters would recover some of the carbon dioxide that they emit and store it underground, usually in old empty oil wells. That is a key element of the oil companies' and the government's pseudo-environmental strategy, even though the International Energy Agency, which is part of the OECD, believes that countries would be making a serious mistake if they were to make carbon capture the focus of their environmental strategy. The International Energy Agency believes that such technology is smoke and mirrors, that it is as of yet unproven and that, if it were to one day be used on an industrial scale, it would produce only marginal results at an exorbitant cost.

Even knowing all that, the federal government wants to move forward with this technology. Why? To pander to the oil companies, of course. Independent media outlet The Narwhal released a document obtained though the Access to Information Act that shows that Suncor helped to write the government's environmental policy, particularly the section on carbon capture found in Bill C‑59. In December, we learned that the government met with oil and gas lobbies at least 2,000 times between 2022 and 2023.

That shows just how involved the oil companies are in writing the Liberal government's strategies. This will do nothing to help Quebeckers and Canadians fight the climate crisis. That is why we will be voting against this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I think of foreign investment, government policy on legislation and budgetary measures. Working with Canadians, on a per-capita basis, when we talk about gross number of dollars being invested in Canada, Canada is actually number one in the world with respect to foreign investment. Much of that investment goes toward renewable energy. Canada is now a leader when it comes to electric batteries. The value of communities are increasing greatly because of the mega-plants going into them, Volkswagen being one of them.

Does the member recognize, whether through things like trade agreements and government policies, that we have seen an enhancement in investment that will ultimately contribute to the world because of many of the green projects that are taking place in Canada today?

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

Madam Speaker, of course, when the government wants to invest just over $30 billion in clean technologies, names like that make a good impression. The government gets to feel like it is clearly investing in the environment. However, knowing that most of this money is going to the most polluting sectors of our economy, I wonder whether there is a way to ensure that this money is invested solely in renewable energy, not in the most polluting sectors. I do not know whether the strategy can be rewritten, but surely there is a way.

At this time, I cannot congratulate the federal government for investing in green energy when I see that it is investing most of its money in carbon storage, utilization and capture. As I was saying, this technology is still unproven. It is very expensive and yields very few results. Most companies have not yet begun to implement these technologies, and yet our greenhouse gas reduction targets are just around the corner.

How are we going to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, even if we invest all this money? I do not know.

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

Madam Speaker, given that we are discussing the fall economic statement, is she concerned with the increase in the size of the national debt? In 2015, the national debt was $600 billion. After eight years, the government actually managed to double it. In fact, it has spent more money than all other prime ministers combined.

Is she not concerned that we are on the wrong trajectory and that we need to get our budgets under control?

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

Madam Speaker, I agree that we need to spend smarter. We do not need new investments. The money we are already investing needs to be spent on different things.

This $30 billion is going mostly to oil, but why not invest it in health transfers to the provinces instead? The government could also give more to Quebec for housing and allow Quebec to implement its own projects with the municipalities. There are plans on the table, and organizations are just waiting for federal funding. In my own region, apparently people got the green light from Quebec City and wanted to move forward, but there is no more money because the CMHC affordable housing fund is empty.

Why not invest the money better and then balance public finances?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which clearly set out the Liberal government's inconsistencies and contradictions when it comes to the environment.

She had an excellent question for the Conservative leader, who does not talk about the environment and the climate crisis at all.

What does she think about the Conservatives' specious solution of using carbon capture to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?

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

Madam Speaker, carbon capture and storage is not a solution. The UN tells us so. The OECD and the International Energy Agency tell us not to focus all our efforts on that, not to put all our eggs in the carbon storage basket, because it will not work. We will not be able to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as much as we would like or hope.

The government is quite ambitious, I must say. It has set its greenhouse gas reduction targets fairly high. However, it is not doing anything to reach them. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development told us not long ago, in 2023, that a few measures here and there were good, but that the government was dragging its feet on implementing them. That is why it is not delivering results.

The Conservative Party says that we need to get into carbon capture and storage, which they say is a good idea. Clearly, the party has not been getting its information from scientists, because they say that carbon capture and storage is not a good idea.

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

Madam Speaker, since this is my first time rising to speak in 2024, I too would like to take a moment to wish you and the people of Terrebonne, whom I represent, a happy new year.

Speaking of 2024, the clouds continue to gather and cast a shadow over the sunny ways this government promised a long time ago. Every elected member of the House was able to see, when they went home for the holidays, that Canadians and Quebeckers may finally have something in common: They are very worried.

If we look closely at the key economic indicators, we have to admit that they are right to be worried. Housing prices continue to skyrocket, since vacancy rates are at record lows. What is more, food prices are soaring. We are still waiting for the postpandemic economic growth that was promised. When this economic statement was presented, there was no denying that urgent action was needed. Urgent action is still needed now.

This government keeps assuring us that it is there to continue making progress for Canadians and that it will continue to be there. It was therefore with little hope that the Bloc Québécois and I did a deep dive into this economic statement. We wanted to see how, faced with so many challenges, the Liberal government would try to take action.

Let us start at the beginning, with small and medium-sized enterprises. Last month, Statistics Canada published its figures on the health of our SMEs. Urgent action was needed for nearly 170,000 Canadian businesses that were in complete uncertainty. They were in limbo then, and they still are now. They had a choice between owing a lot of money, up to $60,000, to the government or owing money to a financial institution that, as we know, offers loans with very high interest rates. Some business owners have paid back the $40,000 by remortgaging their home or by dipping into their line of credit. Just imagine how much pressure these people are under after devoting their life to their business. If we do the math, we see that these 170,000 businesses represent a little less than 13% of all Canadian businesses with employees. More than one in 10 businesses is currently operating in a state of uncertainty, unable to repay its loan or unsure about its ability to repay it.

Businesses, particularly SMEs, are not just the backbone of our economy. They are also a key part of the social fabric of many of our communities. However, in the economic statement, the government does absolutely nothing to help our SMEs and has decided to ignore the unanimous calls from the Quebec National Assembly, all of the premiers of all of the provinces, including Quebec, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Association Restauration Québec. They have all asked that the CEBA loan repayment deadline be extended. The government ignored them. It is simple. We have been and are still calling for the government to set up a direct line of communication with businesses that are having problems or that have questions. We are calling for flexibility regarding a program that the government created and then offloaded onto financial institutions.

How can the government fail to understand that urgent action must be taken, when all politicians and businesses are unanimously asking it to prevent a wave of bankruptcies? This is urgent.

Urgent action is also needed to address the unprecedented housing crisis. Over the past five years, the average rent in Quebec has increased by 25%, and CMHC predicts that this trend will continue until 2025, with an increase of up to 30%. This means that a growing number of households are spending more and more of their disposable income on housing, while the price of other nccessities also continues to rise. The cost of food, for example, increased by 5.9% in 2023, forcing the average family to pay an extra $700 a year to put food on the table. Since household income is not keeping pace with price increases, people's purchasing power is shrinking. Every year, Quebeckers and Canadians are gradually losing a huge proportion of their disposable incomes to pay for necessities like housing. In plain English, I am talking about how much they are paying just to get by.

An emergency homelessness fund is also urgently needed to address the unprecedented crisis currently affecting Quebec and Canada. In Quebec, homelessness has increased by 44% in five years, which translates into nearly 10,000 people experiencing visible homelessness. This does not include hidden homelessness, which at any given time affects 8% of the population, mostly women. These are the coldest months of the year, and tens of thousands of people do not have a roof over their heads. The Bloc Québécois understood that urgent action was needed to deal with the situation, so it proposed establishing an emergency fund to help cities and municipalities support people experiencing homelessness.

What does the economic statement have to say about that? Let us look at the housing page. Alas, there is nothing.

There is nothing planned until 2026. Is that what urgent action means to the current government? It seems like it. True, the government is eliminating the GST on housing construction, but Professor François Des Rosiers, who teaches real estate management at Université Laval, says that this measure will do nothing to solve the rental housing shortage because costs keep rising. This was hardly the best measure to propose when urgent action was needed.

Worse yet, to top it all off, the government announced in its economic update that it will be creating a new department of housing, infrastructure and communities, to give the impression that it is doing something. The government essentially wants to establish a department of municipal affairs. That is called interference. We already have a federal department of housing, infrastructure and communities, but Quebec also has its own minister responsible for infrastructure.

This announcement is likely the most important one that was made in the economic statement, but it is also the emptiest. Rather than actually dealing with the crisis, like the Bloc Québécois suggested by calling for the implementation of a emergency fund or an interest-free or very low interest loan program to stimulate the construction of affordable rental and social housing, the government is promising money in two years and creating a department of interference.

The Bloc Québécois clearly identified priorities and even possible solutions to deal with the problems in each of these areas. We did the work for this government. However, the economic statement does not offer much in the way of new measures. At best, it reiterates the measures announced in the last budget. At worst, it completely ignores issues that are essential for the future of Quebec's and Canada's prosperity. Here is a very good example. In this budget, there is only one paragraph about the Canada emergency business account.

It sums up the announcement made in September about the extra 18 days to pay off a $40,000 loan. Yes, 18 days. How generous. Clearly the government does not understand the meaning of the word “emergency” because, when there is an emergency, action needs to be taken. For eight years, this government has been hindering Quebec's prosperity. Whenever the Liberals are forced to take action, they consistently fail. Just look at the passport crisis, the housing crisis, the fight against climate change or even running water on reserves. They dislike taking action so much that they have to hire consultants to do the work for them.

In two months, the Deputy Prime Minister will table a new budget. I hope it will be better than this economic statement. I hope it will be better for Quebec. Regardless, it will be just be one more reminder that there will never be a better budget for Quebeckers than a budget prepared by a sovereign Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree with much of what the member said. I am sure she is not surprised by that particular comment. She referred to purpose-built housing, homes and apartments, where we are getting rid of the GST to encourage more growth. It is projected that there will be literally thousands of new units built as a direct result. Likewise, we now have provincial jurisdictions that are doing this with the PST.

Would the member not agree that, if the provinces are now trying to duplicate what the federal government is doing, in an attempt to increase the supply of purpose-built homes, it is a good thing? Would she not support that?

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

Madam Speaker, my answer is quite simple: It is totally inadequate. It will probably not get any new rental and affordable housing built. Why? Interest rates are too high.

It may make sense on a small scale, but interest rates are so high right now that no one is interested in borrowing money to build rental and affordable housing. It is totally inadequate.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their comments, which illustrate that the money provided by the federal government, by way of our taxes, I would point out, is not being invested in the right place.

Speaking of urgent needs, there are two files we have been working for years, even though they both concern federal programs and involve no interference. The federal government spends more time interfering than looking after its own affairs.

Old age security for our seniors is urgent, and so is employment insurance reform for workers in struggling socio-economic regions. These are two key measures for supporting Quebeckers. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and friend for her excellent question.

Old age security is indeed essential for many people who have reached a certain age and need it to live on. We also know that inflation is causing major headaches for these people who still need to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. However, the government did not increase old age security for all age groups, as it should have, despite the bill that was passed and that had been introduced by the Bloc Québécois.

Another great example is employment insurance. It is one of the few files that is in the federal government's hands. How long have we been waiting for the reform, one year, two years or three years? I do not know how long it has been. Where is that reform? Why is there still nothing for employment insurance?

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

Madam Speaker, when it comes to housing, we know that the government is not doing enough or acting quickly enough. However, there are ideas being floated, like creating an acquisition fund for non-profit organizations. There are other proposals.

I wonder what sort of action the member would like to see the federal government take on housing.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague gave the example of an acquisition fund. We completely agree with that idea. In fact, we asked the former housing minister directly what he thought about an acquisition fund. Unfortunately, we did not get any response. It would be a very good solution for quickly creating affordable rental housing and put a roof over people's heads.

We proposed establishing an emergency fund to address homelessness, which, as members know, has increased tremendously. I provided the figures in my speech. We are talking about another 10,000 persons who are experiencing homelessness. That is terrible. We absolutely need to bring in emergency measures and not wait until 2026.

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

Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to rise today to speak to this latest budget implementation act by the government.

I have been listening closely to the debate, so I would like to start by offering some comments on it so far. Then I am going to talk a bit more about the bill.

I had occasion to ask the Conservative leader not long ago here in the House about the problem of inflation that Canadians are experiencing. We know they are experiencing it, as we all are. When we go into a grocery store, we see the rising prices. We know people are struggling to stay in their homes. We see it on the street in our communities. We see more people pitching tents in order to have a roof over their head at night, such as it is. We hear stories, unfortunately, of cities focusing their energy on clearing out encampments of people with nowhere to go instead of trying to figure out how to create better homes that provide more warmth and support in a challenging winter. We are hearing about it from constituents, for instance, who are having to choose to cut pills or pay the rent. There are all sorts of ways in which this really difficult economic time is affecting Canadians, so the question for us here in Parliament is what to do about it.

Certainly, the Conservative leader has a lot of opinions on that. My question earlier was why, when he talks about inflation and the hardship that Canadians are experiencing, he does not mention whether it is just in Canada. There have been some incredible studies here in Canada saying that price increases over and above the increase in costs for large corporations are responsible for 25% or more of the inflation that Canadians have experienced, so I want to be really clear that those are not price increases. We know that, particularly, a lot of small and medium-sized businesses in our communities are experiencing higher costs and have to pass them on to their consumers. Even some big corporations are experiencing higher input costs, and some of that gets passed on to consumers. However, we are talking about price increases that go above and beyond that increase in costs.

It is no excuse to say that they are simply passing on those costs, because they are not. If 25% or so of inflation is attributable to price increases above the additional costs, it means corporations are taking that 25% home in profits. When we look at the profits of oil and gas companies, which increased by 1000% from 2019 to 2021, as an example, those were not increases of passing on costs. Some increases contributed to inflation by being additional price increases just for the purpose of paying higher dividends to corporate shareholders and bigger wages to corporate executives. Therefore, how can the Conservative leader pretend to be serious about addressing the problem of inflation when he is completely silent about the corporate greed that is driving a quarter or more of that very inflation? I would submit that it is not possible. It is not credible.

I am proud to be part of an NDP caucus in which the leader is willing to name that problem here in the House of Commons and acknowledge that we will not have a solution to the inflation problem in Canada if big corporations continue to feel they can increase prices with impunity. That is a major driver of inflation and hardship for Canadians. I think it speaks to the electoral choices that Canadians have. We have a Conservative opposition here that would frame itself as an alternative to the Liberals. However, if we actually look at this blind spot, the corporate-controlled Conservatives are not willing to acknowledge it, or do not see it, whichever it is. I will not speak to the question of intention here, but I will just say that it is a blind spot, whether wilful or not. What this means is that, if they were in government themselves, they would continue to do what the current government does. They would be prone to saying that the problems will go away if we just trust the market to deal with them. They would refuse to acknowledge the role that unbridled corporate greed is playing in creating the economic problem that Canadians are facing today.

One example of the ways this has manifested with the current government is with respect to housing. The real meat of its housing proposal in the fall was all about “creating more room for the market to solve the housing crisis”.

I do not really think we are going to get market solutions to the housing crisis. I do not think that is a revelation. I do not think that is particularly controversial. I know that the market, since the federal government, in the mid-90s, stepped away from producing non-market housing, has had 30 years to solve our housing problems. Instead of solving them, it has created a crisis that is accelerating and getting worse.

Simply freeing up Crown land and handing it off to developers to do what they will is not going to solve the problem. The same motive of corporate greed has been driving this housing crisis for decades now and has become particularly acute in the last few years, and nothing about that basic structure will have changed if we are still just expecting market players to solve this crisis.

We heard at the finance committee, from home developers, financiers and real estate people, that the market is not going to solve this problem. That is not to say that we do not need more market housing. It is not to say that there would not be more housing built by the market; of course there will be. That is not where we need the attention of government, though. The attention of government has to be on the part that the market will not do and has not been doing, and that is non-market housing.

To say that we want to see the government focus specifically on non-market housing is not to discount the role of the market and market housing; it is just to say that the public policy attention of the government does not have to be there. In fact, the virtue of the market is supposed to be that the government does not have to get involved, so let them do their thing, but let us have the attention and the investment focus of our federal government be on addressing the very real problem of non-market housing, which has been neglected for 30 years and absolutely must return, in a significant way, in order for us to solve the housing crisis. It is a problem with the current government, and it will be a problem with any future Conservative government, because they share the same blind spot.

What are some of the other things we could do if we acknowledge the role that corporate greed is playing? That is where I think the NDP has played an important role in twisting the arm of the Liberal government to do some things, like a 2% share buyback fee, so that companies cannot just go ahead and, for various kinds of maximization of profit strategies for their shareholders or for the corporation itself, buy back shares as a way of transferring wealth to their shareholders without paying any tax at all.

It is of note, and something that New Democrats have been arguing for for a long time, well before this Parliament, that this legislation creates the possibility of implementing a digital services tax, which means a tax on the revenue of large, Internet-based companies, like Netflix and others, who, right now, are paying no tax in Canada at all. This does not make sense. They are not paying any corporate tax on the revenue that they raise in Canada. They get to walk it all out of the country for free.

That does not make sense, and it puts traditional broadcasters at a disadvantage. We are seeing the effects that is having on our media market and the ability to hire journalists and pay them to do the work that they do, which plays an important part. However much we may disagree sometimes with the way that news media outlets frame certain issues, their work is, nevertheless, important to a well-functioning democracy. The fact that their competitors have not had to pay any tax at all does a disservice not just to them but to Canadians, who rely on news content for the functioning of our democracy.

We have been pushing the government already in Bill C-56, and now again in the budget implementation bill, to make meaningful changes to the Competition Act that would allow for the Competition Bureau to play a greater and more effective role in ensuring that big corporations are not using their market power and their market position to pull one over on Canadians, to make the economy less competitive, and to have those outsized, excess price increases that I was talking about earlier, which are a significant factor in driving inflation.

Another thing we can do is to be willing to let corporations know, to the extent that they want to invest in Canada and create jobs in Canada, particularly in the natural resources sector, that there is an expectation that they are going to create good union jobs here in Canada in order to do it. That is why I am very proud of the labour conditions that are attached to the investment tax credits. This legislation would implement those labour conditions for the companies that are investing, with the use of this tax credit in clean technology, in carbon capture and storage. I am not actually that happy to hear about that technology, because I do not think that is the basket we should be putting our eggs in when it comes to emissions reduction; it's technology that has not been proven at scale. However, this government is determined to move ahead, and we hear a lot of positive comments about carbon capture and storage from Conservatives as well. Again, it is another shared blind spot of these two parties, the Liberals and Conservatives.

Nevertheless, if that investment is going to be taking place in Canada, I want it to create good union jobs, and I want companies to know that they have to be paying the prevailing wage of the collective agreements in the trade union sector. That means those companies are not going to come in competing on who can pay Canadians the least to do that work. They are going to come in and have to compete on the things we want them to be competing on: How efficient is the technology? How efficient are they at building it? What are their production techniques? That is the way they should be competing. When they are earning a contract, it should be on that basis and not on the basis of how little they are prepared to pay their workers.

Too often, in Canada, we have accepted a situation where we are happy to have companies come in and compete on the cost of labour and have a competition about who can pay Canadians the least to do a job that deserves a fair wage, good benefits and a proper pension. I am very proud that with this legislation we are going to be implementing, for the first time ever, conditions on an investment tax break that centres workers in the middle of it and has an apprenticeship requirement. Sometimes it can be a challenge to employers to hire apprentices. I have been an apprentice myself, and when I walked on the job site the first day, I did not know what I was doing. That is what an apprenticeship is like; it is meant to teach people. It is not always a profit maximization strategy for the employer in the short term.

In the long term, employers with foresight see the value of passing on that training and knowledge and creating a workforce they can avail themselves of, but we know there are employers for whom that is not their strategy. They have a short-term focus and want to bring on the journeypeople. They want someone else to train apprentices, and then they want to poach them later.

However, these tax credits will say that we, as a country, value training the trades workforce of tomorrow, and that if companies want a tax break on the investment, they have to be part of a culture of building that workforce and creating good jobs for Canadians, not just for today but also into the future, giving them the tools they need in order to be able to do that.

We saw a Conservative government in Ontario use bankruptcy laws to shut down a post-secondary education institution. My colleague for Timmins—James Bay did a lot of work on raising awareness about what was wrong with that; it should never be done again. New Democrats have spearheaded the effort to get that done, and in this budget bill what we see is a provision that says that the bankruptcy and insolvency laws of Canada and the CCAA will not be able to be used again in the future to perpetrate that kind of nasty closure on a public institution. I am very proud of the work my colleagues have done on that, and it is something that I think ought to go forward.

I want to come back to the housing question, because it is an important one. I said earlier that I thought in the fall that the Liberals' focus was on market solutions and that that is not where the focus of the government really needs to be, certainly not to the exclusion of working on non-market solutions. In this bill, what do we see? Well, the only thing that is really happening on the housing front is the creation of a new department of housing infrastructure and communities, which is just merging two departments that already exist. This is not what we do in the face of a crisis. This is not an administrative crisis; it is not that people are not pushing enough paper. It is that there is not enough housing getting built, and changing the name of the department without prioritizing things like recapitalizing the coinvestment fund, one of the few federal funds that is actually building non-market housing, does not make sense. It does not make sense to prioritize shuffling the words in the department name around over advancing that funding.

In the fall economic statement, the recapitalization that was much touted by the government as its action on the urgent housing crisis was back-loaded in the budget tables, meaning it will not be coming for another two years. This is particularly shameful when we consider that the territory of Nunavut alone has been asking, on an urgent basis, for $250 million to address the housing crisis that it is seeing and to meet the needs that the territorial government is being asked to respond to.

We did not see a mention in the fall economic statement, and there is nothing in the bill, around the Kivalliq hydro link, which is a project that will help deliver power into parts of Nunavut. I hope it will also be accompanied with more broadband access in order to set the stage for more economic development in parts of Nunavut, as well as to try to reduce the reliance in Nunavut on diesel in order to power communities instead of bringing hydro up or, in the long term, perhaps, being able to produce enough electricity in a sustainable way that it could become a seller and bring own-source revenues to Inuit communities in Nunavut. That is the kind of long-term infrastructure investment that would make a lot of sense and that we do not see.

Another important investment would be to upgrade the Cambridge Bay airport, which is an important hub for Nunavut. When we talk about Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic, we know that the best way to enhance it is to invest in the people who live there and provide them the tools and resources they need in order to have a strong economy, live in appropriate housing and have access to the services that people rightly expect in the 21st century.

Instead, the rumour we have been faced with now for at least a month on Parliament Hill, a little longer if we go back to early December, is that the government is contemplating deep cuts at Indigenous Services Canada. New Democrats certainly want to know more about what the government is contemplating and the effects it will have on first nations, Inuit and Métis communities across the country. It is an area of significant concern for us and something that is not addressed here but that we expect to see addressed in the budget in terms of what the government's plan is and how we are going to ensure that indigenous communities are not once again left holding the bag when a government decides it wants to save money and continue a culture of corporate tax cuts.

I want to come back to the question of the role that large corporations are playing in driving inflation. A report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer as recently as December 2021 said that just 1% of Canada's population owns and controls 25% of all of the wealth of the country, and the bottom 40% of income earners in Canada share just 1% of all of the wealth that is produced in Canada. If we think about it, that 25% number is 5% higher than it was at the turn of the century.

What has happened since the year 2000 is that the proportion of wealth controlled by the top 1% increased by those five percentage points. I do not mean it increased by 5%; I mean that it went from 20% of overall wealth to 25% of overall wealth. In the same time, the corporate tax rate came down from 28% to just 15% today.

We talk about Canadians feeling the squeeze and about the middle class being expected to pay more in taxes to make up for government spending, but the big hole in government revenue comes from the people in that 1%, who are walking away with that much more of Canada's overall wealth than they used to because they pay significantly less tax than they used to.

That is why people wonder why it is that government cannot have a robust housing strategy. We used to be able to do it, and we did it coming out of the war. Well, yes, the marginal tax rate that the richest Canadians paid coming out of the war was way higher than it is today, and the corporate tax rate was way higher than it is today. Those things provided the revenue to invest in the middle class that then became the foundation for economic prosperity that lasted for decades. The reason that economic prosperity is drying up and the middle class is feeling the heat so much is that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have let the people at the top off from having to pay their fair share.

That is what is making the difference in Canada. The fact that the Conservative leader will not name it means he will not fix it, and that is what Canadians need to know heading into the next election.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on a question regarding housing, because the member spent a lot of time speaking to housing. In the last number of years, and I made reference to this earlier, we have seen the federal government really getting into the area of housing. For many years nothing was being done, nothing was being developed.

Today we can talk about the billions, but, more important, we can also talk about the need for the three levels of government to come to the table to address the housing issues that the member references. I am very sympathetic to the people living in bus shelters and so forth in the city of Winnipeg.

Would he not agree that all three levels of government need to step up to deal with the housing crisis today?

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

Madam Speaker, there certainly is work to do at all levels of government to address the housing crisis. The foremost role of the federal government in all this is as funder. Those other levels of government will come to the table when there is enough funding on the table to talk about making a significant difference.

One of the things that would help, in addition to the funding itself, would be a far more regular offer. We are still having debates about when more money will be put into the co-investment fund, which is, as I said earlier, the fund that has produced the most non-market housing. Why is there not an annual offering? Why is this a question?

The housing crisis took decades to develop. It is going to take a long time to solve. The idea that the federal government is just going to offer this money willy-nilly and not regularly on an annualized basis, so other levels of government can plan for the level of investment that is coming not just over the short term but the medium and long term, is laughable.

The federal government needs to make annual commitments with a warning. We should not be needing to have this debate every time the fund is depleted. There is no way it is going to offer enough money in one offering to not have it depleted. Other levels of government need to know when the replenishment is coming so we can actually plan into the future for how we are going to solve this crisis.

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

Madam Speaker, I was a little concerned about some of the comments the member was making. We all know that one of the reasons wealth has increased in Canada is in relationship to the increase in assets that many Canadians have through home ownership. One of the reasons those assets increased in value so much over the last number of years is because we did not build enough homes to keep up with the demand for housing.

Why does the New Democratic Party continue to prop up a government that has not done enough to get more homes built? Why will it not lose its confidence in the government so we can have an election and Canadians can make a decision for themselves about which party will make the best housing policies for our country?

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

Madam Speaker, we respect the decision that Canadians made in an election about two short years ago, and we have seen it as our task to work in the context that Canadians created in order to deliver on the promises we made to Canadians, like a dental care plan, for instance, on which we have been working. People are receiving their letters to register for that program now. We will continue to do the work in the Parliament Canadians elected.

We have a lot to say both now and at election time about what the Liberals have done on housing, what we would do differently and the glaring deficiencies of the so-called Conservative plan when it comes to housing. The idea that somehow we are going to have an election and the housing crisis is going to go away because those guys are going to do something different than these guys, when they are both obsessed with market solutions, is a little rich. No, I do not believe that, and I am prepared to do the work in the Parliament Canadians elected.

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

Madam Speaker, happy new year to you and to all of my colleagues. I hope we will be gracious in our debates in 2024, if such a thing is possible.

I thank my colleague for his speech, in which he talked extensively about housing. I think that off-market housing is, in fact, one of the solutions. We need to work on that. There are countries in Europe where between 20% and 30% of the housing stock is off-market housing. That is huge. In Canada, it is only 5%. We really have a lot of work to do. On the Island of Montreal, 1% of property owners own one-third of all the housing stock. The situation is the same in Vancouver and Toronto. We need to address that.

The financialization of housing is a phenomenon that basically did not exist at the time the federal government was investing in housing, or before 1993. Now it is a factor. What can we do to address that problem? Does my colleague have any solutions?

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

Madam Speaker, obviously, I think there is not just one thing, but several things we can do to tackle this problem.

One of the things we could do is create an acquisition fund so that non-profits can have a chance to acquire a building when it comes on the market. Right now, they cannot access the necessary capital quickly enough to make an offer before a big company makes an offer and acquires that building. That is one solution.

Another is to make sure that the big companies that are in the housing market pay a reasonable amount of tax, because there are mechanisms they use to avoid paying the regular amount of tax.

I also think that building more off-market housing will have an effect on market value if people have the opportunity to buy off-market housing.

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

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with my hon. friend from Elmwood—Transcona and his analysis. When we talk about inflation, we cannot leave out excess corporate profits. He referred to the large, unprecedented profits from oil companies.

Does he agree with me that it essentially amounts to profits from war profiteering, because the profits went through the roof when Putin invaded Ukraine?

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

Madam Speaker, we absolutely should have an excess profit tax on the oil and gas industry. We have seen it make a 1,000% increase in an industry that was already very profitable over the last number of years. This indicates that is not something where it is marking up prices to keep up with inflation. It saw an opportunity. The war was certainly part of that opportunity. It is shameful for companies to be using a global conflict to jack up its prices. They should not be allowed to do it.

We have the power in Canada. Some of our allies have exercised the power that they have in their own jurisdictions, including a Conservative government in the U.K., which implemented an excess profit tax on the oil and gas sector. Why, in Canada, can we not find people on the government benches with the courage to do the same and reinvest some of those excess profits in the Canadian economy and in Canadians themselves?

It is a real disappointment and it is certainly something that we will continue to talk to Canadians about, including at election time.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, who does a masterful job of highlighting the hypocrisies and contradictions of both Liberals and Conservatives. He raised a very important question today about workers.

He spoke about our responsibility to workers. I want to take a moment and highlight a recent visit we had to IBEW's training facility in Alberta, the 424 Union. It is doing a fantastic job training the next generation of workers in Alberta. We heard from it that our federal government had a responsibility.

When it comes to procurement, there are some construction and infrastructure contractors out there who do something called “double breasting”. They make applications with union workers and then they come through and make applications with another side of their company with non-union workers, essentially driving down the prevailing wage on the backs of not just the workers but taxpayer investments as well.

Could the hon. member, who I know is a proud member of IBEW, speak to the importance of a good prevailing wage and the procurement power of a federal government to ensure that workers get paid that union rate with good benefits and great pensions?

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

Madam Speaker, that important question highlights the important role that government decision-making plays in honouring the idea that workers deserve respect and they deserve fair wages. That is why it is important to have good labour laws. That is why I am proud that we are pushing for anti-scab legislation and that the bill is beginning to progress through the legislative process.

There are other things we can do to reinforce collective bargaining rights and we do not do that when we allow this kind of double breasting to go on, which undermines workers.

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

Madam Speaker, happy new year to you and to all colleagues in the House.

Today, we have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-59, which is the legislation that would implement the initiatives in the fall economic statement before Christmas.

Before I get too much further, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Nepean.

One of the things I contemplated over the Christmas break was the decorum in this place. I know that will be something on which those who sit in the chair will be focused. I will commit to those who are here today, and indeed to the House, that we will have robust debate but we should try to keep it within the confines of respectful debate at the same time.

The fall economic statement from this government was focused on two core issues: affordability and housing. Those are top-of-mind issues at home in Kings—Hants. I want to talk first about the economic context, because affordability is a top-of-mind issue, but it is important for my constituents, and for Canadians across the country, to understand where we are at in the current economic context. If all they did was listen to the Conservative opposition bench, they would never really understand some of the positive things that are happening vis-à-vis Canada's economic growth and particularly our investment climate right now.

Inflation is a global issue. The last statistic by Statistics Canada shows that Canada had a 3.4% inflation rate in the month of December 2023, and we are working to try to help bring that under control. However, where does Canada rate in a global context? I pulled out some statistics from around the world: Germany, 3.7%; France, the same; U.K., just over 4%; and United States is on par with Canada. I would submit that Ireland, India, Australia and New Zealand are all comparable countries and they have higher inflation rates than Canada right now.

I know that is cold comfort. I do not say this to Canadians and to my constituents to suggest that this government will rest on its laurels, but it is important, because when we hear the opposition members talk, they suggest that Canada is a laggard in the world with respect to the affordability question. We have work to do and we will continue to do that work. However, make no mistake, it is important to contextualize that as we move forward.

How about our debt-to-GDP ratio? When we listen to the member for Carleton and the opposition, they would suggest that Canada is in a terrible situation vis-à-vis its debt-to-GDP ratio. That is not the case. Canada is actually a leader in the G7 with respect to net debt-to-GDP ratio and it also has the lowest deficit in the G7. Again, we do not hear that being said very much from the opposition benches. It is important for Canadians to understand that.

The number that I thought was quite important is investment in the country. Yes, we want Canadian equity firms and Canadian businesses investing in our country, but we know that in a globalized economy we want other countries and companies around the world to come to Canada and invest in our economic success as well.

A number that is quite striking is foreign direct investment in 2023. Canada was third overall in the entire world. We are 40 million people. We are a relatively small country with respect to population in the world, but of course rich in resources and ingenuity. We are third in the world, not per capita but over all, behind U.S. and Brazil. That is an incredible feat. It is something of which every Canadian, and every member of Parliament in the House, should be proud. It is being driven by this government's view of investing and driving future growth, particularly in a transition to a lower-carbon economy. This is a significant number that Canadians should understand.

However, when we talk about affordability, we have to also balance spending with responsibility. We are in an environment now where we saw the Bank of Canada, through the governor, Tiff Macklem, hold interest rates at 5%. His indication to the Canadians, to the public, and to this government is that we will expect to see decreases in the benchmark interest rate over the next couple of months. That is extremely important.

I am proud of the way in which this government has walked a very careful line between putting out supports to vulnerable Canadians, but at the same time being mindful that we do not want the spending that does take place to further drive inflation. The Bank of Canada has been very clear that this has not happened to date, and it is important that this government continue to do this. I for one, and I know my colleagues in all corners of this place, will be focused on that question as well.

With respect to housing, I want to tell a story. I represent Kings—Hants, a rural riding in Nova Scotia, just outside Halifax in the beautiful Annapolis Valley. Come see us sometime. Indeed, that invitation is to all Canadians. I remember knocking on doors during the 2019 election, as a new candidate. I would go to rural areas of my riding, where there would be a for sale sign on a property. I would go in and talk to the homeowner, and I would note, of course, that they were trying to sell their house. They would say they were concerned they would never be able to sell their house. They had had it on the market for two years and were worried they would never be able to get the equity to be able to retire or move on with their life.

If one were to come to my riding right now, there is little to no real estate available whatsoever. I want people to understand that, in fact, in Nova Scotia, that is a good thing because for years, we were concerned about our demographic trends. In fact, for my generation, as someone who is 33 years old, when I was coming out of university, there were a lot of folks who were actually moving elsewhere in the country. We have reversed that trend in Atlantic Canada. That is a good thing.

Economic growth and population growth are good things, but we need to have the housing to keep pace. We have heard commentary in this place about past iterations of federal governments, both Liberal and Conservative, that have not invested in housing, particularly social housing. I am pleased to say that this is something that has changed under the current government. The philosophy is to invest in public housing, along with market housing, which that the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona mentioned. Both have to happen at the same time. I would point Canadians to the fact of our most recent investment, which is removing the HST on purpose-based rental housing.

Again, owning one's own home is extremely important, and we will want all Canadians to have that opportunity. However, some people are in a situation where affordable rentals are also extremely important. I have seen the cost of rentals go up, in the community of Kentville, for example, from being in the range of $1,200 a few years ago to now upwards of $2,000, because of the pressure we have seen.

All three levels of government have to be part of this.

The House resumed from January 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and to the Minister of National Defence (Northern Defence)]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-59 this morning. I waited very patiently for my turn as many in the House were unfortunately challenging the Speaker's decision. We have been here a long time. I think the rules are quite clear.

I would like to speak—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

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

Madam Speaker, the member across the way just claimed that members were challenging the Speaker's authority. We were trying to inform the Speaker, prior to what he said—

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

We are not going to debate that now. Everyone has the right to express themselves in a respectful manner. It is a debate that we are not going to start again.

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

Madam Speaker, members have been told they cannot participate in the House.

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

That is not what the Speaker ruled. The Speaker ruled that he had heard from enough members to be able to come back to the House with a ruling.

Right now, we are into the debate of a bill. The hon. parliamentary secretary made a comment that is not necessarily nice, but it is perfectly legitimate and is not unparliamentary. I would like to give the floor back to the parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, respectfully, your description of the events is distinct from what happened. The Speaker has said that a member of this House, prior to him making his final ruling, will be prevented from speaking.

The problem with the Speaker is that he is continually inventing new rules and applying ideas that are completely outside of the precedents of the House. If he is coming back to the House with a ruling, then the member for Battle River—Crowfoot should be able to be present prior to that final ruling, but—

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

That has been dealt with by the Speaker. There is—

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

He is also going to come back—

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

The hon. member is challenging the Chair.

There is another point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am growing more and more concerned about the confrontation with Speakers when they are occupying the chair. Even when you were standing up, Madam Speaker, the member did not sit down. Rather, he continued to chirp from his seat toward you. I think there—

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

I appreciate the hon. member's comments and they are duly noted, but we are not going to start a debate on this. There is no point of order.

We are resuming debate with the parliamentary secretary for northern affairs.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, members have challenged the Chair, and we just bore witness to it right here in the House again. I am not raising a point of order. I am giving a speech on Bill C-59. It goes without saying that in the House there is a lot of tension. Members are really not very restful in their seats, and every single little word motivates them to jump to their feet and challenge someone else who is in the chair.

I want to speak today about Bill C-59, a wonderful piece of legislation crafted by the Government of Canada in response to the people of Canada, who have continuously raised with us, in very eloquent and fundamental ways, the issues confronting them every single day in their lives and their communities, how that impacts them, and suggestions on how we can make life easier. That is what we have been doing. While the opposition has been playing political games in the House and outside the House, we have been attentive to what Canadians are saying.

Even in my home riding in rural Canada, we know that the issues around affordability have become much more challenging for people. We know that families are working harder to meet the demands of continuing with the quality of life they have enjoyed and want to have, and we are helping them along the way.

However, it is unfortunate that, every time we have proposed good legislation, good, creative ideas in listening to the people of Canada, we have had Conservatives vote it down. In the fall economic statement, under Bill C-59, the supports for Canadians under affordability are very important. They are very important because they come at a time when Canadians need them.

We have talked a lot about the Canada child benefit here. I visit families every day, and I know that, without that Canada child benefit going into their accounts every month, they could not provide the quality of life they want for their children. That is why I am proud of what we are doing under the Canada child benefit, a benefit Conservatives want to get rid, have voted against, and have campaigned on saying that it is not adequate for Canadians. What we know is that, without this benefit, without that monthly income going to families all across Canada, there would be so many children still left in poverty. This benefit alone has lifted children and families out of poverty, and I can cite case by case, community by community, family name by family name, how it has benefited them over the time we have implemented that benefit.

I also want to talk about what we have done around affordability today because the key pillar of our fall economic statement is really built around boosting the economy, as well as making life more affordable for Canadians. We have seen the inflation rate in 2022 go from over 8% down to 3.2%, which I think were the last numbers. We know that, while the inflation rate has fallen, the cost of living has not really shifted downward. The price of goods is still higher than people would like it to be. There are many reasons for that. Conservatives will tell us that it is because of the Liberal government, but the world will tell us a very different narrative. That narrative is really about supply chains, wars that are ongoing in countries, the self-sufficiency of countries around the world and how they are trying to meet their needs at a very challenging time.

The other thing we have noticed is what has been happening with competitors. Canadians have been very strong about this. We need to make changes to the Competition Act. We are doing that in the fall economic statement. As members know, ministers have called together leading competitors in the grocery chains to talk about affordable groceries for Canadians and how, with the co-operation of the business community, they would be able to make better, more affordable choices.

Many in the opposition mock that idea. They did not see it as a generational change that could occur within the competition laws in Canada, that could make it more affordable for people across the country. They just mocked the idea of even having the conversation, because that is what happens when there is a far right-wing government agenda. It is about getting rid of laws, regulations and fairness. It is about the competitors and businesses reaching a higher model and greater profits.

That is not the direction the Liberal government is going in. We are going in a direction that is bringing costs down and making life more affordable and sustainable for Canadians. We are not looking at a far-right agenda that caters only to the wealthy, the business communities and large-scale businesses, and where profit is the driving feature of the day. We have seen it. We have seen it here in Canada, and we continue to see it today.

My colleague opposite can shout all he likes, but it is not going to stop me from saying what I have to say today. The truth hurts. We all know how much the truth hurts. He is over there squirming in his seat right now, because he knows that what I am saying is 100% factual, and—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary again for a point of order from the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, there was no squirming whatsoever. The member needs to understand that when the Speaker ignores the rules and when the Speaker invents new norms, it undermines the ability of the House to function. The Speaker—

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

I appreciate the hon. member's comments. I am not the one who has to address them, but they will be addressed by the Speaker.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay on the same point.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been trying to listen to my hon. colleague, and all I have been hearing is this juvenile intimidation from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan—

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

We are in a debate. Some things are going to provoke some reactions, and it is perfectly normal in this chamber.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

May I continue? This is perfectly normal behaviour, apparently, in this chamber.

I am going to allow the hon. parliamentary secretary to continue.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity. I guess my definition of squirming and the member opposite's definition are a little different. When I see someone trying to shift around in their seat, and their arms are moving, their legs are moving, their head is moving and their mouth is moving, I think they are squirming in their seat.

Let us get back to this very important speech that I am making on Bill C-59. What we are doing, in terms of competitiveness, is taking a historic step. We are cracking down on the abuses and the dominance of bigger companies and on predatory pricing. This is going to help so many families.

In the meantime, while we are introducing that legislation and making that crackdown to save money on grocery bills for Canadians, we are giving them an affordability allowance. A family with two children, for example, would have received about $430. That allowance can go up to $640 per family. While we are dealing with the Competition Act and making historic changes to regulate and ensure that there is fairer pricing and competition on groceries in Canada, we are paying out an affordability allowance to families to help them through this difficult time.

This is another incentive that the Conservatives voted down, yet they talk every single day about families that are out there struggling. We talk every single day about the same families that are out there struggling, but we are doing something about it. That is the difference. What they are doing is voting down every concrete initiative that we are bringing forward, whether it is the Canada child benefit, dental care for families who cannot afford it, an affordability allowance being paid out, or a rural rebate on carbon pollution to help people who are going through a difficult time to heat their homes in parts of Canada.

It does not matter how much the benefits are that are going to Canadians. The Conservatives vote them down because they have one strategy in mind: catering to the far right, catering to the wealthy and making sure that they slash good programs and good benefits, like the ones we are bringing to seniors and what we are doing under the Canada pension plan. These are concrete, fundamental programs for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I do believe we are talking about the Liberal government's economic statement. However, the speech I heard was more about criticizing the opposition, even though the topic is actually the government's economic statement.

They say they are taking care of people. It is shocking that, in their economic statement, they once again abandoned seniors by refusing to equitably index the OAS by 10%.

They are also abandoning workers. For the past eight years now, since 2015, then in 2017, 2019, 2021 and again now, the government has opted not to listen to workers or look at ways to strengthen the social safety net that is EI. These are urgent matters.

Can my colleague tell me how her government plans to sincerely address seniors' and workers' need for enhanced social programs?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, that is a very sensible question. I agree with my hon. colleague. Seniors deserve the very best quality of life that we can give them. That is why our party has upheld the ability for seniors to retire at 65 and not at the Conservatives' suggested age of 67.

There are other things we have done. We have increased the old age security. We have reformed the Canada pension plan. We have increased the guaranteed income supplement. We have also done things like bring in the workers benefit, which has helped so many workers across Canada who work in low-income jobs and has allowed them to have that additional $2000-plus per month in benefits to support their families.

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite, in her speech, spoke a little about following rules, the rule of law and so forth.

I think that it has been interesting over the last few months. We have seen the incredible disregard that this government has for our institutions and for adherence to rules. We had the court rule, for example, that the government's imposition of the Emergencies Act was unlawful. We have seen, even today, how institutions are undermined when we have people in positions of authority, such as the Speaker, making outrageous rulings without any basis or precedent.

Can the member explain why her government and its partners in various positions consistently ignore precedent, ignore rules, ignore the law and think that they are somehow above the rules?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, because it gives me an opportunity to really talk about who is in favour of the rule of law. This is the same party that wants to withdraw from the United Nations and that wants to fire the head of the Bank of Canada. These are the kinds of things that we hear from the other side.

Let us talk about the Emergencies Act. Let us talk about the convoy on the streets of Ottawa in the absence of anyone dealing with that convoy. What would we have seen if the members opposite were in government? They would have walked away, ignored it and left the whole city in chaos, to implode. When there were people, radicals, camped out on the lawns of people's houses, when they had streets blocked and they were overtaking businesses, shutting down shopping centres, sending thousands of people in the city of Ottawa home and taking away their ability—

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

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member will agree that she and I have been in some good scraps over the years, but we come to this place for the betterment of Canada, so when I see the opportunity to create good-paying jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador being attacked by the Conservatives, and the Conservatives say they are going to stop jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador, I ask why. It is because they want to burn the planet.

What does it say to people in Newfoundland and Labrador that there are Conservative members who want to burn the planet and deny jobs and good, clean energy, while we see in America, on the Atlantic coast, that the Americans are getting thousands and thousands of jobs, clean jobs?

What does that say to the people in Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. The Conservatives are voting against Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They are voting against Nova Scotians. They are voting against the Atlantic accord. They are voting against 30,000 clean energy jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not only that, but the Conservatives do not have confidence in the governments to do the job that needs to be done. My colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador yesterday insinuated in committee that the premiers in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia were being hoodwinked by the federal government: hoodwinked into creating 30,000 new jobs in their province. They should give themselves some thought around that—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

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

Madam Speaker, before I get started I would like to say that I am splitting my time with the hon. member from the soup-and-salad bowl of Canada, Mr. Lake Simcoe himself, the hon. member for York—Simcoe.

Thomas Jefferson reportedly said that democracy would cease to exist when you took away from those who were willing and able to work and gave to those who were not.

Speaking from my own experience, coming as an immigrant to this country, my family, like many, came here looking for that Canadian dream that so many are coming to Canada for still. However, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, we know it is not worth the cost. We see now, more than ever, that it is harder, whether for a Canadian or for a newcomer, to survive in this country. It is so much so that more than 400,000 people left Canada just last year. That is not a good sign for any country to think that it can prosper when 400,000-plus people are leaving. I look at the reasons that people are leaving or wanting to leave, and the number one cause is the cost of living. Number two is that their credentials are not being recognized. Both are issues that Conservatives have plans for.

I do not believe that anyone moves to this country thinking that their government will work against them, but when they get here they are proven wrong, time and time again, by the Liberal-NDP government. Their paycheques are attacked; their civil liberties are attacked; their freedom is attacked, and their freedom of speech is attacked over and over again by the Liberal-NDP government. It makes them rethink why they came to this country in the first place.

This is because everything does feel like it is broken here. People are getting taxed more. Their paycheques do not go as far as they used to. They are working harder. They are working so much that many people I have talked to are working two or three jobs. If I talk to anyone in any riding, one thing I am seeing as being more and more of a trend is that more people are picking up Uber jobs or Uber Eats jobs or Skip the Dishes jobs on top of the jobs they are already working. I remember, when growing up, that people would pick up taxi jobs or a job on the side just to make extra money above and beyond whatever their savings were. However, it is sad to see that after eight years of the current Liberal-NDP government, that is a must now, even to pay for the basic necessities just to live here in Canada.

The inflation that was caused by all the spending by the Liberal-NDP government, which continues to spend, made interest rates go up in the last 19 months at the most rapid pace seen in the last 20 years. In fact, the intensity of those rate changes is actually the highest in Canadian history. Because the government spent and wasted so much money, the Governor of the Bank of Canada had to tackle that inflation by raising interest rates.

The government's own housing department officials say that they have no faith in the current government to build the homes that are needed today. In fact, CMHC said in a recent study that homebuilding was actually down 7%. When we look at some of the factors, we see that builders are not building and buyers are not buying, because of those high interest rates. They went up once again, because of the overspending of the Liberal-NDP government.

When we look at Bill C-59, we see that the only thing the government has included with respect to housing is that it changed the housing department's name and increased the funding for more photo ops. There is no concrete action that would be taken to help with housing affordability. After eight years, we have seen rents double and mortgages double, and even the down payment needed for a house has doubled in just eight years.

Canadians pay today over one-third of their income in taxes, and the rest goes to housing, with little or nothing left for groceries, gas and home heating. This is very concerning. People are making their shelter payments, but all the other payments are starting to go more and more onto Canadians' credit cards. Utilities and groceries are going up. Even though people are paying more for groceries, they are getting a lot less in groceries than they used to.

This is because of high taxes, like the carbon tax that made the cost of gas, groceries and home heating go up, which the Liberals plan on quadrupling this year. The household debt in Canada, in totality, is more than the Canadian economy. This is not a good sign for a country where we want people to come and be successful and prosper. We are missing out on a lot of talent that could come here, with new energy and new investment, because Canada is not affordable anymore. It is not a place where people can come and be successful.

Canadians have record credit card debt, and over half are only $200 or less away from going bankrupt. The fact is that more and more people are putting more onto their credit cards. We are hearing horrific stories where students are living under bridges. Working people are living in their cars because they cannot afford housing. Mothers are putting water in their children's milk and parents have to choose less nutritious food because they cannot afford groceries. We are hearing about seniors who are having to wear blankets inside their houses because they cannot afford heat them and have to turn down their heat. That is how they have to get by because of this punitive carbon tax the government continues to raise.

Bankruptcy and insolvency are up. All the increases for small businesses are crippling owners, who are the backbone of our country. The IMF also warns, because of the interest rate hikes, that Canada is most at risk in the G7 for a mortgage default crisis. More than 70,000 mortgages a month are now being renewed, sometimes at double the rate. That could mean anything from a $400 increase to a $1,200 increase. This is not sustainable. With the recent inflation numbers, where inflation is above the target rate, the Governor of the Bank of Canada has been clear that there is a fear of these rates staying higher for longer, which means the pain will be higher for longer. There is no hope in sight. There is no light at the end of this inflationary crisis tunnel we see right now.

When we look at the economy today, after eight years we are in a worse position than we have ever been before. In fact, Canada's economy has contracted, whereas our U.S. partner's has grown. This is because of the bad restrictive policies of the Liberal-NDP government, which have stifled any type of economic growth in our country, let alone productivity or any type of investment that should be made in Canada. Canada is a lot less competitive because of its tax regime, which has held back the country.

The GDP per person is a determining factor for how successful each person is in Canada, and it has been declining since September 2022. Canada is last in the OECD for GDP per capita. GDP per capita today is lower than it was in the last half of 2018, which means five years of the wealth of Canadians has been completely wiped out.

Taxes are high. The tax code is too complicated. Taxes have been taken from working Canadians and their families for Liberals to give to their insider friends, consultants, bankers, bondholders, Liberal Bay Street buddies, bureaucrats and woke multinational corporations to advance the Liberal virtue signalling and its unjust job-killing transition.

Canadians are being forced to go to food banks more than ever because of the productivity gap and more taxes. While the Liberal-NDP government thinks the government is the solution, we believe people are the solution, and we need to give them the freedom to spend and to earn the way they want to, not restrict them.

Once we have a strong Conservative government under our Conservative leader, we are going to bring home those powerful paycheques again and an economy that is strong like it once was before, where the GDP per capita works for more and more people and where powerful paycheques will become a reality, because what people earn, they will be able to keep more of it in their pockets. We are going to keep it simple by doing four things to bring it home. We are going to axe the tax, we are going to build the homes, we are going to fix the budget and we are going to stop the crime.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, I always marvel when I hear speeches from the opposite side. The Conservatives paint themselves as these magnificent fiscal stewards. Pre-2015, the Conservative government ran nine out of 10 straight deficits.

I ask the member opposite to come clean with Canadians. What programs would he cut? Is he going to cut the Canada child benefit, the dental care program or the child care program? Is he going to raise the age of seniors from 65 back to 67?

He should come clean with Canadians and tell us what Liberal programs, which you did vote against, you will cut.

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

The member has to speak through me. I did not vote against anything.

The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

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

Madam Speaker, first, we are going to cut the number of Liberal seats and replace them with Conservative seats so we will have a strong Conservative government. We are also going to cut waste, waste like the $35-billion Infrastructure Bank that has built zero projects. The government have padded the pockets of Liberal cronies and insiders with that.

We are going to cut things like the arrive scam app that cost $45 million, which went to, once again, Liberal insiders, and the $1-billion slush fund that is under investigation for the same reasons. We are going to cut the woke policies. We are going to axe the carbon tax to bring down the cost of gas, groceries and home heating. The $20 billion that has gone to Liberal consultants to cover up the cabinet's incompetence will be cut as well. That is just the beginning.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about the economy in his speech.

I think he will agree with me that small and medium-sized businesses are a key component of the Quebec and Canadian economies, and that they are extremely important. The pandemic has been hard on them. The government offered them a loan, which was coupled with a subsidy if they were able to repay the loan. It was called the Canada emergency business account, or CEBA. The repayment date was a few days ago, in early January.

I have been talking to entrepreneurs back home. Some of them are wondering whether they should close their businesses because they have not been able to reach a payment agreement with the government. The post-pandemic economic recovery we had hoped for has not materialized. In my mind, it is logical to think that the government would help these people, who contribute to the Canadian economy.

I would like to hear more from the member. Does he think this would have been a good measure for entrepreneurs, who are also facing the rising cost of living?

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that the recovery after the pandemic was harder than what people thought. The Conservatives have been saying all along that when there are too many dollars chasing too few goods that is exactly why a lot of the businesses are suffering today, let alone everyday Canadians. The government continues to spend.

Let us remind everyone that 40% of the pandemic spending had nothing to do with the pandemic in the first place. Money went to organized crime through the government. Money went to people who literally were dead, to people who did not live in Canada and to public servants. The government is spending more and more money, yet it is not helping small businesses. It is raising their taxes. It slammed on a second carbon tax that applies without any rebate whatsoever. These types of things are stifling the economy.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very concerned. We are into the second year of Putin's brutal attack on Ukraine. We see that Trump has undermined Ukraine. We see that the far right, and we know the Conservatives have been meeting with the far right in Europe, is undermining Ukraine.

I want to ask why that member, his leader, his defence critic and his foreign affairs critic stood up to vote against funding to support the people of Ukraine in their time of need. That sends a very message that the Conservatives are on the Putin troll machine.

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

Madam Speaker, what we voted against, what will continue to vote against and what we always have voted against is a punitive carbon tax that the NDP-Liberal government is more than happy to put on Canadians. It is so ideologically obsessed with the carbon tax and ensuring people pay more for carbon that it wants to do that to the war-torn country of Ukraine. It does not want to help anybody. The fact that those parties have helped to try to cripple our energy sector is only empowering Putin to use the money from his energy sector to fund his war. Shame on them.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, when I look at the economic situation impacting Canadians right across the country, I cannot help but wonder this. Had the Prime Minister never entered politics, and had a more regular upbringing typical of most Canadians, he would very likely be cutting it on a drama teacher's salary. If he were, could he afford to live under the very same policies and economic conditions he is imposing on Canadians today?

Under these circumstances, I cannot help but wonder how the Prime Minister, if he were not the Prime Minister, could stretch his budget to cover feeding his family, clothing, mortgage payments, car expenses, cellphone bills and all the other obligations facing ordinary, but truly extraordinary, Canadians.

However, we know that the actual circumstances of the Prime Minister are far different than those facing most people across the country. He does not know what it is like to struggle to put food on the table or gas in the car, but Canadians are doing this, all the while going about their daily lives.

Increasingly, more Canadians are paying attention to what is taking place in Ottawa and what the government is doing, because they must. They can no longer go about their lives without being directly confronted and negatively affected by the actions and failures of the Liberal government. This is because everything is broken in Canada under the Prime Minister.

There has been a record two million food bank visits in a single month. Housing costs have doubled. Mortgages payments are 150% higher than they were before the Liberals formed government. Canada has been warned that it is the most at-risk country in the G7 for a mortgage default crisis. Violent crime is up 39%. Tent encampments can be found in most major cities. Over 50% of Canadians are $200 or less away from going broke. Average household debt makes up 100% of the income of Canadians. Business insolvencies have increased by 37% this year. Despite our growth in population, there are fewer entrepreneurs and fewer new businesses than ever.

This is the day-to-day reality facing Canadians because of the generational high inflation and the fastest rise in interest rates in Canadian monetary history, an issue the Prime Minister says, if members recall, he does not think about. However, regular people do. Every single person living in our country has been impacted by rising costs; homelessness amid an unaffordable home ownership and rental market; not to mention rampant crime; and a destabilized society where basic government services, travel, medical care and so much more have become inaccessible, unreliable or non-existent.

Canadians know that the Liberal government has caused this misery with the rampant overspending, a record $600 billion of inflationary debt and countless tax hikes that increase the price of the goods we buy and drives up the interest we pay.

Now, when Canadians are looking to the federal government and the Prime Minister responsible for everything being broken to see what is being done to tackle these issues, they see this, the 2023 Liberal fall economic statement. Talk about a day late and a dollar short.

The government did not implement any of the common-sense proposals the Conservatives called for to address the problem facing our country's citizens. Instead, the Liberals are forcing $20 billion of new spending on Canadians that will further drive up taxes, inflation and interest rates.

Never before has a federal government spent so much with so little to show for it. Now Canadians are paying the price. In fact, the Liberal policies in the economic statement only make the problems piling up in our country so much worse.

The Liberals are now spending more on interest on the debt than they are on health care. Let us think about that. It is no wonder York—Simcoe still does not have a hospital. When justifying the failure of the economic statement, the Deputy Prime Minister said, “Canada is not and never has been broken.” Can people believe that?

Canadians are paying attention and they are being told by the Deputy Prime Minister, who is tasked with tackling these issues, that actually there are not any. She says everything is fine and Canadians have never had it so good. We should not be surprised. This is the same Deputy Prime Minister who spends thousands on limos while bragging she does not need to own a car. She can just walk out the door and get on a subway.

This is the same finance minister who is holding back the rural top-up fund from the carbon tax from the first nations in my riding of York—Simcoe, forcing them to pay more in carbon taxes simply because of where they live. That is dividing based on geography. She will pretend that a AAA credit rating matters, as if that will fill the stomachs of Canadians lined up at food banks. It does not matter to her that this rating is only maintained on the backs of Canadians through higher taxes and interest rates.

She will also brag that Canada supposedly has the lowest debt and deficit in the G7, but she ignores the fact that when we account for general government debt, federal, provincial and territorial, Canada has the 10th highest debt-to-GDP burden in the OECD. With this economic statement, the Liberals would have people believe that, because the federal debt is only 42% of our GDP, it is all good. However, the truth is the government debt is 113% of our GDP when we account for all of it.

The Liberals’ refusal to admit that Canada is broken, that people in this country are suffering and that a change of course is necessary, proves to Canadians without a shadow of a doubt that the government is out of touch and incapable of responding to the crises it has made. There are crises. Let us look at the headlines from the past few months: “Canada's worst fiscal crisis in generations is brewing”, “Federal efforts to solve Canada’s housing crisis” are failing and “Surgery backlogs...no family doctor: ...Canada's health-care crisis”. There are so many more covering affordability, opioids, foreign interference, food insecurity and mental health. There is crisis after crisis after crisis.

After eight years, Canadians have never been more unhappy, more uncomfortable and more unsafe. This economic statement proves that the biggest crisis facing this country, and the root of all others, is a crisis of leadership. The approach of the Prime Minister and his NDP-Liberal government is not working. Prices are up, rent is up, debt is up and taxes are up. Time is up. Canada is broken and the only people who will not admit that are the very same people who caused it: the tired, corrupt and out-of-touch Liberal government.

There is a better way. Conservatives will axe the tax, balance the budget to bring down inflation and interest rates to bring home lower prices for Canadians in a Canada no longer defined by crisis. We can only speculate what could have been if the Prime Minister was never Prime Minister. I am confident that we will not need to wait much longer before the Prime Minister is not the Prime Minister anymore. With the many issues facing our country, and the repeated failures by the government to address them, what will his legacy be?

It is increasingly looking like he will forever be remembered as the Prime Minister who broke Canada. Instead of our out-of-touch policies, we need a vision for the country and a prime minister who believes in Canadians the way Canadians believe in their country. The Leader of the Opposition will be that prime minister, and Conservatives will axe the tax and fix the budget.

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

Madam Speaker, the member puts out the bumper sticker of “broken Canada”, and nothing could be further from the truth. If that was anywhere near the truth, one would have to say that we have a broken world.

When we look at how Canada has performed in comparison to others in the G20, such as the United States, England, France or Germany, Canada comes out quite well, whether it is the creation of jobs, interest rates, inflation or on the issue of affordability, and it continues on.

Maybe the member could step away from the Conservative spin and take a dip into reality. Can the member at least acknowledge one fact, that investment from abroad coming into Canada on a per capita, dollar amount is the best in the world? Would the member not acknowledge that that is a good thing?

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, we see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North is obviously not out in his riding talking to Canadians.

The people of York—Simcoe are on the outside looking in. I know the member for Winnipeg North quite well. We have talked about the Lake Simcoe clean-up fund for example. The Liberal government is all promises and all press releases. Since 2019, the government has promised the Lake Simcoe clean-up fund. We are in 2024 now, and there has been zero on it. That does not surprise me.

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

Madam Speaker, every Conservative MP is claiming that their party will be forming the next government. Sooner or later, they are going to have to take a position and offer up some clear proposals.

Considering all the shouting back and forth lately, the Bloc Québécois is pretty much only the adult in the room. We therefore intend to keep our feet on the ground.

The Government of Quebec is asking the Liberal government for $470 million to pay the costs associated with taking in asylum seekers. The Government of Quebec requested this $470 million quite a while ago now. No one on the Conservative side has told me what they would do in the Liberals' place.

If Conservative MPs are a government-in-waiting, they should have an opinion on the matter. What is it? Would they give the Government of Quebec $470 million to cover this cost?

I want to know what they would do, because, so far, they have not put any proposals on the table. All they do is engage in partisan attacks.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have to take this opportunity to talk about what I would do. I have to stand up for my riding.

We know the carbon tax disproportionately affects rural Canadians. We do not even get the rural top-up now in York—Simcoe. We cannot even see the CN Tower. If we google the distance from the Chippewas of Georgina Island to the Finch subway station, it would take 14 hours to walk there, and yet we are not entitled to the rural top-up.

We see the Liberal government dividing, based on geography. It has rolled back the CMA data for other ridings in Atlantic Canada but not for York—Simcoe. The Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation is an island. Let us think about this, any time the federal government has any interaction with them, they are classified—

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

There is another question.

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

Madam Speaker, it is almost 12 noon; it is 11:45 a.m. I have been here since we started sitting this morning at 10 a.m., and the Conservatives have been playing games all day today, trying to delay this important work to get support to people.

I am thinking specifically about the Canada disability benefit and all of those people who are waiting for that money to come to them. Too many seniors are being ejected from their homes right now. There are encampments and people living in tents. The Conservatives have nothing to offer other than complaining about the fact that they are offended about something and asking the Speaker if they can get apologies. I am over it.

We need to get the Canada disability benefit to people now. Why are the Conservatives continuing to play games with people's lives?

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member alludes to the urgency and the crisis, which I spoke about in my speech; crisis after crisis after crisis. This government has done nothing. There is an old saying: One can only hold a beach ball under water for so long. We have seen that thing come shooting out now, and this is what Canadians are facing.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, today, I am stepping down. This is my last speech in the House. I would like to begin by thanking the voters in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun for entrusting me, three times, with the responsibility of representing them in the House.

I am also leaving my academic home, the Faculty of Law at McGill University. Leaving both institutions makes this a very emotional day for me.

Serving as a member, as parliamentary secretary and as Minister of Justice was the pinnacle of my professional career and I loved every minute of it.

That is what I want to talk about with friends today in this place. It is a series of moments that are indelibly etched in my brain and my heart, ranging from laughter to tears and everything in between, from Vancouver to St. John's, from Inuvik to Iqaluit to Nain and around the world in Europe, Asia and South America.

I would like to begin in my riding, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, with Les Bons Débarras bookstore, where I buy my vinyls, on Wellington street.

Then to St. John's where twice I have managed to get to Fred's Records and fill my bags with many good vinyls, which I would then spin in my office. Everybody knows that Justice 306, as Brian Tobin and Anne McLellan have told us, is the best office on the Hill.

At impromptu gatherings with my team, many of whom are here, such as when we passed the MMP's bill, we would spin some vinyl, have some fun and honour and thank each other for the work that we had done to make those moments special.

There are many humorous moments. I sat for two years as the benchmate to Rodger Cuzner, who is now in the other place, including two Christmas speeches. I will not attribute my sense of humour to Cuzner, because his is quite unique, but it was certainly a wonderful experience.

As a member, I learned rather quickly to remove my earpiece when the member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie had the floor.

I will not forget the first Press Gallery dinner sitting at a table with Rona Ambrose and hearing her speech, and those who were there would remember it well; or driving through Rome with our ambassador and watched the havoc being wreaked by the police escort that we had, I do not have hair but I would not have had after that anyway, and then later that evening going to V.I.P. Pizza, not the finest culinary experience in Rome, but still a good one; or throwing my suitcase in the back of a rented Ford F-150 when we were travelling in north.

There were serious moments too, such as the swearing in at Rideau Hall as a cabinet minister and the swearing in as an MP on three occasions. There was signing a proclamation at Rideau Hall proclaiming Charles the King of Canada, a one-time experience.

I listened to the stories of Italian Canadian families whose grandfathers or great-grandfathers were interned during World War II, realizing that I was the minister of justice and that a previous minister of justice had signed the decree to intern those people. There was working with my Italian Canadian colleagues in the House to get that apology done and attending the memorial unveiling in the riding of the former Speaker in North Bay with the indefatigable Joyce Pillarella.

I met David Milgaard in my office with James Lockyer and promised him that we would create an independent commission to review wrongful convictions. David Milgaard signed my album by the Tragically Hip, Fully Completely, which contains the song Wheat Kings that they wrote about him. Also, his sister Susan was present to announce the tabling of Bill C-40, and I will not be smiling fully until that bill receives royal assent.

This summer, at the G7 in Japan, I realized I was the senior justice minister around the table. I had my first conversation with Attorney General Merrick Garland of the United States. We had finished our agenda, and I had a chance to ask him whether the HBO series on the Unabomber was accurate. Attorney General Garland's voice lit up as he went on for 10 minutes about the accuracy and inaccuracy of the portrayal of the Unabomber case, but his view was generally favourable, and he said it was an important moment in his career.

When I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of International Trade, I went to Namur, in Wallonia, to sell the Canada-Europe free trade agreement.

I was prepared to be the bad cop, as they say. It was fun. The minister was able to arrive a few weeks later to reach an agreement. In the same vein, I was the bad cop with Boeing at the Farnborough International Airshow in England. That was during the time when we had disputes with Boeing. There too, other ministers showed up afterward to make peace.

I had many wonderful moments on the hockey rink. This is Canada, after all, and I still try to lace up my skates, notwithstanding my advanced age. I had a wonderful moment in Gananoque, when a number of us in this House were celebrating the life and memory of our former colleague, the late Gord Brown. I will not forget that, because it was a wonderful non-partisan moment, and I was proud to be part of it.

I took part in a Métis-ITK hockey game, in which my defence partner was 45 years younger than me and one of the best players on the ice. She was fantastic. Another game was our first game in the Ottawa Senators arena against the Conservative Party, when the Liberals got their backsides kicked. There was a game on the ice rink on the Hill for the 150th anniversary celebration against a group of very young and impressive Mohawks from Kahnawake. The result was never in doubt. The only thing I would say that ties those last number of games together was the near complete incompetence of our goaltender, the current Minister of Immigration.

I exchanged puns on Jeopardy and Jeopardy metaphors with Chief Justice Ritu Khullar of Alberta, as well as a previous chief justice, Justice Mary Moreau of Alberta, in our speeches in Edmonton at Chief Justice Khullar's swearing in.

I have a number of memories of walking, such as with the member for Prince Albert and talking about trade, but talking more about our families. I walked with Alex Steinhouse in Yellowknife on a hike. It was absolutely stunning. I walked with Aluki Kotierk and Natan Obed in the hills above Nain. I walked to the Hill every morning from my Ottawa apartment.

I walked across the floor when I first became minister of justice to tell the member for St. Albert—Edmonton that I was going to support his private member's bill on supporting juries. I was proud of that moment, and I still am.

I am proud of some historic moments in this House. For example, we voted unanimously on a bill to outlaw conversion therapy. I will be forever grateful not only to the members of my caucus but also to the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, as well as the member for Calgary Nose Hill, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka and Erin O'Toole for the work they did to make that unanimous vote a reality. We saved lives that day.

I remember when the then minister of public safety, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, and I sat down with provincial and territorial ministers of justice and public safety ministers to get to a unanimous agreement on bail reform. Not only did we commit to agree on our federal legislation, which is now law, but the provinces also committed to work at their end to make the bail system work better.

There were moments with Black community leadership across Canada on the Black justice strategy. In particular, in Nova Scotia, there was a very real pride in the room from that community because of their leadership on creating the movement toward pre-sentencing reports.

There were many moments with indigenous leaders across Canada, many of whom I now count as close friends. A moment in Williams Lake, at the site of a former residential school, is not something I will ever forget. There, I went into a barn where a number of the children would go, back in the day, and carve their names in the wood.

On the positive side, there is the pride of the Tŝilhqot'in leadership in having established their indigenous title; they used the courts and succeeded. I would meet them annually here in Ottawa and in their offices in the B.C. interior, and I saw the pride.

In Iqaluit, as a guest of President Obed of ITK, I was in the room when Pope Francis heard the stories of sexual abuse directly from survivors or the children of survivors. I saw the reaction of the pope and also, in particular, the reaction of the archbishop who was translating. At a certain point, the pope put his hand on the translator's shoulder because of the difficulty he was having in relaying the words.

There were other momentous moments, such as the House rising for what we thought would be two weeks at the beginning of the pandemic, all the urgent committee work we did during the pandemic, and the occupation and the understanding of the gravity of the Emergencies Act.

These were balanced by lighter moments, such as trying to buy a white suit online so I could represent Canada at the swearing-in of the president of the Dominican Republic. I had to buy two suits and then keep the one that fit. I got on a plane to the Dominican Republic and sat down beside Moises Alou; we talked baseball the whole way down. Another time, I bicycled along the Lachine Canal; I saw the work that we had done as a government on rebuilding the walls of that canal and knew that they were going to be there for my children and my grandchildren. In another moment, I was stopped on Wellington by an older gentleman.

He said to me, “Mr. Lametti, I often see you at Verdun Beach.”

Verdun Beach, in the middle of Wellington Street, is my favourite restaurant with an oyster bar. I had just been outed.

I think of places like Aj's, Shooters, Riccia, Station W, and now Monk Café; of the conversations with my constituents, particularly on Saturday mornings, when I go buy my bread and sandwiches at Bossa; of the statue of Saint Anthony and the time I stood next to it, during the saint's feast day in Ville-Émard with the Italian community.

These are times of a life, and I will cherish them. I thank those people who were involved in making those moments a reality, many of whom are in this room and in the gallery.

I want to underscore that UNDRIP is the future. It will allow us to reset our relationship with indigenous peoples. It is a true road map, a co-developed road map, to reconciliation.

It is a singular moment. Indigenous leaders want to participate in nation building. I have heard this time and time again, that they want to be part of this project Canada and they want their children to have the same opportunities as other non-indigenous kids have had, as I have had.

I am the son of Italian immigrants, who came to this country with no formal education. Because they chose to come to this country, I got to have an outstanding education at Canadian universities and at international universities. Because they made this decision, I got to be a professor at an outstanding law faculty in Canada. I could run to be a member of Parliament and even aspire to be minister of justice.

Indigenous peoples want a share in that dream. UNDRIP is a way for us to make it happen together.

We are many nations in this country. That is a source of strength and understanding as we move forward in the future. This recognition allows us to work on what unites us and to develop and protect languages and culture. This is true for indigenous peoples, as well as for Quebec.

We need to work together. We all understand that protecting and nurturing the French language and culture in North America is very important. We need to work together to ensure they live on and flourish in the future.

That means we need to stop scapegoating the English community in Quebec. People in this community are very bilingual and committed to Quebec; in many cases, they have been there for 300 years.

I have to say that the Charter is not optional, and the preventive use of the Charter suggests that the Charter is optional.

At some point, with everything we have said, we need to understand that constitutional change will be necessary, and we need to prepare for that. We need to be able to disagree with respect, and recent weeks have underscored that. I tried to be only as partisan as I had to be and only as partisan as necessary; I tried not to get personal. I did not always succeed, but I did my best. I think we all need to do our best, especially on social media and in this world where we are moving toward artificial intelligence.

Artificial intelligence does not exempt us from being human. Our human intellect, our emotions and our empathy will become even more important as AI supplements the more routine forms of intelligence. We cannot let it replace those other human qualities. Our survival as a country and as a species depends on nothing less.

It remains to thank people. I want to thank the Prime Minister for naming me parliamentary secretary and minister of justice.

I thank my colleagues here in the House and, especially, my critics, the members for Fundy Royal, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, Rivière-du-Nord, and, for medical assistance in dying, the member for Montcalm.

My chiefs of staff, Rachel Doran and Alex Steinhouse, have been fantastic, and my political teams have been outstanding. None of what we achieved could have been done without them, and I thank them.

I thank my constituency teams for their dedication, hard work and service, oftentimes when I was not around much as a minister. In particular, I want to thank Nicole Picher, who has been with me for eight years.

I want to thank other elected officials in my riding at all political levels, and of all political parties, with whom I worked. I want to thank my political association, my volunteers and my donors, who helped me get elected.

My friends kept me grounded. Here in Ottawa, Mélanie Vadeboncoeur and the La Roma gang made sure I stayed humble. I thank my many friends in this place, such as the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, the current Minister of Immigration, the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, the member for Oakville, Catherine McKenna and everybody else who has come through this place and with whom I hope to stay friends.

I thank my friends at McGill and the McGill deans for their support. I thank my ex-wife, Geneviève Saumier, who began this journey with me and with whom I share three wonderful kids; she continues to give me good advice. I thank my children. Perhaps the years away have been hardest on them.

I want to tell André, Gabrielle and Dominique that I love them. I thank them for their patience and devotion to their father.

Last, I have two points: First, kindness is not overrated, especially in a world of AI. We could all stand to be kinder, and we would all be better for it.

Second, this place is not overrated. The Right Hon. Paul Martin has said that you can get more done in five minutes in this place than you can in five years anywhere else. Paul has been a mentor to me. I am a successor in his riding, and he is a friend.

I would like us to prove him right every day.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult moment for me, not because I had to find a new seat near the exit, not because it took me two tries to get to Ottawa because of the fog and not because I come from an Irish family of criers, but because it is really a moving moment for me.

I want to thank the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun for the friendship we have developed in the House. He has a great record of accomplishment, about which he spoke, but I want to point out something someone asked me on the plane last night, and that was how I could go to work in such a negative place. My response was that, unfortunately, all people see is question period, which is theatre, where people have other agendas they are pursuing, but they do not see the hard work that goes on behind the scenes, the co-operation and the friendships that are built. I really meant that, and the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun is a great example of this.

I made a quick list, because I had 15-minutes notice that I had this opportunity, on the number of things he and I worked on together and his willingness to take action to ensure we improved the justice system in Canada, in particular for indigenous people and the work he did on Bill C-5 to reduce mandatory minimums, which fall very hard on the most marginalized in our society.

He mentioned the conversion therapy ban. His work with the leader of the Conservatives and all parties meant we were able to pass that ban unanimously, something which I remain very proud of the House for doing.

He worked on Bill C-40, with which we are not quite finished, on the miscarriages of justice commission. Again, miscarriages of justice fall very hard on the most marginalized, particularly indigenous women. My pledge to him is that I will work as hard as I can to get that done, hopefully by the end of this month. We only have a couple of days, but I think we can get that done.

He also helped shepherd medical assistance in dying legislation through the House when I was initially the NDP critic. This was the most difficult issue in my 13 years here because of the very strong feelings on all sides of the issue. The minister always demonstrated his ability to listen, to be empathetic and to try to find solutions that would keep us all together on this very important issue about reducing suffering at the end of life, not just for the person but for the families of people who need that assistance at the end.

One last one is that I approached the minister about the publication ban on survivors of sexual assault and how many of them felt stifled by the publication ban. He asked what we could do to fix it. Eventually he agreed to add the ability to lift the publication ban in Bill S-12, and it came to the House. This was an example of how, when I approached him with an idea and a problem, he always looked for solutions and a way to bring us all together.

I know he will continue to contribute to Canada once he leaves the House, though I am not sure in exactly what way or if he is sure in exactly what way. He is one of the finest members of Parliament I have ever had the privilege to work with, and I thank him for his contributions here.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with some emotion that I rise to pay homage to the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, for whom we have tremendous respect and esteem.

I vividly remember when he was appointed minister. I had to make a few comments at the time. In fact I was reviewing the appointments that had been made. A journalist asked me what I thought about Mr. Lametti’s appointment as justice minister. I think I can use his name. I am a member of the official opposition, and I have to be loyal to my position, so I was trying to find something a bit harsh to say. However, I began reading the minister’s resumé and I saw that he was a renowned jurist, a university professor cited by others across the country, and someone who was extensively involved in the justice system in Canada. I really had to say something negative, so I asked why the Prime Minister had not appointed him sooner. I said he should have been appointed sooner.

During question period, the parties have 30 to 35 seconds to argue their point of view. This certainly can be a rough and even brutal experience. However, I always had intelligent, articulate, reasonable and reasoned conversations with the justice minister. We know that we are worlds apart on many issues, but we have always had tremendous respect for one another. I would like to thank him for his attention when I was consulted about certain appointments. He always acted with honour and dignity.

Regarding what he said about his family, I would like to point out that such is the case for millions of Canadians. I, too, am the son of immigrants. My mother was born in Italy. I, too, have felt the personal responsibility to continue what my parents started by choosing this country and being chosen by this country. The minister, whose family did not have much education, arrived here and had a brilliant academic career. He served the university and he served Canada in the highest possible positions for a jurist. He has honoured his family.

In closing, I will tell members what I often tell my friend the member for Québec, who is himself a seasoned academic with executive experience. I hope that he will continue his teaching career to share his experience as an academic and executive with hundreds and thousands of students.

I wish Mr. Lametti all the best in his future endeavours.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to my friend, amico mio, over there.

There are so many things I would like to say to a colleague who has served with such distinction. I heard the minister thank us all, but on behalf of my colleagues here today, I think it is our turn to express our gratitude.

I am going to make a prediction: He will go down in history as a great minister of justice and attorney general of Canada—not necessarily because of all his achievements in the House, but because he is, above all, a caring man, a man of conviction, a strong leader. I think all Canadians will end up admiring him. The country already appreciates him, but, as the years go by, people will see how much he has marked the history of Canada as minister of justice. He will be one of the ministers who paved the way toward reconciliation.

Without revealing any secrets, I can say I have seen him in action.

When he was talking about moments, I was thinking about how many moments I would say that he had been crucial for the future of this nation. When we talk about dreams, I can imagine the young students around the country looking to someone like him with his great intellect. All of my colleagues have recognized that. However, I am sure that today, and also in the future, he will make our young generation dream of public service, dream of what is possible, dream of following their convictions, dream of being who they are and dream of making changes. That is who the former minister of justice is.

We will remember him for kindness. I have known a lot of people in this place, and I think all my colleagues would agree, but kindness is something that, although he attributes that kindness and says we need more kindness, he has embodied since the day I met my friend.

I think about getting things done. I do not know if there will be many ministers of justice in the history of the country who will have a record of having so many bills approved in the House, bills that have changed the nature of our country, for which we should all be proud.

One thing I will say is that I have yet to meet someone who has the same type of deep respect for the institution that we serve. He has achieved a lot of things in his life and he will achieve much more in the future. We have talked about his future career. Trust me, the opportunities and possibilities are endless; he just has to pick one.

He will be remembered for his respect for the institution and his service to the nation. This country owes a lot to my dear friend. I think future generations will look up to him as a leader, and I think we all will miss him very much. Grazie, amico mio.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my voice to that of my colleagues who have thanked our colleague from LaSalle—Émard—Verdun for his exceptional work in the House of Commons since he arrived eight years ago. We were both elected to the House at the same time, in 2015.

At the time, I thought I would be the one appointed minister of justice. Unfortunately, that did not happen. I engaged many times with the ministers of justice who followed. I too must say that the member from LaSalle—Émard—Verdun did excellent work as minister of justice. Of course, we did not always agree.

There was some talk about dreams earlier. I tried to convince the member that Canada would be much happier with a respectful neighbour, a wonderful, independent Quebec that would work with him on many fronts, but the member from LaSalle—Émard—Verdun never conceded on that point—and he certainly did not agree with me when I spoke to him about judicial appointments that I felt were overdue. These were not disputes, just minor differences of opinion.

What struck me most about the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun is that his respectfulness never faltered, despite any differences of opinion we may have had. His words were always measured and kind. The member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun is someone I consider a “gentleman”; there are a few of them here. I truly enjoyed my discussions with him about all aspects of our work, whether about matters we agreed on—and there were many—or the few issues where our opinions diverged.

I can only congratulate the Fasken law firm for persuading the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun to join them. It is a distinguished firm.

I was listening to my colleague just now who asked why the Prime Minister had not appointed him Minister of Justice sooner. Personally, I wonder why the Prime Minister was unable to hold on to him.

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

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands also wishes to speak.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues and acknowledge their comments.

It really says a lot about the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, as a former minister of justice and a member of a cabinet, when so many of his colleagues from the opposition benches who worked with him closely rise to praise his work and thank him for his collegiality, particularly my neighbour from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, who shared in so many of those victories in abolishing the horrible practices, and we have spoken of it, unanimously.

I was very moved by the words from the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who spoke so clearly and eloquently of his appreciation for the work of a Liberal cabinet member. We could hear more of that sort of thing in this place. Maybe people should not have to resign or die before we say nice things. I am thinking of our tributes to Ed Broadbent the other day. Sorry about that; no one has died recently.

I want to say a few words from my point of view as a member of the Green Party.

I also thank the Bloc Québécois for the comments given by our colleague from Rivière-du-Nord.

I have been really touched so many times by my friend's willingness to share things in moments that were very stressful. I am not pointing out anything the rest of the members do not know. I do not represent a big caucus here. I am not my caucus's critic on justice. I have half the files. Ministers who have time to share confidential information, trusting that I can be trusted and that we can share difficult conversations, particularly during the occupation, I will always be grateful for the friendship and for the enormous privilege of sharing even a little in those conversations, those votes and those very tough decisions.

I will be clear that I wish you were not leaving. I know I have just broken a rule by speaking directly to the member. I know you, Mr. Speaker, are not leaving, but I needed to speak personally for just one nanosecond.

Be well and have a wonderful next phase of a very long career and a very long life. God bless.

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

I would also add my little story to this. The opportunity that I had one night at the airport in Halifax was to be late for that airplane, or the airplane was late for us.

The hon. member was on the same flight as I was, and we were going to miss our connection in Montreal. I thought that, as he was from Montreal, he would be staying at his house that night, but no, because of his perseverance, because of his hard work ethic, he was on his way to Ottawa that evening as well.

I was lucky enough that my wife and I were able to jump into his ministerial car, to fit into the third row and to not listen to any of the discussions that were happening inside the car because they were still working that evening. He did get my wife and I here to Ottawa. It is something he did not have to do. He could easily have said, “Enjoy your night staying in Montreal and getting to Ottawa in the morning.” However, being the gentleman that he always is, he found the opportunity to put us in there. There might have been an exchange of a certain liquid. In this case, I think it was a moonshine that we were going to share.

On behalf of the 338 members who sit in the House of Commons, I just want to thank the hon. member for his service to Canada. We are going to miss him. Like we would say in French, “tu nous manqueras”.

He will be missing from us, and I think that is important. He has done something for Canada and for this chamber. We will always be reconnaissants for that work.

I thank hon. members and everyone who participated in the discussion this afternoon for this opportunity.

Good luck.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from across the floor who represents LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, and I wish him all the best in his future endeavours and all the best to his family.

Further, I will be splitting my time with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

It is an honour to speak to Bill C-59, the government's fall economic update, 2023.

In my time as a member of Parliament, I have focused on priorities that matter to the constituents of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. Sadly, those priorities are not in the government's update.

People in Saskatchewan will be disappointed but not surprised that Saskatchewan is not even mentioned in the finance minister's fiscal update, outside of a few tables in the annex, but this is something we should all expect in Saskatchewan and in the west in general. We have never been a priority for the government.

Agriculture is one of the industries, if not the largest, in my riding. Again, it is a topic that is ignored altogether in this update. Farmers are struggling. Conservatives have put forward Bill C-234 that would axe the punitive carbon tax on fuel used on farms. I have heard from farmers in my riding who are paying thousands of dollars a month on that tax. Instead of supporting this common-sense idea, the government is quadrupling that tax in April, which puts the burden of a punitive policy directly on the shoulders of the people who feed our country.

If the minister cared about lowering grocery prices for Canadians, that would be a tremendous first step. The adage, if one does not want to be questioned about what one is doing, one should look busy by walking around with a clipboard, looking important and pretending to do something, is being replaced by the minister having weekly photo ops to pretend to Canadians that he is doing something. That does not impress or fool the constituents of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, where we have seen a rise in food bank usage by a whopping 39%.

If agriculture is not the largest employer in Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, then mining and its related industries are a close second. Potash has become one of Saskatchewan's prime exports. I am privileged to represent a riding that has several of the largest potash mines in the world, if not in Canada. As we all know, Canada is the world's largest producer of potash, an important fertilizer that is in huge demand globally. At a time when other large producers, mainly Russia and Belarus, are waging an illegal war in Ukraine, Canadian potash is even more important. While it is already a massive Canadian success story, it is sadly another key industry ignored by the government's fiscal update.

During this period of global instability, the world is looking to Canada for help. Time and time again, we are turning our backs on good trading opportunities with other nations in need, whether it is LNG or potash. During unstable global times, Canada has always been a nation the world can rely on to come to those in need. Time and time again, we have, as a nation, called upon our Canadian Armed Forces to answer the call. It is important work and a priority to support our armed forces and veterans.

As I hope everyone here knows, 15 Wing Moose Jaw is home to Canada's iconic Snowbirds, so the air force is an issue close to my heart. As we look around the world and see conflicts erupting everywhere, we should be investing in the Canadian Armed Forces. Instead, we are hearing top commanders say that they cannot meet basic requirements. Recently, the Department of National Defence's own report stated that the military's operational readiness is strained. It said that the military is not ready to conduct concurrent operations and is not meeting the requirements of Canada's defence policy from 2017.

I quote:

Readiness of [Canadian Armed Forces] force elements have continued to decrease over the course of the last year aggravated by decreasing number of personnel and issues with equipment and vehicles.

Adding to this, Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee, commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, has said that “the RCN faces some very serious challenges right now that could mean we fail to meet our force posture and readiness commitments in 2024 and beyond”. He added that the Harry DeWolf class, the navy’s new offshore patrol vessels, can currently only be deployed “one at a time” due to personnel shortages. Clearly, the Canadian Armed Forces is in a crisis and needs urgent investment, not vague commitments that government budgets will not affect the Canadian Armed Forces.

I have had the pleasure to serve on the veterans affairs committee since I was elected in 2021. I found it to be a tremendous committee that does some very important work that is, sadly, generally ignored by the current government. The fiscal update's sole mention of Canada's brave veterans is the statement that their benefits are indexed to inflation. Veterans on a fixed income are dependent on those benefits and, as we know, with all government payments, they are slow to reflect the inflation we are seeing now. Even if they do, the cost of many of life's necessities, namely groceries and housing, is easily outpacing the official inflation rate.

We are seeing more and more veterans turn to charities and not-for-profits to help feed themselves. It is heartwarming to see these organizations do this important work. Many are created by veterans for veterans; however, they should not be needed. Canadian heroes should never have to go to a charity to feed or house themselves because Veterans Affairs is not providing them with sufficient benefits.

The government's fall economic update falls short of the mark, and it has a negative trickle-down effect on other levels of government. There is only one taxpayer. School boards are realizing the effects of inflation. I recently received a text that the local school board is over-budget by $1 million because of the current government's inflationary spending and punitive carbon tax, which directly impact its operational and capital budgets. Next year, this school board will be another half a million dollars short, totalling $1 million in funds that local taxpayers will have to pay or find cost savings and measures.

Municipalities and police services are also being impacted. In Saskatchewan, the impact of inflation and the carbon tax is directly affecting its budgets, which are now increasing in double digits in communities in my riding, in my province and in this country.

The impacts will be negative. School budgets will be cut. Ten-dollar day care cannot help. Water, roads and other important infrastructure required to keep communities thriving will be cut, and that single taxpayer will receive less service for more dollars, which is a familiar theme with the current government. The future of our country is bleak if we continue to be held hostage by a coalition NDP-Liberal government. That is right. We are being held hostage by the government.

However, I have faith in the people of Canada to elect a Conservative government that is listening to our people. My faith in the next generation is being restored. I met Ashton, an 18-year-old university student studying accounting, and he is working at a local grocery store. His parents have traditionally been Liberal supporters, which is a rare thing in Saskatchewan. Ashton shared with me that he has overheard customers in the grocery store where he works say that this will be the first time they will need to visit the food bank in order to feed their families.

Ashton told me these stories are breaking his heart. He is a critical thinker and has made the choice to not vote Liberal in his first election and to break the family tradition. He sees that the current Liberal government is doing nothing concrete to help families struggling to feed themselves. Ashton knows that a Conservative government would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Let us hope, for everyone's sake, including Ashton's, that it comes sooner rather than later.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives talk about government expenditure, what they are talking about is where they are going to be making cuts, but they do not necessarily want to tell Canadians.

Today, the Conservative finance critic said they would cut the Canada Infrastructure Bank, as an example of what the Conservative Party would cut. The Infrastructure Bank does many projects in all the different regions of Canada. I am wondering if the member could explain why the Conservative Party has made the decision to cut the Infrastructure Bank.

While he is at it, if he does not want to give the details of that, maybe he could give us a sense of some of the other things that the Conservatives would be cutting in their hidden agenda.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is right up my alley as a former mayor of the City of Moose Jaw, where we attracted over $1.3 billion, going aggressively to the open market to attract business, to build a school where there would be a community surrounding it. We had no help from the Canada Infrastructure Bank. That was money that was just sitting in a bank that we could not access.

Municipalities spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on bureaucracy and red tape to try to access money that should be going directly to them.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, similar to the member's riding, I have one of Canada's military bases in mine. I frequently hear about the impact of the carbon tax and how it is having a real impact on the lives of the people who put their lives on the line each and every day for us.

Could the member explain a little more about what he is hearing in Moose Jaw?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question.

The negative impacts of bad policy from the Liberal government are affecting the training hours for preparation for our pilots. That really puts us on our back foot. Our preparedness and readiness to defend our country is diminishing. This needs to be reversed, so I really appreciate my colleague for actually recognizing that. Obviously 15 Wing is very closely related with Cold Lake; a lot of our pilots go up there to finish their training and often stay there.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, happy new year to everyone. It is my first time speaking since 2024 arrived.

I would like to thank the member for his intervention. Thanks to the supply and confidence agreement between the Liberals and the NDP, we have been able to secure a great dental care program for children. I wonder what the member will be saying to his constituents about why he voted against dental care for children in his riding.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the challenges that are facing my riding include an increase in food bank usage. People are absolutely shocked. They do not know where their spending power is going. They do not know where their money is going.

It is insidious. The carbon tax and the inflation that the Liberal government has imposed on people are a train coming at us. People are going to be renewing their mortgages and going from 2.55% up to 6%. It is going to be a big shock, and it is impacting a lot of constituents in my riding.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to be here today and to be able to speak to the amendment to this bill, an amendment I was very proud to second from our leader of the Conservative Party.

In fact, the Conservative leader, the hon. member for Carleton and Canada's next prime minister, delivered a really clear message to Canadians on Sunday: Axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime.

I hear from Canadians regularly, from right across Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, who are struggling. What they are seeing are higher grocery prices, higher home heating costs, higher electricity costs, higher gasoline costs and higher mortgage and rental costs, and they are seeing their limited paycheques being spread thinner and thinner.

Unlike the Liberal government, the hard-working people I talk to know that there are consequences, real consequences, for spending beyond their means. They understand that budgets do not balance themselves, and they, in turn, are making sacrifices to accommodate these inflated prices. They are angry when they see the Liberal government out jet-setting and this out-of-touch Prime Minister continuing with out-of-control spending.

The fall economic statement announced $20 billion in inflationary spending, further driving up interest rates, which further makes life harder. A record two million people visited a food bank in a single month. Housing costs have doubled. Mortgage payments are 150% higher than they were before the Prime Minister took office eight years ago. Violent crime is up 39%. Tent cities exist in almost every major city and in small towns across the country. Over 50% of Canadians are less than $200 away from going broke. Canadians who are renewing their mortgages will see an increase from 2% to 6% or even higher. The IMF has warned that Canada is the most at risk in the G7 for a mortgage default crisis, and business insolvencies have increased by 37% this year.

These results of the costly new spending spree can be summed up simply: Prices are up, rents are up, debt is up, taxes are up, and Canadians I talk to every single day have told me that they want the Prime Minister's time to be up. They want to see an election today. They want to make a decision on the leadership of our country, because they know that their finances cannot afford another year of this Prime Minister.

In 2024, for the very first time, we are going to be spending more money on payments to service our debt than we will on health care, more money to finance the reckless spending than on health care. More than $50 billion is going to be spent just on the interest payments to service the debt.

I think that this is shameful, and the Canadians I talk to totally agree. They are not running up their credit cards unless they have no other option, yet the government has options. It is just choosing not to take them.

The reckless spending risks a mortgage meltdown on the $900 billion of mortgages that will renew over the next three years. Personally, I am concerned about the countless people I have heard from who are currently under water on their homes. Their homes are worth less than what they owe to the bank. This is because of the government's relentless attack on Canadian energy, which has had a real impact on the home prices in many communities right across Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

Our eco-activist environment minister has made no secret of the fact that he not only dislikes Canada's energy industry, having a socialist idea of government transitioning it to something else, but also seems to have a problem with the very concept that we have an energy industry here in Alberta. Quite frankly, there is a serious problem with having a Soviet-style transition away from Canada's energy industry.

I am proud to come from northeastern Alberta and to have grown up in Fort McMurray, seeing the major innovation that has taken place in our energy industry over decades. During this most recent Arctic vortex, just a couple of weeks ago, many energy workers were working outside. They were bundling up. They were going to work when the rest of us were very grateful just to get to stay inside. These brought temperatures across the Prairies of -50° and even lower in some areas, with the wind chill. In those temperatures, frostbite can set in in a matter of minutes, yet these energy workers bundled up so we could stay warm. That is, for the families who could afford to keep the heat on.

The Liberal government has consistently doubled down on charging the carbon tax on home heating in the Prairies, which continues to rachet up the cost of our home heating. We do not have a choice in the Prairies during an Arctic vortex or throughout the winter as to whether we can or cannot heat our homes. If a home is not heated in -50°C, the pipes will freeze. There will be additional costs, and people will die. That is the reality. Frostbite will set in in minutes, yet this government has decided to have a carve-out for Atlantic Canadians, allowing them to have a pause on the carbon tax because of plummeting polls. However, in the Prairies, where we were facing -50°C weather this winter, in those areas we continue to have to pay the carbon tax. Not only do we have to pay this punishing carbon tax, but it is set to continue to increase on April 1. That is no joke.

With plummeting polls, the Liberals are making it so that a Canadian is not a Canadian is not a Canadian. The Canadians I have had the opportunity to chat with thought that this unfair, callous and crass decision of carving out the carbon tax away from Atlantic Canadians was wrong.

Canadians are out of money, and this government is completely out of touch. Conservatives have been and will continue to stand up, clearly asking this costly coalition of the Liberal-NDP government to remove the carbon tax on everything for everyone. The government rejects this, but we continue fighting, so, in the interests of Canadians we have asked for a variety of carve-outs: eliminating the carbon tax for farmers, eliminating the carbon tax on first nations, eliminating the carbon tax on home heating and many others. However, make no mistake, a Conservative government will axe the carbon tax on everything for everyone. This is common sense. Canadians need relief, not higher taxes.

After eight years, the Liberal Prime Minister does not understand that if we tax the farmer who grows the food, the trucker who transports the food and the store that sells the food, we ultimately tax the family buying it. I have talked to moms who are having to make hard choices as to whether they put extra water in their babies' formula just so they can afford to feed their families. I talk to families who are struggling as to whether they are going to continue bundling extra sweaters onto their children, because they cannot afford to turn the temperature in their home up an extra degree or two to keep them nice and toasty.

This is why the Conservative Party introduced a very common-sense bill, Bill C-234, to axe the tax on farmers. It would have made the cost of food more affordable for everyone by saving farmers $978 million between now and 2030. It passed through the House of Commons, yet the unelected Senate gutted our common-sense bill under pressure from the PMO and the eco-activist environment minister. In fact, the same environment minister threatened to quit if there was another carve-out. The same environment minister even admitted during an environment committee meeting that he had called up to six senators to pressure them into voting to keep the tax on farmers. That is shameful. Now, all Canadians will have to pay a higher price at the grocery store.

Common sense means getting rid of the carbon tax to lower the cost of living for all Canadians. It means capping reckless spending and getting rid of waste to balance the budget and lower inflation and interest rates. Common sense means cutting tax to make hard work pay off again. This NDP-Liberal government needs to rein in spending and balance the budget so that inflation and interest rates can come down and Canadians can keep more of the money they work so hard for. They need relief.

It is clear that after eight years of waste and incompetence, the NDP-Liberal government is not worth the cost. Canada's Conservatives have provided a clear, common-sense plan to reverse course and undo the damage the Liberals have done. Only common-sense Conservatives can be trusted to axe the tax, balance the budget, bring down inflation and interest rates, and build homes, not bureaucracy, to bring lower prices to Canadians. I'll say it again: Axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that is very clear is that the Conservatives are going to axe the tax, as I have heard time and time again. However, I would ask the member opposite what other programs are going to be axed by her and her party. Are they going to axe child care? Are they going to axe the Canada child benefit?

The member spoke very passionately about what families cannot afford, yet she voted against child care, dental care and other programs that would save families thousands of dollars a month. Therefore, I would ask the member opposite what programs she and her party will axe.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we plan to axe Liberal members of Parliament from right across the country, so that is a simple one. We also plan to axe interest rates because Canadians deserve affordability. As well, we plan to axe inflation so Canadians can keep more of the money they have worked hard to earn.

Frankly, it is very hypocritical for a member from Atlantic Canada who got a carve-out on the carbon tax and does not have to pay the tax on their home heating this winter to tell me that somehow people in the Prairies deserve to continue paying carbon tax on home heating in -50°C weather.

I will not take any lessons from that side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. However, I have some questions about what she is telling us. She is talking again about getting rid of taxes, saying, “Axe the Tax”.

We see in this budget that $30.3 billion are granted in subsidies to the oil and gas industry in the form of tax credits, meaning that all taxpayers in Quebec and Canada will subsidize the oil and gas industry, which we are trying to transform to develop clean energy. Apparently $30 billion is not enough for my colleague or for the rest of the Conservative members of Parliament who want us to get rid of taxes and give more to oil and gas companies.

We also see in this budget that a department of municipal affairs is being created, which is in violation of the Charter.

Does my colleague think it is a good thing to pour $30 billion into subsidies to the oil and gas industry?

Also, what does she think of the federal government creating a kind of department of municipal affairs to be called the department of housing, infrastructure and communities? What does she think of this interference in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that voting for the Bloc Québécois is very costly.

One of the problems we see is that the Bloc supports and continues to support the Liberal Party's ever-increasing expenses. It continues to vote in favour of Liberal budgets that increase costs for all Canadians and Quebeckers.

The Conservative Party will continue to build a country where Canadians can keep the money they worked very hard to earn.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are now two years into the brutal invasion of Ukraine by Putin and the mass killing of people in Ukraine, yet the member voted against Operation Unifier, which is a fundamental connection supporting the people of Ukraine, while the Trump MAGA team has attacked Ukraine and while Danielle Smith brings a white supremacist and Putin troll to Alberta to celebrate. He is a man who has attacked Zelenskyy and the people of Ukraine.

How dare the member stand and support the Putin machine and undermine the people of Ukraine?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in my previous answer to one of my Liberal colleagues who asked what I was going to cut, I forgot to say that I really want to cut the NDP member for Timmins—James Bay—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Order. A question was asked, and I want to hear the answer. I cannot hear it with everything going on.

I will allow the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake to start again.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in my previous answer, I said I wanted to cut Liberal members of Parliament. I also want to cut the NDP member for Timmins—James Bay because, frankly, he is not serving his constituents. He voted to keep the carbon tax on home heating for his constituents in northern Ontario, and that is absolutely shameful.

Frankly, as a proud Ukrainian Canadian, I have continued to stand up for Ukraine. I do not understand in any way, shape or form how Liberals and New Democrats can get up on their high horse and supposedly support Ukraine while they allowed a turbine that fuels Putin's war machine to go back there. I also do not understand why they are refusing to support Canada's oil and gas industry, which could be providing gas to Europe and around the world and starving Putin's war machine. Instead, they want Putin to continue producing oil and gas, undermining Ukraine.

I am sorry; I am not going to take any lessons from the member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to comment on the last answer we heard from the Conservative member, because it somewhat defies the reality of what the Conservative Party's actions are versus what some of the members actually say when it comes to Canada and Ukraine and the need for Canada to support Ukraine in a very real and tangible way.

Just last December we had a series of votes. I want to make reference to how the member actually voted when it came to Ukraine. There was a vote for Ukrainian immigrants settling in Canada, with respect to helping them find accommodation and receiving initial financial support. She actually, as all the Conservatives did, voted no to that. They also voted no to training Ukrainian soldiers through Operation Unifier. Not to be outdone, they also voted no to Canada's NATO mission.

The real twist on this is the Conservative Party's approach to the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. Imagine the President of Ukraine, at a time of war, coming to Canada and signing a trade agreement with the Prime Minister. The expectation of the community of Ukrainian heritage, which is well over 1.3 million people, not to mention of a vast majority of others, was that the Conservative Party would support that particular Canada-Ukraine deal. In my original comments on the legislation, I suggested that the Conservatives would be supporting it. Boy, was I wrong. It is unbelievable.

That is where there is a whole mix-up as the Conservatives try to throw a red herring as to why they are voting against the trade agreement. What they are saying is that it is because of the carbon tax and that they do not think Canada should be imposing a carbon tax on the people of Ukraine. News for them, as one of them applauds, is that Ukraine already has a price on pollution. It has had a price on pollution since 2011. This means that even when Stephen Harper was prime minister, the people of Ukraine were farther ahead in recognizing the climate reality than the Conservative Party was in 2011.

Why, then, are Conservatives opposing the Canada-Ukraine agreement? It is because of what many are suggesting is the far right element, the MAGA Conservative movement, which is kind of creeping up from the United States and seeping into Canada. It is being advocated by no one other than the leader of the Conservative Party and the minions of Conservative MPs who sit behind the leader to talk—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I want to remind folks not to cause disorder in the House. It comes from both sides. I want to make sure we have good debate on the bill before us and on the amendment.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Conservative Party of today is so extreme that it has even now taken a position that is not in the best interests of the Canada-Ukraine agreement. It is not just the Liberal Party that is saying this. It is usually the New Democrats who vote against trade agreements, but not this trade agreement, because they too recognize the value of it. It is only the Conservative Party that has voted against it.

I have had a couple of meetings. I was hosting a lunch, and a couple of hundred people showed up. They were more than happy to sign a petition on the issue. The issue is that they, much like the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the Ukrainian ambassador to Canada, want to see the Conservative Party flip-flop and support the Canada-Ukraine deal.

I would encourage the member who spoke and provided that answer to take what she put in the answer, talk among any Conservatives with rational minds and see whether they can meet with the leader of the Conservative Party and get him to come onside and support the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement.

That was not what I was going to talk about today. I was going to talk about the Canadian economy and the types of things we are hearing.

I love the idea of contrasting the Liberal Party and the government's policy with what the Conservative Party is saying. Let us do the contrast. The Conservatives came in yesterday, and they were all gleeful and happy, saying they have four priorities and were going to hit a home run on them. What were the four priorities? There were at least a half-dozen members who talked about them yesterday.

I will give an example. Their shiny one is the bumper sticker that is going to read, “Axe the tax.” I will stay away from the idea that the Conservatives are climate deniers and do not have any policy on the issue of climate change and the impact it is having on Canadians. Rather, they have a wonderful little slogan they want to use, and it does not matter.

Yesterday I said that the Conservatives' policy would actually be taking money out of the pockets of a majority of the people who live in Winnipeg North, because we have a carbon rebate that goes to the people of Canada. When the leader of the Conservative Party says they are going to axe the carbon tax, that means they are going to axe the carbon rebate too. More than 80% of the constituents I represent get more money from the rebate than they actually pay in the tax.

That would mean less money in their pockets, as a direct result of the Conservatives' ignoring the climate issue and choosing to change their opinion from what they told Canadians in the last federal election, when the Conservative Party, all of it, in its election platform, made very clear that its members supported a price on pollution. It is only under the new leader and with the bumper sticker idea that they have actually done a flip-flop on that particular issue, and now they are prepared to take money out of the pockets of Canadians and completely disregard the importance of sound environmental policy.

That is one of the Conservatives' priorities. What a dud that one is. I will talk about the second dud: their talk about housing. They want Ottawa to play a role in housing. There has not been a government in the last 50 or 60 years that has invested more in housing than the current government has. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.

We are talking about working with provinces, municipalities and non-profit organizations, many different stakeholders, to ensure that Canadians will have the ability to get homes, rent and own, into the future. The federal government has stepped up to the plate in a very real and tangible way.

When the leader of the Conservative Party was housing minister in the Stephen Harper government, he was an absolute disaster. He had no concept of what a housing strategy was, let alone have the ability to construct houses. He now wants to take it on. Really? It just does not make sense.

The federal government, unlike any other government in the last 50 or 60 years, has stepped up to the plate and demonstrated strong national leadership, and we are working with the municipalities, the provinces and other stakeholders on the file. That is something the Conservative Party would not do.

What about the Conservatives' third priority? Their third priority is the budget. People need to be very concerned when Conservatives talk about the budget. This is where the whole hidden agenda comes in. Every so often, we get to see some of that hidden agenda ooze out.

An example I will use is the issue of the Infrastructure Bank. All the members across the way support getting rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Their finance critic made that statement earlier today and we have heard it before, if people want to talk about a dumb idea. It does not matter as facts and reality are completely irrelevant to the Conservative Party.

The reality is the Canada Infrastructure Bank has been exceptionally effective, yet the Conservative Party will say it has not done anything. It says that knowing full well that is just not true. The reality is we are talking somewhere in the neighbourhood of about $10 billion.

Mr. Speaker, if we take a look at $10 billion coming from the Canada Infrastructure Bank, that money is being tripled. In total, that is another $20 billion through different sources because of the investments being made by the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

Members opposite are saying to tell them how many projects there are. At last count, we are talking 48 projects. How many did the Conservative Party say? Zero. We are not talking about the intellectual capabilities of the Conservative Party when I say zero. I am saying that is what it says the number of projects are.

If members do not want to believe me, they can take a look at the website. There are all forms of projects that are not only on the books, ongoing, but are also completed. It is truly amazing.

They are in all different areas of the country: public transit, 11 projects; clean power, eight projects; green infrastructure, 17 projects; and broadband, eight projects. Some of the broadband ones are in Manitoba for rural Internet connections. We would think that many of the rural Conservative MPs might be a little sensitive and want to support that but no.

Keep in mind that in everything we are talking about here, the billions and billions of dollars, a lot of private dollars, the Conservatives oppose it. They oppose that sort of development. That is building a healthier economy. That is building Canadian infrastructure. We all benefit from that.

There is a reason the foreign investment in Canada is as healthy as it is today. It is because, as a government, we support investing. It has paid off significantly. The finance critic was critical of the government, saying we do not have foreign investment. The reality, the facts, play no role in what the Conservative Party says.

At the end of the day, on foreign investment in Canada, on a per capita basis, from last year, in real dollars, Canada was number one in the world. One would think that the Conservatives would understand that concept, yet the finance critic is saying that we are down on foreign investment.

Conservatives cannot accept the reality of good news. In terms of job numbers, there are well over a million new jobs from pre-pandemic levels. That is good news. One would not know that because we constantly have the Conservative Party going out about the nation saying that Canada is broken and is just not working. How does that actually compare to the reality of the situation?

As I pointed out earlier today in a question, if the Conservatives say Canada is broken, they have to believe that the entire world is broken. We can compare some of the measurements that the Conservative Party uses. They talk about things like the inflation rate. Have they taken a look at Canada's inflation rate compared to other G20 countries? Whether we are taking about France, Germany, the U.K., the United States or any of the other countries in the G20, we find that Canada is ranked at the top, in terms of the lowest inflation rates. It is the same for interest rates.

The government policy that we have put in place, whether through budgetary or legislative measures, has helped bring down inflation rates. Even though we recognize that, relatively speaking, compared to the rest of the world, Canada is doing exceptionally well, we still need to do better. That is the reason we are seeing policies being brought in that have made a difference. We will continue to work with Canadians and other levels of government in order to improve conditions. We want an economy that is going to work for all Canadians.

We want to continue to invest in Canada's middle class and those who are aspiring to be a part of it. That should not be a surprise. Virtually since 2015, when we were elected to government, Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it have been the first priority of the Liberal government. We continue in that area. We continue to support programs that would lift people out of poverty.

We can talk about the GIS increases, the Canada child care benefit and the many different programs we have put in place to support Canadians, pre-pandemic, during the pandemic, and going in and out of some very difficult times that people are experiencing today.

When it comes to the economy or the budget, on priority number three, I warn members to be very much aware of that Conservative hidden agenda. It is going to disappoint a great number of people.

Their fourth point was on the issue of crime. Let us stop and think about that one for a moment. We just brought forward the bail reform legislation that had the support of the provinces, law enforcement agencies and a number of stakeholders from all over the country, and every political party inside the chamber except the Conservative Party. We had filibustering taking place on that important piece of legislation, even though, months prior, the Leader of the Conservative Party said we would pass that bill lickety-split. That did not happen. He wanted to filibuster the legislation, putting the government in a position where we had to force the legislation through.

That is why I say very candidly that, whenever the election is, although I suspect it will be in 2015, at the end of the day, I look forward to being able to share who the Leader of the Conservative Party really is and remind him of some things: the cryptocurrency issue; his talking about firing the governor of the Bank of Canada; the flip-flop about the price of pollution, the flip-flop about Facebook and the big Internet companies. There is so much out there that one is going to be able to go to people's doors and share with Canadians from coast to coast to coast, in contrast to the Liberal Party with a solid record of working with Canadians, supporting Canadians. Compare that to a Conservative Party that does not even have an idea about the environment nowadays, that does not want to tell Canadians what its real agenda is all about.

I love to make that contrast. I look forward to many more days, months and a couple of years of debate, no doubt.

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

First of all, I just need to help the hon. member with his math. We are not having an election in 2015. It could be in 2025 but 2015 has already gone by.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for York—Simcoe.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North is right about one thing. Conservatives are going to axe that tax.

Let us talk about that tax, although I suspect he is not going to answer my question. The Prime Minister said his most important relationship was with our first nations, yet he is discriminating against the first nations in my riding based on geography.

Let us talk about that carbon tax rebate. The Prime Minister made an announcement out east. I know the member for Avalon is here. His riding got rolled back with its data from the census so that it stayed rural. My riding of York—Simcoe is now considered to be a part of Toronto so that no one gets the 20% rural top-up. The member for Winnipeg North knows that it would take 14 hours to walk to the Finch subway station from my riding. The Deputy Prime Minister likes to say that she does not even need to own a car as she can just walk out of her house and get on a subway. We do not have subways, we do not have streetcars; we do not have transit.

I would like him to comment on that. The answer will be astounding, I am sure.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the member had provided an answer to many of the questions that others would have of him in regard to the price on pollution. That member actually campaigned in the last election based on, in part, an election platform document that said very clearly that the Conservative Party supported a price on pollution. It is only in the last two years that that member and the Conservative Party have made a flip-flop saying now that they do not support a price on pollution. Who knows? I suspect they might even have some bumper stickers already printed saying they want to axe the tax. Even if that ends up taking more money out of the pockets of Canadians, they are not prepared to abandon that priority. I will give them that much.

I look forward to having that particular debate whenever it comes.

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

Mr. Speaker, many things struck me in my colleague's speech. He said that no government in 50 years had invested so much in housing. I do not know the statistics, but it is possible, even probable.

I wonder if he is not a bit embarrassed by the lack of results they have been able to produce with all those investments. Today we need 3.5 million housing units by 2030, after investing $82 billion in the great national housing strategy.

The housing accelerator for municipalities was voted on in the 2022 budget, almost two years ago, and yet not a single door has been built under this program.

I wonder if my colleague is not a bit embarrassed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not find it embarrassing at all. Since 2015, we have had a national government that has recognized it has a tangible role to play in housing. That role has continued to grow under this administration to the degree in which we are seeing historic funding and programming to support housing.

However, it is not just the federal government. The provinces also play a critical role, and the Bloc needs to recognize that even the Province of Quebec has non-profit housing supported by federal dollars, but there are also many other things that it and other jurisdictions, whether municipalities, provinces, territories or indigenous communities, can do. It takes a team approach, not just the federal government throwing a whole lot of money at it. That means there has to be a strategy and ongoing discussions, and homes are getting done. A great example of that is getting rid of the GST for purpose-built rentals. We have seen some provinces adopt that very same policy at the provincial level to ensure more purpose-built rentals will be built.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government member just said that, since 2015, the Liberals have recognized that the federal government needs to be involved in housing. That is not true.

I am the representative for the NDP on HUMA. The housing minister of the very recent past refused to acknowledge that the Liberals have a market-driven lens on their take on housing. I can tell members that it has been damaging to my community of Port Moody—Coquitlam, and they are still doing it.

I think about the rents right now and the seniors in my community who are being displaced by the gentrification. There has been luxury condo after luxury condo that the federal government has loaned money for. It has not spent a dollar on operating, when it needs to subsidize and help those seniors stay in homes. We have seniors living in tents.

I am not going to let the Liberals take a victory lap on the work they have done since 2015 because they have done nothing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is just not true. The federal government provides tens of millions of dollars, likely going into the hundreds of millions, to subsidize non-profit housing units on an annual basis. This government has increased that funding. We are talking about tens of thousands of units across the country. In the province of Manitoba, my best guesstimate is probably somewhere around 20,000 units. Many of those units are for seniors, so to try to give a false impression does a disservice.

The bottom line is that, since 2015, we have had a national government and a Prime Minister who are very much committed to the housing file. I would suggest that he is second to no other prime minister in the last 60 years here in Canada.

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

The hon. member for Châteauguay—Lacolle.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is the riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle, but soon it will be the riding of Les Jardins‑de‑Napierville.

My hon. colleague made a number of excellent points, including alluding to the election of 2015.

What galvanized me and many other folks in my region was when we were threatened by the previous Harper government with an extension to age 67 in accessing old age security, when we knew that the family allowance was taxable and when people knew that cuts were being made to balance the budget. It was penny-wise and pound foolish, as I like to say, on the backs of Canadian citizens.

I would like to hear more from my colleague about what the world would have been like if we had not won in 2015. Indeed, we need to win again in 2025.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I would suggest that 2015 was a wonderful year.

The member raises a valid point. If we go back to the last federal election, I can recall the Conservatives saying that they were going to rip up the child care agreements that were being talked about. Today, we have $10 child care. Out of fear, we also had to bring in legislation to ensure that we will have that ongoing funding. However, let there be no doubt, that is on the table with the Conservative Party.

I was sitting in the third party over in the corner of the chamber when Stephen Harper, while he was overseas, made an announcement that he was going to raise the age of the OAS from 65 to 67. One of the very first initiatives we took, back in 2015, was to lower it from age 67 back to age 65.

We have to beware of the Conservatives and their hidden agenda.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member brought up the idea of a hidden agenda. Just this week we saw a story in the news that the Liberals and the NDP were plotting behind the scenes and in secret about amendments to the Elections Act, without bringing in two of the major parties in this House. These were secret negotiations to change the Elections Act before the next election.

I am wondering if the member could enlighten us as to exactly what that bill is going to have in it and why the Conservative Party of Canada was not invited to participate in discussions around changing elections in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when the leader of the Conservative Party went to PROC to try to justify electoral reform. There were a lot of manipulations of the Elections Act there. If I only had more time, if I had another couple of minutes, I would be more than happy to expand on my answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Mirabel, whose remarks are always intelligent, relevant and even amusing, although I would not want to put any pressure on him for his 10-minute speech.

I read Bill C‑59 and looked in vain for any substance. I looked for any tangible measures that would help Quebec and Canada to deal with the problems we are facing right now, but I could not find anything. In fact, I am rather discouraged because Canada is currently facing various crises.

There is the language crisis in Quebec. We have often mentioned the fact that the French language is in the process of disappearing. There is only one solution to this problem, and it is an independent Quebec. We will get there. We think that the stars are aligned for the election of a separatist government in Quebec within three years. That means there could be a referendum within five years. We could be saying “so long, pals”. We will not be here anymore. Most members of the House will be happy not to have the Bloc Québécois underfoot anymore. They find us annoying. They wonder what the Bloc members want. They complain that we do not even want to form government, that we just want to defend the interests of Quebeckers, that we are revolutionaries, that we are so annoying, that we are nothing but trouble. If all goes well, in five or six years' time, we will not be around anymore to fix the language crisis.

Then there is the climate crisis. We saw all the forest fires and floods last summer, yet Bill C-59 grants $30 billion in direct and indirect assistance to the oil industry. Why are my Conservative friends always complaining? I would like to remind my friends that, in 2022, the five largest oil companies collectively made $200 billion in profits. Now the government is giving them $30 billion for carbon sequestration, despite the fact that no one can say whether that technology really works. It is investing $30 billion in that.

There is the housing crisis as well, obviously. How can we not mention that? Canada needs to build 3.5 million housing units by 2030. That is a colossal project. One would think that a bill like Bill C‑59 would have some meaningful measures. One would think the government would have come up with a plan to address this crisis. Too bad there is no plan. All the government is going to do is change the name of the department. It is just a propaganda operation. The government is just going to change the name of the department. That is the only thing Bill C-59 has to offer.

I toured Quebec over the last few months. I wanted to see what was happening on the ground. The figures that CMHC has given us on vacancy rates are insane. We know that homelessness in Quebec has doubled since 2018. My colleague was talking about spending earlier. He said that this government has spent more on housing since 2015 than any other previous government. If that is true, then why did homelessness in Quebec double over the same period? I do not think this spending has worked. Quebec needs to build 200,000 housing units a year. Do my colleagues know how many were built last year? Only 39,000 were built, and there was a 7% reduction in housing starts across Canada.

Let us be serious. If the Liberals' strategy were working, we would know. Someone would have said so at some point. Someone would have said, “Wow! Well done!” We are not the only ones criticizing the government on this point. There are organizations, people in the field working with struggling Canadians, and they see it. The only thing I heard on my tour of Quebec was that the $82‑billion federal strategy is not working. In life, it is important to have the humility to say that we tried something and failed. Now we need to use that money differently. We need to invest it in social housing and truly affordable housing. Why are we still spending millions of dollars to build apartments in Montreal that cost $2,000 a month?

No one can afford to rent the units offered under the national housing strategy right now. We just need to stop and think about what we do next.

I also learned something else. The government is not investing enough, but that is not all. Earlier, I spoke about the 10,000 people experiencing homelessness. There is a federal program called Reaching Home that assists organizations and people experiencing homelessness. Not content with knowing that we are getting nowhere and that people all over Quebec will die this winter and are already dying because the federal government has underinvested in housing for the past 30 years, the government is going to reduce that program's budget by 3%. Three per cent may not seem like much, but how can the government even think of doing such a thing at a time when homelessness in Quebec has doubled? Half of these people are in Montreal.

One thing struck me during my tour of Quebec. We used to see homeless people in Quebec City, Montreal and major Canadian cities like Toronto and Vancouver. My colleague was saying earlier how dire the situation is in Edmonton. Right now, however, we are seeing something we have never seen before: tent cities in small towns across Quebec.

I visited the Lower St. Lawrence, where cities have sprung up in places they have never been seen before. There are homeless people on street corners and living in tent cities next to the town hall. There are seniors sleeping in tents. How can we allow such a thing to happen? There are tent cities in Saint‑Jérôme and Longueuil as well. Granby has decided to do something about the situation and set up a shelter. How can something like this be allowed to happen in a G7 country? How can we institutionalize tent cities and allow people to sleep there in wintertime when it is -30 degrees out?

I do not know how that can be allowed. I feel like we are going in the wrong direction. I feel like we have been saying that for years. Naively, I always believed that, in a democracy, people work together to find solutions. Naively, I believed that if the government realized something was not working, it would be willing to try a better solution suggested by someone else. I thought a government was supposed to work for people in need, not pose for photo ops. Ultimately, we have been talking about this for four years. I am not the only one. Many people in the House are concerned about housing and homelessness. Unfortunately, the system is stuck.

There is one basic issue to consider when it comes to homelessness. Obviously, we have to prevent people from freezing to death, but what is the ultimate problem? In the past, there used to be a continuum of services for people experiencing homelessness. Quebec, for one, understood that. There were 24-7 emergency shelters where people could sleep and eat a good meal. There were also shelters where people could stay for up to 90 days, to take the time to reintegrate into society, overcome drug addiction, rejoin the workforce and get back in touch with family. There used to be 90-day shelters. It worked because, at the end of the 90 days, people had access to social housing. They could return to work and get their life back on track. Today, in Quebec, these resources are overwhelmed. Since there is no social housing anymore, people end up staying in the shelters for longer, anywhere from six to nine months, so no new people can get in. We have work to do on a lot of fronts, but we especially need to build housing units.

I have criticized the national housing strategy a lot, and we will continue to do so. I am writing a report on my tour of Quebec, which I will present around February or March. We will make very specific recommendations. All I hope is that someone across the aisle will hear us. During my tour, I was often asked why I, a member of the opposition, was touring Quebec. I was asked why the minister himself was not sitting down with people in Saguenay, Saint‑Jérôme, Rouyn‑Noranda and Gaspé. People wanted to know why the minister and the government were not coming to see how difficult things are on the ground. Instead, it was I, a member of the opposition, who went. My colleagues can be sure that the findings from my report will help us make progress on this issue.

We have solutions that we are going to put forward.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that very fiery and timely speech. I always enjoy his contributions to the House.

I know he supported Bill C‑13, a piece of legislation of great importance to Canada and Quebec. It was the first time a government recognized the decline of French in Canada. He also knows that a strong Quebec makes for a strong Canada. It goes both ways. A strong Canada makes for a strong Quebec. I hope Quebec will always be part of our wonderful Canadian family.

Before 2015, the government invested $2.2 billion in French in Canada. That amount is now $4.1 billion. It is almost twice as much. My colleague must be impressed by that. Maybe he should talk about the importance of French in Canada as a whole.

I would like him to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I like very much. Indeed, French is in jeopardy across Canada. It is rather sad to see how tough this has become. Maybe $4 billion will help, but I would like to throw a question back to my colleague.

How is it that the government is going to invest $700 million over the next five years for anglophone communities in Quebec? If there is a community that is not in jeopardy, it is the anglophone community, not only in Quebec, but across Canada and North America.

Why spend $700 million to save a community that is not at risk and never will be?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his passion for fighting homelessness, for standing up for people and for getting housing that is not just for the super rich, but social housing and truly affordable housing. He is very familiar with the file. It is always interesting to hear him talk about it.

In Canada, we do not have a lot of social or co-op housing. It makes up roughly 3% to 4% of the entire housing stock. In Finland, it is 10%. In Denmark, it is 20%. I think there are examples we can use.

I would like my colleague to talk about Conservative Party leader's position. It seems that his solution to the housing problem is to insult the mayors in Quebec. I would like to know what the member thinks about the Conservative leader's attitude and his lack of real solutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I did not mention it in my speech, but I too, like many Quebeckers, was truly insulted by the Conservative leader's remarks. Together, Montreal and Quebec City make up roughly half of Quebec's population. The mayor of Montreal and the mayor of Quebec City are therefore two elected representatives of half of Quebec. As a solution, or as an approach to these elected officials, the Leader of the Opposition of this country insults them. He says they are incompetent.

How can anyone think that this man, once in power, would have any solutions? At some point, he will have to sit down with decision-makers from other levels of government to find solutions to this crisis. I do not see how he could possibly find any solutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish you a happy new year. I know it is a little late, but people say that it is like RRSPs: We have the first 60 days of the year to offer our best wishes. I wish all my colleagues a very happy new year.

I find it fascinating that we are starting this new session with a debate on the economic statement. It is curious, because during the holidays, the Conservative leader was very interested in budget issues; he spoke of them often. Since we are starting off nice and slow and we seem to have a pretty good atmosphere, I thought I would tell a joke. What is the difference between Quebeckers and the leader of the official opposition? Well, they are both in the wrong country. At some point, we Quebeckers will need to get our independence. The Conservative leader is living in a conspiracy theory. We heard him over the break. The glasses have come off. All he needs now is the orange tan and the blonde hair.

The dictionary says that a conspiracy is someone who thinks there is a secret agreement against someone or something. The Conservative leader toured Quebec saying that the Bloc Québécois supports 100% of the Liberals' economic policies. The Conservative leader's tone, the unpleasant, disrespectful tone he had over the holidays, which he has here in the House, and his gratuitous attacks on everyone that have no basis in fact, clearly show us that the Conservatives' best strategy is to say that offence is the best defence. Why? There is one party in the House that supports each and every Liberal policy. I am not talking about the NDP, whose members are Liberals by definition. I am talking about the Conservatives. It is even worse for Quebec Conservatives.

A Conservative member from Quebec is basically just a Liberal. Both parties have a fetish for oil. Some people have a foot fetish, while others, like the Conservatives and the Liberals, have an oil fetish. Bill C‑59 gives oil companies $18 billion in subsidies, or what the Liberals are referring to as tax credits and clean investments. How do they define “clean”? For them, clean means building nuclear reactors paid for with Quebeckers' tax dollars—both the Liberals and the Conservatives are compulsive taxers—so that we stop cleaning up the oil sands with gas and so that we can export gas. I hope that the Conservatives and Liberals get cleaner than that when they shower. It is all the same.

The carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. They sounded so foolish that they stopped saying it. There is a reason why they are against the carbon tax in the other provinces. If there is no more carbon tax, then emissions will rise, and they will be able to impose more taxes on Quebeckers and give more subsidies to oil companies with Quebeckers' tax dollars. Those are their equalization payments. The Quebec Conservatives, like the Liberals, are people who live only for western Canada and dirty oil.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, has said that the storage tax credit is an illusion. It has no role to play in any structured solution to global warming. Bill C‑59 provides $12.5 billion in carbon storage investments. Who is in agreement about these subsidies? The Liberals and the Conservatives are. The Conservatives have supported the Liberals' economic policies at every turn.

That is interference in Quebec's affairs. It is funny, though. Trampling all over Quebec, meddling in its affairs and engaging in interference are practically Liberal hallmarks. The Liberals have a lot of experience in this regard and, as the bill shows, unique expertise too. They tell us that they are going to put together a department of municipal affairs, an undertaking that has failed before. To listen to the Liberals, it would almost seem that no stop sign or speed bump could possibly be installed in any residential neighbourhood without the federal government's help. Complicating existing structures, picking more fights and adding more phases to negotiations, only to build no housing and make no progress, is classic Liberal behaviour. As the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert aptly said, it is what Liberals do.

We thought the Conservatives were different, but no. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition may have had a little too much time on his hands during the holidays. What did he do? He managed to outdo the Liberals when it comes to meddling. He went to Longueuil, Montreal and Quebec City to insult the mayors and demonstrate his total lack of knowledge of how the system works. Quebec municipalities receive their funding from Quebec City and the transfers go to Quebec City. This king of meddling, the Conservative king of meddling, is the guy who, when he was a minister, built nothing but housing slabs—no deliverables, no construction. The Leader of the Opposition could not even recognize a two-by-four in a hardware store. Who supports the Liberals' economic policies? The Conservatives do.

Here is something surprising. When half of Quebec was being insulted during the holiday season, where were the Quebec Conservatives? Were they off buying turkeys by the dozen and attending tons of New Year's Eve parties? They were absolutely nowhere to be seen.

Let us move on to the Liberal policy on asylum seekers. Ottawa owes Quebec $470 million. Why is that? Quebec welcomed 65,000 asylum seekers in 2023, or 45% of all asylum seekers, even though we represent only 22% of the Canadian population. We welcome them with open arms, as best we can, with all the resources at our disposal. When Quebec asks to be compensated for its contribution, the Liberals reply that they are not an ATM, as if Quebeckers do not pay taxes to Ottawa.

How many Conservatives from Quebec rose to defend the Premier of Quebec when he made this request? Not a single one, because the Quebec Conservatives are red from head to toe. They could almost run for the NDP; there would be no difference.

That is what is happening in the House. Only one party is worthy of Quebeckers' trust. We see that on the ground; we feel it. Only one party is consistent, only one party stays true, only one party does not spend its time flip-flopping, sloganeering and campaigning two years ahead of an election: the Bloc Québécois.

The Bloc Québécois is the only party that will always stand up for seniors and demand an OAS raise for everyone over 65 so as to put an end to the two classes of seniors the Liberals created.

Only one party is demanding an end to fossil fuel subsidies. Not even the NDP is calling for that; only the Bloc Québécois is.

Only one party called for the CEBA repayment deadline to be extended to keep small and medium-sized businesses afloat. That was us. Even the Conservatives did not join our efforts to save businesses and innovators, the people who make up the industrial and commercial fabric of our cities, our towns and our regions.

Only one party is calling for a media fund. The Conservatives want to shut down the media, and the Liberals are staying mum.

Only one party is calling for an emergency homelessness fund. The only thing the Conservatives want to do about homelessness is speed up global warming so that the winters are not so hard on the homeless. Only one party is doing that. As the member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert says, only one party is calling for an affordable housing acquisition fund for our non-profit organizations in Quebec.

Bearing all that in mind, who really supports the Liberals' economic policies in the House? The Conservative members from Quebec do. Quebeckers will remember that.

Quebeckers can see that and they are smart. We appeal to Quebeckers' intelligence, and that is to our credit. We will continue to do so. We will continue to be trustworthy. When the election comes, Quebeckers will understand that we have been steadfast and consistent, and that we have worked for them.

Should a day come when Quebeckers grow tired of making agonizing choices about which bad party they should vote into power in Ottawa, there is a solution: We can vote for independence, pack up and leave, and let the other provinces and territories resolve their issues as a family.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech, especially when we consider the expression “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. He spent most of his speech making completely valid attacks against the Conservatives. Just before I ask my question, since we are joking around here, I want to say “hello, bonjour” to you, Mr. Speaker, and wish you a happy new year. I am saying that because we are all Quebeckers and we, on this side of the House, also speak for Quebeckers.

I wanted to point out a few contradictions. When he was the environment minister for the Parti Québécois government, the leader of the Bloc Québécois approved oil exploration off Anticosti Island. He also approved other things that I believe go against the principles that the Bloc Québécois is advocating for today.

Why did the members of the Bloc Québécois vote against our budget? By so doing, they voted against the investments in housing that we made for Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle is happy to hear me say that the Conservatives are as bad as the Liberals. Apparently, they take compliments any way they can.

I did my Ph.D. in Ontario. I am bilingual. In Quebec, we greet people in French. I think that is one of our selling points, something that makes us valuable. I understand that the member is very comfortable with the fact that her government will be pouring $800 million of public money, including Quebeckers' money, into English-speaking organizations to defend English in Quebec over the next few years. She may have political reasons for doing so. I think it is appalling.

I will conclude by saying that I am very proud that Quebec's CO₂ emissions trading system was implemented by our leader when he was the environment minister, and I think history will remember that.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his attacks on the Conservatives, on the next government. He got some good practice in. It will come as no surprise that the Conservatives may very well form the next government.

I would like my colleague to lay out the costs of all the demands he made in his speech so we can have an idea of where to head with future budgets.

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

Mr. Speaker, when his leader was attacking all the mayors in Quebec over the holidays, my colleague went into hiding.

Sometimes we have to bug them a bit to get a reaction.

I will take just a few seconds to tell my colleague that Bill C‑59 provides two years' worth of equalization payments in subsidies for the oil companies. I will give him a chance to think about that.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut ]

[English]

Mr. Speaker, what I just said in Inuktitut is that I am always so happy to rise and speak in Inuktitut in the House.

As we all know, most MPs here are settlers or are ancestors of settlers, Quebec included. I wonder if the member has, or if anyone in his party has, consulted with the indigenous peoples in Quebec, the Cree and the Innu, who most likely would wish to stay in Canada as opposed to what the member shared in his intervention.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert did a good job earlier explaining what might happen if there were a referendum. If one is called, there will be a national conversation in Quebec. Thank goodness it will be far away from this Parliament.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I wish you a happy 2024. I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

My speech today will be on the economy, which is very important, but also on our government's position on the economy. I will talk about affordability and, of course, housing, an important topic.

I want to underline that we are in a great position economically right now as country. I want to share some of our strengths, and this comes not just from me but from other sources around the world. Let us keep in mind that Canadians created 1.4 million jobs before COVID. We recaptured that 1.4 million, built on it and Canadians now have an extra one million jobs.

The International Monetary Fund predicts that this year Canada will have the strongest economy in the G7. The OECD also said that Canada received the third-most foreign direct investment in the world last year. Also, on labour, when we took power in 2015, the unemployment rate was at about 7%. Now the unemployment rate is down to 5.7%. These are facts.

Before COVID, inflation was at 2%. COVID pushed it to 8.1%. Today it is down to 3.4% and it continues to drop. We continue to have our AAA credit rating, which is extremely important.

When it comes to affordability, there are two pieces. The first is what we have done since the last election in 2021. We have made some great investments for Canadians because we know that affordability is challenging and that we need to be there to support them.

We doubled the GST credit for two payments for those receiving it, which helped 11 million people. It also helped over 300,000 Nova Scotians. We added supports for a grocery rebate, which again helped 11 million people and over 300,000 Nova Scotians.

On the Canada workers benefit, which represents about $2,461 per year, we made adjustments so they receive three quarterly payments. This helps with affordability as well.

We have of course eliminated the interest on Canada student loans, helping young Canadians in dealing with affordability.

We have indexed, and this is crucial, key benefits to inflation. If another government takes over some day, it will not be able to stop it, unless it brings legislation to the House. We indexed the Canada child benefit, ensuring that young families will continue to prosper. We have also indexed the GST and the Canada pension plan, which we made major changes to with the provinces back in 2017. The OAS and the GIS have both been indexed and will ensure seniors can continue to prosper as well.

We also brought in dental support for children under 12 years old, of which over 1,200 Nova Scotians have taken advantage.

These are some investments we made in the past two years. What the fall economic economic statement brings to the table today is also key areas of investments.

We are expanding the dental benefit to not just children 12 and under, but to 18 and under. For seniors, January, February, March and April are important months because they will have access to dental care, which is very important. People with disabilities will also have access starting this year. Next year, all Canadians who make $90,000 or less and are not part of a dental plan will be able to receive dental care. Those are major investments supporting Canadians and affordability.

Other investments include removing the GST from psychotherapy and counselling. This is important for affordability for people who have challenges with their mental health.

We are going to crack down and make major changes to the Competition Act. This will ensure that we can bring prices down and ensure competition is strong in Canada, that no anti-competition happens. We need to do a major review of that area and make improvements, which is exactly what we will be doing as we move forward.

Another area I want to touch on is housing. We are focused on four areas. The first one is new, increased and continued investments in housing, which is important. There are going to be challenges with labour in the building sector, so we are going to make changes that would allow workers to move from province to province and territory to territory. We will prioritize workers for permanent residency in key areas of need, with construction being one and education being another.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

When we left this, the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook had the floor, and the hon. member has four minutes remaining in debate.

The hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook has the floor.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Conservative colleagues who said that the information I shared about the strength and position of the Canadian economy was so great that they wanted me, like an encore in music, to come back and continue the show. I am very happy to be back here to share some of the news and information.

I was sharing that Canada's economy's position in the world is at the top. These are some of the facts the Conservatives need to share and to talk about. Canadians have created one million jobs since COVID and 1.4 million before. That is 2.4 million in total. The unemployment rate, when we came into power in 2015, was almost 7%. Today it is 5.7%, which is very impressive. Inflation, which was at 2% but because of COVID went to 8.1%, is now down to 3.4% and heading downward as we speak. We have a AAA rating once again, which shows Canada's strength.

Members should not believe me, but believe the facts. The International Monetary Fund said it is predicting this year that Canada will have the strongest economy in the G7. They said it; I did not say it. The OECD indicated a few months ago that Canada received the third most foreign direct investment in the world. They said it; I did not say it.

Because of our position, we are able to continue to support Canadians. Let us not forget that we have already lifted, since 2015, 2.3 million Canadians out of poverty. That is very important information. Canadians appreciate that work but know we have more work to do.

As I was sharing about the housing investments, there are four major components of course. The first one is the investments we are bringing forward in housing, which are crucial in ensuring that we are able to fill the demand because when we construct more houses, we have more labour needs.

Therefore, we have two approaches to labour. One is internal mobility, which means construction workers can move from province to province and territory to territory. We also have express entry for immigrants coming in to fill some of the jobs in the labour force with education in construction, etcetera.

The third piece of this is short-term rentals in provinces and territories where municipalities have prohibited short-term rentals. We will deny the income reduction, of course, on the building and construction of those. Finally, we will support more Canadians with the mortgages. Understanding that the interest rate is up and that there are many challenges Canadians are facing today, we will provide, if they want, tailor-made relief that will allow for a temporary extension of their mortgages and will waive some of the fees. Those who have qualified and want to change banks do not have to requalify, which is very important. Of course, the banks need to communicate with Canadians four to six months prior to the end of their mortgages.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order for me and for the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, I have had my hand up since we were calculating the votes.

I know we are past the calculations now, but as I had technical difficulties, I would like to seek unanimous consent to cast my vote as a nay on the last vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

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

Madam Speaker, I vote nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The votes will be added to the tabulation of the vote.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I know that the member from Atlantic Canada has always been a very consistent, strong advocate for that region of the country.

Could he provide, from his personal perspective through consultations and in working with his constituents, his thoughts with respect to the overall budgetary measures of the government?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question because throughout the summer months and in the fall session, I had lots of opportunities to meet many constituents in my riding. I can tell the House that there are a number of areas they are really focused on.

One area is seniors. Seniors are looking for support, and they were extremely happy to hear that we had indexed to inflation the OAS and GIS, which is extremely important. Canadians were telling me how proud they were that we had moved forward on indexing the CPP as well. Let us not forget the young families, for whom we have indexed the CCB. Those are very important investments. Nova Scotians were also telling me that up to 300,000 of them benefited from the doubling of the GST and the grocery rebate.

Those are very important investments that Canadians have experienced and benefited from, including Nova Scotians such as my constituents in the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

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

Madam Speaker, this economic statement obviously will not make history because it was supposed to address an urgent situation, namely the housing crisis, but the only solutions the Liberals proposed for solving the housing crisis will not apply until 2025 or 2026.

We are talking about budgets. They are saying that construction will be pushed back by a year or two or three. Considering the other agreements the Liberal government is making with the provinces, like Quebec, we may have to wait another three years.

I would like to know if my colleague feels any embarrassment over this situation. When will there be money to build housing in Rouyn-Noranda or anywhere else in Quebec?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very important question.

Let us not forget that our government is the first government in Canadian history to launch a national strategy. An enormous amount of work has been done since 2015. Through our accelerator fund alone, we are seeing municipalities improving zoning. That will help not just Canadians in my region, but also Quebeckers who live in the beautiful province of Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, this fall economic statement is about investing in Canadians and supporting Canadians, in particular those who need supports right now. What we are continually seeing from the Conservatives is how they talk down these supports. They start talking about removing the carbon incentive rebate cheques, taking those away from Canadians. They are talking about the putting the GST back on building homes for Canadians who need them right now.

I am wondering whether my colleague could share his thoughts on the stark difference for Canadians in terms of an option between what we are providing and what the Conservatives are proposing.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, that question is so important, because let us be real: If the Conservatives ever take power, they are going to be making cut after cut. I remember, as if it were yesterday, when the Conservative government in 2014 made major cuts on the backs of our veterans, our men and women who have served and continue to serve. It was totally unacceptable.

Since we took power, we have contributed over $11 billion to support the men and women who have served and continue to serve.

I can tell young families that if the Conservatives take power, their CCB cheques, which are tax-free and 30% more than what the Conservatives were giving, will be gone as well.

We need to continue to focus on and support Canadians. That is exactly what we are doing. We will continue to do that.

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

Madam Speaker, good afternoon to you and to all my hon. colleagues in this wonderful and esteemed House. It is my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-59, the fall economic statement. Before I begin my formal remarks, I will say that it is really great to share our thoughts and be the voice of the residents of our ridings, whom we get to represent with much privilege and honour.

When we look at Canada today, the country we are blessed to call home whether we were born here in this generation or prior, like our parents and grandparents, however we ended up here, we are very fortunate as Canada is a land of opportunity for its residents, our constituents and our children. We are going to keep it that way. All 338 members of the House aspire for this country to be the best it can be, and to provide opportunity and fortune for our children and our prosperity.

Today the International Monetary Fund came out with its economic growth outlook projections, and the growth outlook for Canada looks quite impressive. In fact, in 2025, out of all of the G7 countries, Canada will have the fastest economic growth rate forecast for real GDP. We will grow at almost 2.5%. It is 2.3% to be exact. In 2024, we will be a snick behind the United States and will be the second fastest-growing country in the G7.

That does not happen by accident; it happens through the hard work of all our residents and entrepreneurs. It also happens through collaboration with government, labour and industry. That is how we grow an economy. That is how we create prosperity, by collaborating and working together.

As I was reading through the fall economic outlook today, it was great to see that the choices we have made and continue to make as a government are creating economic growth, jobs and prosperity for all Canadians, not only the wonderful residents in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge but also those across this country.

In the fall economic statement there is talk of the $4-billion housing accelerator fund. I was proud to stand with the Prime Minister of Canada and my mayor, the Hon. Steven Del Duca, to announce a $59-million investment into the city of Vaughan to streamline the processes to build housing to ensure that we prioritize housing near transportation infrastructure, much like is being done at the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre and all along the Highway 7 corridor along York Region in the city of Vaughan.

We will continue to make those strategic investments in our communities. Why will we? It is because we believe in Canadians, and a confident government invests in its people, its entrepreneurs and its country. That is what we continue to do.

There is one measure I think we must all look at and applaud, which is the first-time homebuyer savings account. This account has been taken up by over 500,000 Canadians. It combines the best of the tax-free savings account and an RRSP account. It puts them together: tax-free in, tax-free out. People get a tax deduction for investing in the account, and when they use it to purchase a home, it is tax-free: tax deduction in, tax-free out. It is a powerful measure that 500,000 Canadians have taken advantage of.

On the building side, we put in place a 100% GST rebate with respect to new purpose-built rental housing. I know this is something that, for many years, rental builders across this country have asked for, and we have delivered that.

We brought in the Canada child benefit and an early learning and child care plan, which I know the Province of Ontario, under a Progressive Conservative government, is celebrating day in and day out, but the opposition apparently criticizes.

I would say “shame”, because we know, and the member opposite knows, that my riding, York—Simcoe, and all the ridings across this country are benefiting from the agreement we have signed with the provinces.

We know that Canadians are facing high consumer prices, which is putting pressure on their families.

Over the past year, the federal government has taken other measures to make life more affordable for those who need it most in our country. Those measures include doubling the GST credit for six months in the fall of 2022 and providing a new one-time grocery rebate in June 2023, which enabled us to deliver hundreds of dollars in targeted inflation relief to 11 million Canadian households.

On July 28, 2023, the government began distributing the first quarterly payments of the enhanced Canada workers benefit, a measure designed to help Canada's lowest paid but often most essential workers. A family could receive up to $2,461 this year.

The Canada workers benefit is like the unsung hero, the grinder on the ice, doing its job. This benefit has lifted millions of Canadians out of poverty. Almost two and a half million Canadians have been lifted out of poverty since 2015. The poverty rate has been reduced by more than half, 650,000 children. We will continue doing what is right. When the government does what is right, when a parent does what is right, when an entrepreneur does what is right, they know they are going in the right direction. We are certainly doing that.

These are just a few examples of how our government continues to support Canadians at a time when some prices are still too high.

Bill C-59 builds on these efforts by introducing new measures to further the government's economic plan and continue to support a strong middle class. We are seeing it. We have a AAA credit rating, and that is not by fluke; it was by hard choices made many years ago to keep that under all governments. We celebrate it. We maintain it. We have a strong fiscal foundation.

Our deficit-to-GDP ratio, across the board, is one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in all the G7 countries, and it continues on the right path. We know that Canadians are feeling elevated prices, but we have made the right choices to support them, and we will continue to do so.

We will support Canadians' right to repair, preventing manufacturers from refusing to provide the means of repairing devices and products in an anti-competitive manner. We have further modernized merger reviews and enhanced protections for consumers, workers and the environment, including putting the focus on worker impacts and competition.

We empowered the commissioner of competition to review and crack down on a wide selection of anti-competitive collaborations.

Finally, we are broadening the reach of the law by enabling more private parties to bring cases before the Competition Tribunal and to receive payment if they are successful.

Bill C-59 and Bill C-56 would provide generational changes to the competition laws for Canadians.

Again, on competition, I love capitalism and I love the creation of wealth. That is what creates jobs. That is what drives prosperity, not only here in this beautiful country but across the board. However, we can do that only when we have a regulatory regime in place that ensures that anti-competitive practices, abuse practices on pricing, collusion and drip pricing, and all those of types of measures are looked at and examined, and folks are held to account.

We need to do that, whether there are circumstances like a few years ago with bread or in any circumstance today. We need to ensure that the commissioner of competition and the Competition Tribunal have teeth. We need to ensure that the law with regard to competition is on the side of Canadians, not on the side of corporations. Believe me, I want all companies and corporations to succeed, whether it is a limited partnership, whether it is a CCPC, whether it is publicly listed or a family business, or whether it is one of the 18,000 or 19,000 small businesses that exist in the city of Vaughan, literally the economic engine of York Region, the largest economic centre, with almost 1,300,000 residents.

Our government also recognizes the importance of enabling Canadians to access the mental health services and support they need when they are at their most vulnerable.

For example, therapy and counselling services play a critical role in the lives and mental health of millions of people in Canada, but they can also be costly. To ensure that Canadians can get the help they need, the federal government is taking the necessary steps to make these essential services more accessible.

We removed the GST-HST when an individual needs to go see a therapist of any sort. We know how important the mental health of our friends, families and loved ones is, especially in this world today, where we are so interconnected yet millions of people still feel alone. They need the help.

I see I have about a minute or 30 seconds left. I would like to say that I look forward to answering questions or comments from my hon. colleagues. I hope they and their families are doing well. Let us make sure that all the climate action incentive payments are received by all Canadians out there, including all the wonderful seniors in my riding, who I know are better off for receiving the climate action incentive payments.

I look forward to receiving and answering questions from the hon. opposition, as well as my colleagues.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a neighbour of mine, and we both represent parts of the great city of Vaughan.

The member says he supports making life more affordable for the citizens of Vaughan and those across Canada. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it clear that Bill C-234 would save Canadian farmers $1 billion by 2030, reducing the cost of food for Canadian families currently struggling to afford groceries.

I am wondering if the member can explain to the residents of Vaughan who are currently struggling to afford groceries why he will not support Bill C-234.

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

Madam Speaker, when we look at all the measures that have been put in place to aid farmers in Canada, it is clear that we have the backs of farmers. Everyone knows that. The farmers themselves know that, and we will continue to make sure we support them.

Last week, I went on a tour of the Ontario Food Terminal, where $3 billion of economic activity takes place on an annual basis. I saw the potatoes, fruits and vegetables coming in from all over Canada and different parts of the world. We will always assist farmers so they can compete and we have food security and affordability.

On the affordability front, we have put in place a number of measures that have exempted fuel under the carbon pricing regime. We will continue to do that. Eight out of 10 Canadians are better off under the carbon pricing regime. We will continue down that path. We have to move to a carbon-neutral economy. We know that. The entire world is going there. Innovation is going faster than we in this House know; it will continue to go faster, and we will always have the backs of Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, housing has been a hot topic because it is clearly a need throughout Quebec and Canada. I was recently in Kuujjuaq. Poverty is rampant and the housing index is very low. Three or four families may end up having to live together. They are experiencing the unthinkable right now, and it is happening throughout Quebec.

Another hot topic has been the workforce. There are no incentives to get people back to work, either seniors or people who want to work. The cost of living is another hot topic.

What is this government doing about these issues with its bill?

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

Madam Speaker, it is very important for our government to help Canadians across the country deal with the affordability issues caused by rising prices.

However, we see prices coming down and relief on the inflation front, which is important. We put in place prime measures, whether it is the Canada child benefit, early learning and day care, the Canada workers benefit, middle-income tax cuts, work on the housing front, the $4-billion housing accelerator program or the $4 billion for housing in rural and indigenous communities in the north or northern Quebec and those areas. Those funds are directed specifically to those areas.

I hope I answered the member's question.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is not only the MP for Vaughan—Woodbridge but also a former resident of the great city of Prince Rupert. The member mentioned housing. In Prince Rupert, the single most important investment to empower new housing development is replacement of the city's water mains, which are on the brink of imminent collapse. The Government of British Columbia has already invested $35 million in that project, and now it is time for the member's government to step up to the plate with a significant financial commitment to that urgent priority.

Does the member not agree that this should be made a top priority for the federal government?

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

Madam Speaker, as a former resident, born and raised in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, of course I know the infrastructure in that community needs to be upgraded and fixed. Our government will work in collaboration, as it always has, with the current NDP government in British Columbia to ensure that residents of Prince Rupert have clean drinking water and the right infrastructure for their families. It is one of the most important port cities on the west coast for trade from north and central South America. It is increasingly becoming an economic engine for Canada. It is a logistics hub and major transportation point for our country.

I would like to say hello to friends and family who still reside in Prince Rupert. It is near and dear to my heart, as I was raised there. Canada is a beautiful country, and I am blessed to call two places home, Vaughan being my current home.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for King—Vaughan.

After eight years of this Prime Minister, two million Canadians are visiting food banks in a single month. After eight years of this Prime Minister, housing costs have doubled. After eight years of this Prime Minister, people are struggling to keep their homes, because their mortgage payments have doubled. After eight years, violent crime is up 39%. Tent cities exist in almost every major city, and over 50% of Canadians are $200 or less away from going broke. After eight years, this Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost.

Just last week, the Prime Minister said that the Conservative Party wants to “take Canada backwards”. If that means taking Canada back to a time when inflation was at historic lows or taking Canada back to a time when young people could afford to buy homes or back to a time when rent and groceries were actually affordable or back to a time when people felt safe in their own neighbourhoods, if this is what taking Canada backward looks like, then I am all in.

People rightfully wonder how it got like this. Let me explain.

In 2020 the Bank of Canada made a decision to increase the money supply in order to buy government bonds. The bank said it did this to keep interest rates low, but the reality was that the Liberals needed money, and lots of it. That money was ostensibly to pay for pandemic emergency programs, but soon after the pandemic, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that $204.5 billion in new spending had absolutely nothing to do with the pandemic.

What happens when the central bank prints money? It means we have more dollars chasing fewer goods. Each dollar is worth less. Imagine that, in the whole economy, there were only $10, and that $1 was the price of a loaf of bread. Now imagine that, all of a sudden, there are $20 in the economy but still only 10 loaves of bread. Each dollar is now worth half, its value diluted by the creation of a new dollar. That is what caused inflation, not supply chains, not the war in Ukraine, not so-called “greedflation”, but money printing. That is the cause: money printed to feed the Prime Minister's reckless and inflationary spending.

From 1867 to 2015, the total federal debt was $600 billion. Today it is $1.2 trillion. The Prime Minister has doubled the national debt. He has borrowed more money than all other prime ministers who came before him.

What happens when we have inflation? How does a country get it back under control? It is forced to raise interest rates; that is how.

This is the monetary policy part, by the way, that the Prime Minister says he does not want to think about. He did not think that his out-of-control spending might cause a vicious cycle of inflation that would force the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates, but it did.

He now likes to call this spending “investments”, but what does he have to show for these investments? Our economic growth has flatlined. The OECD predicts that Canada will have the worst per capita GDP growth in the OECD for the next 30 years. Per capita GDP has actually declined. The Bank of Canada said in its monetary policy report just last week that it expects economic growth to be flat.

What do you call spending $600 billion for zero economic benefit? Economic malpractice is what you call it.

What about the high interest Canadians pay on all this debt? The Prime Minister likes to say that he took on debt so Canadians would not have to, but Canadians are stuck with the bill. Canadians are about to spend more money on interest on the Prime Minister's debt than on health care, on child care, on EI or on national defence.

The Bank of Nova Scotia economists have said that government deficits are adding two full percentage points to interest rates on the backs of Canadians.

The bank governor just confirmed in committee that the GST is adding 0.6% onto inflation.

Common-sense conservatives keep telling the government that Liberal spending is making life more expensive for Canadians. Did the Liberals listen? No. They just added another $20 billion of additional inflationary spending. At the same time, we have a housing crisis and out-of-control crime in this country.

A Conservative government would axe the tax, build more homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. It is time to rein in the NDP-Liberal coalition's inflationary spending and balance the budget to lower inflation and interest rates to ensure that Canadians can afford their lives again. Despite warnings from the Bank of Canada and the Canadian financial sector that government spending is contributing to Canada's high inflation, the Prime Minister ignored their calls for moderation and, yet again, decided to spend on the backs of Canadians, keeping inflation and interest rates high.

What are the ramifications for ordinary Canadians? The IMF warns that Canada is the most at risk in the G7 for a mortgage default crisis. High interest rates risk a mortgage meltdown as billions of dollars in mortgages renew over the next three years. At finance committee, the representative from The Mustard Seed food bank told us that food bank usage has increased 78% since 2018, with a marked increase in double-income families. Many Canadians are having to choose between buying food, heating their homes and paying rent. People's dreams of purchasing their first homes have been crushed. It used to be that Canadians were paying off their mortgage in 25 years. Now it takes that long just to save up for a down payment.

The good news is that it was not like this before this Prime Minister, and it sure will not be like this once he is gone. For the last eight years, all the Liberals have to show for housing are broken promises, half measures and endless photo ops. Their precious national housing program has only completed 106,000 homes. CMHC officials say we need to build over five million homes by 2030. Only in Canada has housing become so unaffordable so quickly. Toronto is ranked as the world's worst housing bubble, and Vancouver is the third most unaffordable housing market on earth. They are worse than New York City; London, England; and Singapore, a tiny island with 2,000 times more people per square kilometre than Canada.

The problem is that we are not building enough homes fast enough. We built fewer homes last year than we did in 1972, when our population was half the size and I was 10 years old. This is happening because the Prime Minister subsidizes government gatekeepers and the red tape that prevents builders from getting shovels in the ground and people into homes they can afford. In Vancouver, regulations add a staggering $1.3 million to the cost of an average home. In Toronto, government adds $350,000. That means that over 60% of the price of a home in Vancouver is due to fees, regulations and taxes.

Conservatives have a plan to fix this. It would be called the building homes not bureaucracy act. It would put keys in doors and people in homes by giving more money to the municipalities that are building homes and taking money away from cities that are not. It would incentivize unaffordable cities to build more homes and speed up the rate at which they build homes every year to meet housing targets. Cities must increase the number of homes built by 15% each year. If targets are missed, a percentage of their federal funding would be withheld, and it would be equivalent to the percentage the target was missed by. We would reward big cities that are getting homes built by providing a building bonus for municipalities that exceed a 15% increase in housing completions.

Also, we would make sure that cities build high-density housing around transit stations. Transit-oriented development is a major solution to our housing crisis. All of this is just common sense. Thanks to the Prime Minister, this is the worst time in Canada's history for Canadian people, and particularly for the middle class. The good news is that we have a common-sense plan that would axe the inflationary carbon tax to bring home lower prices, cap spending, cut waste to bring down inflation and interest rates, and remove bureaucracy to build more homes so that, once again, people could afford to rent or pay their mortgages. Conservatives will work every day to make Canada a country that works for the people who do the work.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned government gatekeepers as being the problem behind the housing crisis, and he promised transit-hub-oriented development. In the region I represent, there are no transit hubs. I also do not think one could characterize the village council of the Village of Telkwa, the town council of the Town of Smithers or the city council of the City of Terrace as being gatekeepers. These folks can approve housing development in a matter of days or weeks.

The challenge in these communities is infrastructure. Does the member support investing in key municipal infrastructure, as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has called for, and as the City of Prince Rupert has called for, where his leader just was? Does the member commit to investing the tens of millions of dollars required to ensure that our communities can deliver a quality of life for their residents?

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

Madam Speaker, the member knows well that municipalities set their own infrastructure priorities and decide which infrastructure needs to be built. All we are saying is that, through the build homes not bureaucracy act, we would reward cities that build more infrastructure to get more homes built. That is really what the program is all about. Ottawa is not in the business of telling municipalities where to build their infrastructure, but we do have financial tools at our disposal to incentivize municipalities to get more homes built, and that is what we will do.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the member just said that Ottawa is not in the business of telling municipalities what to do, when the leader of the Conservative Party just recently called two municipal leaders incompetent: the mayor of Montreal and one other. I wonder if the member has had the opportunity to talk to his leader about how inappropriate those comments were.

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

Madam Speaker, to the first part of the member's question, what I said is that the federal government is not in the business of telling municipalities what infrastructure they should build. We are in a position, though, to incentivize municipalities through financial contributions to build more homes. That was the point I was making.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑59 mentions the creation of a federal department of municipal affairs, to be known as the department of housing, infrastructure and communities. This could open the door to more interference, more disputes and more delays, despite the urgency of the housing crisis.

My colleague also talked about removing the bureaucracy. What are his thoughts on the creation of a federal department of municipal affairs?

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

Madam Speaker, it is important we distinguish between levels of government and their jurisdictions. Municipalities are best positioned to decide what infrastructure to build and where it should be built. I spent time on a municipal council myself, and I certainly respect the hard and important work that they do.

We do have a housing crisis in this country. CMHC says we need to build well over five million houses by 2030, and the government's own housing program has only built 106,000 homes, so whatever it is doing is not working. We need to respect municipalities but provide the financial tools municipalities need to get more homes built.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley talked about the need to focus on affordability, but I did not hear him talk at all about the increased corporate profits that are leading the rising inflation we are seeing. One of those examples is the oil and gas industry. In fact, 18¢ of every dollar at the pump that folks are seeing increases on are going directly toward increased profits of the oil and gas industry, leading to $36 billion for the top five companies in 2022 alone.

Does the member support, at the very least, a windfall profit tax on even just 15% of the profits above a billion so we can invest in affordability measures across the country?

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

Madam Speaker, frankly, I am just tired of socialist members of the House wanting to penalize success in our society. Of course we would not support something like that. We want private enterprises to be successful so they can employ more people, provide good-paying jobs and make sure we have more powerful paycheques in society. More than that, and I have said this before in the House, I find it astounding how some members think that increasing taxes on Canadians will make life more affordable for Canadians. It simply will not.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Persons with Disabilities; the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, Public Services and Procurement.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for King—Vaughan has the floor.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of Canadians. Today, I rise to speak to what I call the “false promise statement” implementation act. Everything is looking up. Prices are up. Rent is up. Debt is up. Taxes are up, and time is up.

When the Prime Minister took office, he inherited a rich legacy. Interest and inflation rates were at record lows. The budget was balanced. Taxes were falling at a record pace, and it took 25 years to pay off a mortgage, not to save up for one.

Our next prime minister, the leader of the official opposition, would not be as fortunate. Today, interest rates are at an all-time high. Inflation is out of control. Taxes are up, and a new measure announced in this false promise statement is a 90-year mortgage. I will let that sink in for a moment: a 90-year mortgage. I have never heard of such a thing.

The Prime Minister has added more debt than that of all our previous prime ministers, combined. Canada’s growth for the next four decades is projected to be the worst of the developed countries. The finance minister told Canadians that the budget would be balanced by the year 2028. Canadians have found that to be an interesting statement, considering her boss believes the budget will balance itself. However, since she made that statement, she has announced another $100 billion of additional debt. This year, the Prime Minister will spend more taxpayer dollars servicing the debt than he will funding our health care.

This mini-budget would do nothing to help Canadians who are struggling to put food on the table. Under the NDP-Liberal government, we are witnessing millions of food bank visits in a single month. According to Food Banks Canada hunger in Canada statistics, seniors are the fastest-growing group of food bank users. The government should be ashamed. Across the country, food bank visits have increased 78% since 2019.

Trevor Moss, the CEO of the Central Okanagan Food Bank, is projecting a 100% increase in the next three to four months. During the last break, I had the opportunity to visit the Sai Dham Food Bank. Co-founders Vishal and Subhra educated me on the crises Canadians are facing. I was shocked to find out that, in one month, the food bank served 3.17 million meals and delivered groceries to 3,000 seniors in the GTA.

Seventy-two-year-old Linda Godin lives on a fixed income in Edmonton and is among those who have had to turn to food banks due to the rising cost of living. She told CBC news that, despite her best budgeting efforts, it is hard to make ends meet. The skyrocketing cost of food and housing is due to the high interest rates, which have been caused by the reckless overspending of the Prime Minister.

The finance minister suggested that cancelling one's Disney+ subscription would fix the issue. She is on the right track, but it is not Disney+ that needs to be cancelled. It is the carbon tax. Since the NDP-Liberal government refuses to do that, it is time it was cancelled.

Let us take a look at the impacts of the carbon tax. Farmers who grow the food are taxed. What is the result? The cost goes up. Truckers that ship the food are taxed. What is the result? The cost goes up. What would be a common-sense way to bring relief? It would be to axe the tax.

I scoured the entire document and found it to be very useful as a paperweight. The Liberal-NDP government has nothing in this budget to help seniors. Its members talk a good talk; they have referenced OAS and GIS, but they have proposed nothing. They have simply reannounced current policies under the Prime Minister. Seniors are worse off than they were eight years ago. If the Liberals continue this trend, things are only going to get worse. There are seniors who are on the brink of homelessness and forced to live in their vehicles or other unsafe places. Working moms cannot afford to feed their families. The NDP-Liberal government is playing politics with their lives while Liberal insiders get rich.

After years of careful financial planning, Maria, a senior in Vaughan, retired. She thought she had the funds to support herself, but after eight years, the Liberal-NDP government has forced her to go back to work. Eight years ago, if someone told me something like this would happen, I probably would have laughed. Today, this is the reality of far too many Canadians, and no one is laughing.

As we witness the misery that the Prime Minister has created, I cannot believe how far we have fallen as a nation. This country deserves better. Sunny ways are not quite so sunny anymore unless, of course, one is the Prime Minister and takes an $84,000 family vacation to Jamaica.

Do the Liberals even listen to what Canadians are telling them? It appeared for a hot second that the member for Avalon heard the voices of Canadians; he told a Radio-Canada reporter that he believed the Liberal Party was in desperate need of a leadership review.

Canadians need financial relief, not billions in more spending, which will only result in more taxes. Instead of listening to common-sense Conservatives, the Prime Minister decided to fund half measures, which will do nothing to resolve the problems that everyday Canadians face.

Under the Liberal-NDP government, housing costs have doubled. Toronto has been rated the worst housing bubble in the world. Canadian homes now cost 50% more compared with homes in the United States. One can buy a 20-bedroom castle in Scotland for less than a two-bedroom home in Kitchener.

Before someone across the aisle jumps up to sing the praise of the $4-billion housing initiative, let us take a look at that program. It is, in its very design, set up to favour projects in Liberal ridings, and the numbers prove it. It has recently been reported that the funds were disproportionately allocated. Let us look at the numbers. Thirty-four per cent of the country is represented by Conservative members of Parliament, but those areas received only 15% of the funding. However, the areas represented by Liberal MPs received 49% of the funding. I guess this just proves the point made by the member for Long Range Mountains that if one wants special treatment, one needs to vote for a Liberal MP.

This document is nothing more than a last-ditch attempt for the finance minister to drum up support. However, 48% of Canadians are within $200 of financial insolvency, and the government expects Canadians to trust it with their tax dollars. Canadians cannot afford any more of the Liberal-NDP government. It is time for my colleagues across the floor to reflect on the approach they have taken and on the misery they have unleashed on this country.

However, there is some good news. Conservatives have a common-sense plan, and we will axe the tax to bring home lower house prices, cut wasteful spending to bring down inflation and interest rates, and remove the bureaucracy to build more homes so people can afford to rent and pay their mortgages again. Under a Conservative government, Canada will once again become a country that rewards hard work rather than penalizing a strong work ethic, a country where Canadians are motivated to work hard. The Conservative Party understands that, as elected officials, we are servants, not masters. We are united under our common home. For members' home, my home and our home, let us bring it home.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague in this House, my neighbour in the city of Vaughan, which we both get to represent, along with another member. We have the most entrepreneurial and most generous residents in the city that we live in.

The hon. member is the shadow minister for seniors. Our government is putting in place a Canadian dental program that, right now, is enrolling millions of seniors in the hon. member's riding of King—Vaughan, in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and in all 338 ridings. This will literally benefit millions of seniors. We are going to reduce costs for them. We are going to provide them oral care and dental care, which we know is part of health care. It is a transformational measure that all members of this House should support.

Is my hon. friend and colleague across the way going to vote for the Canadian dental care program for seniors in King—Vaughan, yes or no?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government cannot even deliver benefits to government employees, and now it is asking Canadians to trust it to deliver benefits to everyone else in Canada.

Many Canadians are worried that they are going to lose coverage. How can we trust this wasteful government to ensure that it is going to have a plan that will not encroach on the current system?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member and I are both on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, so we work together on issues relating to the status of women.

Another file that interests both of us is seniors. She is her party's critic for seniors. We have had a number of very interesting conversations. I completely agree with what she said on the subject. This economic update lacks measures for seniors. There is nothing in it for them. The Bloc Québécois has long been asking the government to do something for seniors. That is one of the Bloc's priorities, and it is one of the things we have asked for in economic updates and budgets. Seniors have been getting poorer and poorer for too long.

Next week, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities will begin its study of Bill C‑319.

Will the Conservative Party actually do what seniors are asking them to do, seniors like the ones from Saguenay and Chicoutimi that I met with just last week? They want the House to pass Bill C‑319 to make things fairer for seniors. They do not want seniors to be divided into two classes, those under 75 and those 75 and over.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague. I agree with her that we have to do more for seniors.

One way we could help seniors ensure that they enjoy their retirement is by cutting expenses, one of which is the carbon tax. Recently, the Fraser Institute released its latest investigative report, which proves what Conservatives have been saying since the beginning: The Prime Minister's “Net Zero 2050 Plan Will Impose at Least $45 Billion in Costs with Almost No Environmental Benefits”.

If we could reduce that cost, we could ensure that seniors have more money to support themselves. I just posted a bill from one of my seniors, who showed me that he pays more in taxes than the fuel that he receives. We need to cut expenses and leave more money in seniors' pockets.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have such a good time working with the member on committee.

What I have heard from the Conservative leader is that he plans to cut the CPP. That would place seniors in greater poverty. My question is in regard to a guaranteed livable basic income, particularly for women. We know a lot of women work their whole lives in unpaid care work, and they are now becoming seniors living in destitute poverty. We know GIS rates are not keeping up.

Would my hon. colleague support a guaranteed livable income for seniors?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed working with my hon. colleague on committee.

What we need to do is revisit the tax structure in this country. Right now, the tax structure is not fair. If we could reduce taxes and ensure that there is more money left in the pockets of seniors and every individual, we would not even be having this discussion. Seniors have worked their whole lives; the member is correct about that. We need to provide them with the essential necessities of life.

I look forward to making sure that, when we form government, seniors will not be left behind.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Charlottetown.

I am thankful for the opportunity and privilege of rising in the House to participate in today's debate on Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. The legislation would deliver key measures from the 2023 fall economic statement, as well as budget 2023, to help the middle class by stabilizing consumer prices and making housing more affordable by supporting the construction of homes that Canadians very much need.

Our approach to tackling the housing crisis is multi-faceted. On that note, the federal government is collaborating with the provincial and territorial governments across Canada to do a number of things, such as cutting red tape, speeding up permitting approvals, lifting zoning restrictions and, consequently, building more homes much faster. This collaborative effort has already yielded substantial results, as evidenced by the following. There is the construction of more than 71,000 new rental homes through the allocation of over $25 billion in low-cost financing via the rental construction financing initiative. This is an initiative on which I received a lot of calls in my constituency from the developer, who is very interested in participating in it.

We are targeting the construction of over 12,000 affordable homes for those with severe housing needs or those experiencing homelessness through the rapid housing initiative. There will be 12,000 more homes for those who are homeless and 71,000 new rental homes for those looking to rent. We are also providing housing providers with low- or no-cost options to build 4,500 new homes by utilizing over $200 million through the federal lands initiative by repurposing surplus federal lands and buildings. We are now getting involved by providing those surplus federal lands and allocating and working with partners to build homes. In addition, we are investing $6.7 billion in housing for first nations on reserve, as well as Inuit, Métis and first nations self-governing and modern treaty communities.

To maintain pace with our expanding communities, we recognize that rental housing supply must also increase. Builders need access to low-cost financing, which would enable the construction of more new rental units much faster. The federal government has already made significant strides in this direction, but, naturally, there is more to come.

The 2023 fall economic statement announced an additional $15 billion in new loan funding for the apartment construction loan program starting in 2025-26. This supports the construction of an additional 30,000 new units across Canada by bringing the total loan funding to over $40 billion. By 2031-32, this program will have contributed to the support of over 101,000 new apartments for people to live in.

Affordable and community housing also plays a critical role. We were talking about providing housing and rentals and now we are talking about providing affordable and community housing for the most vulnerable Canadians that they can call home. To build more affordable housing for the most vulnerable Canadians, an additional investment to support non-profit co-op and public housing providers has been announcement in the 2023 fall economic statement to build more than 7,000 new co-op homes.

To help build more homes faster, the 2023 fall economic statement also removes the goods and services tax from new rental home construction for co-operative housing corporations providing long-term accommodations, as well as apartment buildings, student housing and seniors' residences. This move, alongside the formal establishment of the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, underscores our commitment to support the construction of homes across Canada.

I am particularly proud of the recent initiative in my riding of Richmond Hill. On Monday, November 27, I joined my hon. colleague, the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities; my neighbour, the member of Parliament for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill; and the mayor of Richmond Hill, His Worship Mayor David West, in announcing an agreement to fast-track over 780 housing units over the next three years in my riding.

This initiative is part of a broader vision to create over 41,500 new homes in the next decade, supported by a $31-million investment from the housing accelerator fund for Richmond Hill.

I am also proud to witness the government's substantive investments in our community that demonstrate what can be achieved with innovation, collaboration and a steadfast resolve to address the housing needs of Canadians in Richmond Hill and across Canada. I congratulate the Municipality of Richmond Hill for its innovative housing action plan and the broader community in Richmond Hill, as well as other municipalities within the York Region that are the recipients of this fund.

In addition to addressing housing needs, the government is acutely aware of the challenges posed by global inflation, particularly the high cost of food, and is actively working to alleviate the burden on Canadians. Recognizing the importance of affordability in daily life, we implemented new measures last fall to make groceries more accessible and more affordable. Key among these initiatives is the amendment of the Competition Act, through Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. This amendment aims to enhance competition in the grocery sector, thereby helping to lower costs and offering Canadians more choices in their grocery shopping.

Furthermore, we are actively working on securing commitments from Canada's five largest grocery chains, which constitute 76% of the market, to assist in stabilizing prices for Canadians. The establishment of a grocery task force further bolsters these efforts. This task force is not only supervising the efforts of major grocers to stabilize prices but also actively monitoring and investigating other practices in the sector, such as shrinkflation. As we move forward, the government remains vigilant and committed to ensuring that Canada's largest grocers uphold their promise to stabilize prices.

The bill would also advance the government's fiscally responsible plan to build a cleaner, stronger economy. It would introduce measures to create well-paying jobs, generate growth and build a cleaner economy that works for everyone by advancing Canada's competitiveness through the implementation of investment tax credits. The government has been in the position to be the third-largest recipient of foreign investments, which is the envy of the world. Investment tax credits are a key part of the government's broader plan to work with industry toward the goal of decarbonization, which includes the carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit.

It is evident that Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, represents a comprehensive approach to some of the most pressing challenges facing our nation, namely affordability, the environment, housing and security. In essence, supporting Bill C-59 means endorsing a strategy that balances economic growth with environmental stewardship and social responsibility. It is a step toward not only addressing the immediate needs of our citizens but also securing a healthier, more prosperous future for Canada.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have to say I am shocked. In his speech, the member mentioned cutting red tape, and breaking news is that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business' Paper Weight Award for the most absurd red tape just went to the Canada Border Services Agency, Health Canada and Finance Canada. What do they all have in common? It is the $54-million ArriveCAN app.

The member sat with me on committee yesterday and voted against a common-sense motion to cut red tape, so he is upside down. He obviously wrote his speech two days ago. Could he clarify how the federal government, with Bill S-6 languishing in the House, is actually cutting red tape and making that a priority?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that the hon. member did appear at the OGGO committee on Monday, which I believe was his first appearance in the many sittings we have had.

However, a motion for study has absolutely nothing to do with cutting red tape, or citing unrelated and unsubstantiated references as a preamble and asking the government to remove all red tape across all services, across all sectors, within 30 days. So, if there is anybody who is upside down, I think it is the member and his party. It is upside down to be asking us, representatives of the people, to remove all regulations and remove all red tape within 30 days across all sectors.

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

Madam Speaker, the government brags about being a great environmentalist and bringing in all the necessary measures to protect the environment. Nevertheless, the government has offered the oil companies tax credits to the tune of $83 billion in the last two budgets. We can add to that the billions of dollars it is giving them to set up carbon capture plants, which the International Energy Agency says are an illusion, an experimental technology.

Can my colleague tell me what real measures the government is going to bring in to truly support the economy and the environment?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the privilege of working with the member as well in our government operations committee, and I find her quite ethical and supportive.

On the environment, our government, from day one, supported measures that protect the environment, which is one of the four pillars that this government has been focused on.

As it relates to the tax credit for businesses, specifically oil and gas, with a focus on capturing CO2, capturing carbon, this is a best practice and it is being done. I am not sure what the hon. member is talking about in that these are phantom policies; they are not, they are best practices. Also, we are working with industry to make sure that not only do we support it in protecting the environment but also enable the labour force, the Canadians who are in that sector, by supporting them through various labour laws.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, as members know, we have an affordable housing crisis in this country. Part of the issue is the current Liberal national housing strategy and the Liberals' definition of affordable. Their definition of affordable is not affordable. We need more affordable housing with rent geared to income. We need more co-op housing. I am wondering if the hon. member across from me feels it necessary to actually create a definition of what “affordable” really is so that more people are not left out on the streets.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, indeed, I agree with the member across that we need more affordable housing, and we need to make sure that the price of the house, whether it is affordable or community-based housing, etc., is reflective of wage growth.

The whole issue of affordability, of being able to secure a home for one's future, is something that our government is committed to and continues to work on. As members heard during question period, we are rolling out, every day, measures to be able to help Canadians secure their homes.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the residents of Charlottetown, the birthplace of Confederation, in support of Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, as tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

These last few weeks, I have had the privilege of spending time in my constituency and having meaningful conversations with residents about their priorities, their concerns and their hopes. In doing so, I have heard their message loud and clear: Canadians want their government to manage the needs of today while having a solid plan for tomorrow. That is why I am pleased that our government’s fall economic statement reconciles these equally urgent demands through a fiscally responsible plan that addresses the concerns of Canadians and lays a foundation for the future.

The statement focuses on several key areas, the first of which is housing. We know that housing is top of mind for Canadians of all ages, from young first-time homebuyers to seniors looking for accessible housing that would allow them to stay in their communities as long as possible. In 2019, this chamber recognized that, in Canada, housing is a human right. Our government is making sure that this right is within reach for everybody, regardless of income or region.

In Prince Edward Island, our housing supply is currently increasing at only a third of the necessary pace for all Islanders to have a place to call home. It is critical that we build more homes, faster. The housing initiatives in Bill C-59 include an additional investment of $15 billion for the apartment construction loan program, which would provide low-cost financing to builders and developers and would speed up financial approvals to federal housing construction programs. These initiatives would directly address the need to increase our housing supply. Indeed, along with existing programs, they would create over 200,000 new homes in the next eight years.

I would like to take a minute to celebrate one of these existing programs, the housing accelerator fund. Since September, our government has signed agreements with municipalities to build over 21,000 new homes from coast to coast. By working with local governments, we are ensuring that we are meeting the unique housing needs of each town and city while also laying the groundwork for long-term housing sustainability.

In Prince Edward Island, one of these agreements has been signed with the City of Summerside. The City of Charlottetown is in the final stages of negotiations to conclude an agreement with the Government of Canada. It has been a long process because the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities has, basically, pushed a hard bargain, but it appears that we are very close to being able to make an announcement. I look forward to that day.

Our government is also increasing access to the existing housing supply by cracking down on non-compliant short-term rentals. Bill C-59 would deny tax deductions for those short-term rental operators who do not abide by the proper provincial and municipal licensing requirements. We would also invest $50 million over three years to support enforcement of municipal restrictions on short-term rentals. I am particularly pleased by this measure as short-term rental regulations came into effect in my riding in the city of Charlottetown just last November, and proper enforcement would bring hundreds of units back into the long-term rental market and would make it easier for Islanders to find a home.

Just to give a little local context, Prince Edward Island is a place with 180,000 people, who receive 1.5 million visitors a year. Therefore, if someone is in the short-term rental market, it is a pretty lucrative business. Because it is a pretty lucrative business, it has a significant impact on the housing stock. That measure contained in the fall economic statement would be a very significant aid to ensure that short-term rental operators stay within the established rules. Those rules have been thoughtfully put together by Charlottetown city council to address the challenge we have around short-term rentals, around the housing stock, which is all tied into how lucrative it is because of how popular Prince Edward Island is during the tourist season.

When we look at housing, our government is addressing not only supply but also affordability. I would like to quote the PEI Fight for Affordable Housing, which advocates for safe, affordable and accessible homes. “Governments must be ready and willing to intervene in the market in order to preserve existing affordable housing which is at risk.”

This is the political leadership that Bill C-59 shows, by removing GST from new co-op rental housing and investing $1 billion over three years to support non-profit, co-op and public housing providers in building more than 7,000 affordable homes by 2028.

These are welcome initiatives that will allow middle- and low-income Canadians to access safe, stable homes to live and thrive in. Again, just in the riding of Charlottetown, a city of 45,000 people, under the national housing strategy we have received more than $80 million and have built or are in the process of building 430 homes. About half of those are deeply affordable under the national co-investment fund or the rapid housing initiative, and the other half are below market rents.

These are not just photo ops. All but one of those projects are built and fully rented. When I say fully rented, I mean no vacancy. That is the case right across Prince Edward Island, with the challenge we have with supply.

For current homeowners, Bill C-59 introduces the Canadian mortgage charter, which looks at new measures for tailored mortgage relief and ensures that Canadians are informed of their mortgage relief options at a time when interest rates are high. This is a crucial initiative that will help homeowners keep their homes through financial difficulty.

Through Bill C-59, we are demonstrating the commitment to support all Canadians, be they renters, potential homebuyers or mortgage-holders, in meeting their housing needs for generations to come.

The fall economic statement also recognizes the challenges facing seasonal workers. Included in the fall economic statement is something called pilot project 22. Pilot project 22 will provide four additional weeks of EI benefits for the regions of this country that have the most seasonal workers. That includes all of Prince Edward Island. This will be a significant benefit to all seasonal workers on P.E.I. It is, however, a band-aid.

It is a band-aid that has been proven necessary by a cynical political manoeuvre that happened to seasonal workers in Prince Edward Island in the dying days of the Harper government, in October 2014, when Stephen Harper split P.E.I. into two zones and, in so doing, favoured one part of the island, pitting islanders against one another. People working beside one another in the same seasonal operation were treated differently at the end of the season.

This is compounded, quite frankly, by the last eight years of our government, during which we have not reversed this cynical manoeuvre. I am here, on behalf of the people of Charlottetown, to say that Stephen Harper should never have done it to us, but it should be fixed by now.

That has been a recommendation from the Standing Committee on Human Resources on a couple of occasions. It has been in the mandate letter of the relevant minister, this one and the previous one, but we are still in a situation in which we are putting a band-aid on this problem. That band-aid will help those who are eligible for EI, but it does not help those who are not eligible and who are on welfare because their period ran out because of what Stephen Harper did.

That is the situation. It is a good thing as far as it goes.

Over the last eight years our government has introduced a Canada child benefit, which has lifted over 400,000 children out of poverty since 2015. We have worked with the provinces to deliver $10-a-day child care, which will deliver 250,000 new affordable child care spaces by 2026. Through these measures, we will continue to support families.

The measures I have highlighted, as well as all others contained in the fall economic statement, build on the work that we have already done and set the stage for the next few years.

I am, again, pleased to speak to this ambitious, fiscally responsible statement and how it will address the needs of hard-working Canadians. I encourage every member of this chamber to support the statement and vote in favour of Bill C-59.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the rosy picture that the member across paints, but in his own province it would appear that there are 700 families each month going to a food bank, which is an increase of 200 per month over two years. In 2015, the average rent in P.E.I. was $790 a month. It is now more than $1,750 a month. Violent crime, from 2021 to 2022, in one year, increased 5.5%. Could this member please explain to all those great Canadians who are listening, including those in P.E.I., why the great job his government is doing has led to the crime and chaos, doubling of mortgages and doubling of rent that we see all across this great country for which his government is responsible? Shame on you.

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

That is shame on, “through the Chair”.

The hon. member for Charlottetown.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I also expect, as someone who has advocated so strongly and so successfully for the removal of HST on psychotherapy services, that the member will be supporting Bill C-59. I expect that it is in Bill C-59 because of the member's advocacy.

There is no denying that we are in tough economic times. There is absolutely no denying that and that is the reason for the measures that are in Bill C-59. That is the reason for $10-a-day child care. These measures are working. There is a lot of work to do; I acknowledge that. There are people who are hurting and we will continue to be there for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, the budget statement was read for the first time last fall. It is now the end of January, and February is just around the corner. We expect a budget to be presented in March or April.

At the rate things are going, does the member really expect his government to successfully get bills passed? It seems to me that the Liberals' legislative calendar has been very sparse for the past two or three years.

Does my colleague sincerely expect to see this bill passed before the next budget? Are we doing all this for absolutely nothing?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. Things are really very difficult here in the House. There is not a lot of collaboration. In the last parliamentary period, a lot of legislative acrobatics went on to delay the progress of any bill introduced by the government.

I look forward to seeing this bill pass. I am sure it will benefit my constituents and Canadians as a whole. However, the pace of this whole process depends on all of the members here. The lack of co-operation is real, and sometimes I think it does not necessarily serve the best interests of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his comments, the member mentioned just how long it has been taking for the Liberal government to take action on employment insurance reform. Recently, there was a social services tribunal ruling that says that denying women access to their regular employment insurance benefits for having taken employment insurance maternity leave is a case of clear gender discrimination within the employment insurance system. Would the member agree that this is something that should also be fixed on an expedited basis?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I am repeatedly told as to why the zoning problem in Prince Edward Island has not been fixed is that the government is intent on a major overhaul of the entire EI system. That, for me, is frustrating, but that would give the chance to solve my problem and the problem identified by the hon. member.

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

Mr. Speaker, the federal government and the Prime Minister has been trying to work with municipalities. We have had the Minister of Housing going across the entire country, talking to mayors and to councils to work out deals on how the federal government can support building housing throughout our country and yet we see the Leader of the Opposition trying to bully mayors, calling them incompetent and subjecting them to ridicule through his platforms at every opportunity he gets. Which approach does the member think is better and more constructive at getting houses built across the country in a way that will benefit Canadians?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, this confrontational approach has no place here. It has no place anywhere. It certainly has no place in intergovernmental relations.

The model that was used by the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities to urge Charlottetown along to get on board with the housing accelerator fund is one that is going to bear fruit, and it is one that displays a level of respect that is merited among public leaders at all levels.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a moment off the top to ensure the memory of my father is forever etched into the record of this place. Over the holidays, my brother and I, and our families, suddenly lost our father, Michael Lantsman, whose sacrifices were the sacrifices of heroes. We know that he could not wait to see the love of his life and the centre of our universe, whom we lost three years ago, my mother, Ora Lantsman, in the next world.

Together, I think they are reunited knowing that they built a life for us, which has given me the opportunity to ensure that Canadians will know their selflessness, their sacrifices and their hardship as I will continue to be guided by the values they imparted and to tell their story, as I have in the House. Their story is the story of so many Canadians who chose this country, made it their home and built a better life than the one they left behind. His memory will be a blessing, and I certainly will make sure of that.

I will go back to the regularly scheduled programming. For some, the holiday break was a chance to rest, to see family and to do important work in the community. However, for the Prime Minister, it was a chance, again, to flaunt the rules and to demonstrate just how out of touch he is.

Let me start by saying that the Prime Minister has bad judgment. We have seen it. This is a guy who thought it would be a good idea to dress in blackface, to dress up in costumes on a business trip, to flagrantly and blatantly break ethics laws multiple times and to confide trust in ministers who do exactly the same things.

We were still shocked to see him accept a free luxury stay last month valued at over $84,000. Mr. Speaker, $84,000 is more than the average family makes in a year. It is a sum that could buy 20,000 meals for a homeless shelter. It is a sum that translates to over $9,000 a night. I would be very interested to learn from the Prime Minister at a future question period what $9,000 a night might buy.

I would be even more interested to learn why he did not have the common sense to refuse that free stay, knowing just how ethically dubious and out of touch it was. It is evidenced, of course, by the PMO changing its story three times on who paid for the luxury vacation and when. Let me say, and I think Canadians would agree, that the Prime Minister has every right to take some time off, as do all Canadians.

However, that luxury vacation, its cost, its size and its magnitude, is just another example of conveniently deciding to set aside any personal or professional principles to profit from his status in office. It further proves that he is simply out of touch, and it underlines that he understands nothing about the Canadian middle class.

The fundamental truth is that the Prime Minister, who is so comfortable in the lap of luxury, cannot pretend to understand Canadians who are struggling. It is evidenced by this bill we have seen in the House that fails to meet the needs of the middle class, to meet the needs of struggling Canadians from coast to coast to coast who tell their MPs, and I am sure they hear it on the other side, of their struggles.

We now have rent prices that have doubled. We have seen the reports throughout Christmas. Housing prices have doubled under the government. The cost of home heating has doubled. The price of groceries has increased by 25% this year, all after eight years of a Liberal government led by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister says that Canadians from all walks of life who are struggling, because of statistics like this, are just “grumpy”. That is what he said in a year-end interview.

I have to say to the Prime Minister that “grumpy” is something that happens when, perhaps, one's private jet breaks down, or when the custom sock store runs out of one's favourite pair. What is happening right now is not people being “grumpy”. These are people who are faced with the fear and the anxiety that come with thinking about the survival of their families. These are people confronting the reality that their generation, or their kids, might not be better off than they were. That is real fear and anxiety in the Canadian public right now.

People fear for their lives in the face of violent crime, which is up 39% since 2015, and gang-related crime, which has doubled. People are scared when they are faced with the highest murder rate in 30 years. People in the GTA cannot even park their car in the laneway because auto theft is up 50% in just two years; it is up 217% since the Prime Minister has come to office. That is if they are lucky enough to even have a laneway at all, because to buy a home in Toronto, one needs to commit nearly 85% of one's income just for housing costs.

Under the Prime Minister, Canada is still on track to have the worst economic growth out of 40 OECD countries, while inflation and high interest rates take more money out of Canadians’ pockets and off their paycheques. Housing remains unaffordable thanks to the refusal to force gatekeepers to get out of the way and actually build homes.

On top of this, it is the former immigration minister who broke our immigration system and overwhelmed our housing market with policies that, according to his own cabinet colleague, the current immigration minister, caused the system to get “out of control”. Despite this, and, as usual, people fail upwards in the current government, the minister’s failure was recognized when he became the new housing minister. He is expected to fix the problem that they in fact created over the last eight years. As well, two million people a month visit food banks just to put a decent meal on the table, or worse, they go without.

The response to all of this is the fall economic statement. It is an anemic response to a country that so many beyond these walls do not recognize anymore. We know the source of the misery, and we all want it to be over. It is out-of-control government spending that drives up the cost of the goods we buy and the interest we pay. It is the out-of-control taxes that make it more unaffordable to buy a home, to put gas in the car or to buy groceries. It is the out-of-control bureaucracy that makes it harder to build things and to create good-paying jobs. The solution, of course, is to cut spending, cut taxes and cut the bureaucracy, but instead, the bill would continue the deficit spending that is putting us way beyond our means.

Now Canadians are realizing that the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. However, this is what we expect and this is what we get after eight years of the Liberal government. We should now expect that the government will do the opposite of the rational thing. We should expect that the Prime Minister is going to remain detached from the everyday realities and ignore every single point of view that differs from his own.

The country needs a lot of change after eight years. We cannot trust the people who have gotten us into this mess to get us out of it. After a cabinet retreat in a downtown luxury hotel about the middle class, of course, far away from anyone in the middle class, and after a Christmas when Canadians actually cut back without anyone over there taking notice, my Conservative colleagues and I are looking forward to a day when we can see a fall economic statement that actually addresses the misery that Canadians have been telling us about every single time we are at home in our communities.

There is going to be a clear choice. People can have the Liberals, who will raise taxes and inflate regulation and red tape, pump up inflation and interest rates and let crime, chaos, drugs and disorder run rampant, or they can have Conservatives, with a simple plan of axing the tax. We are going to build homes, fix the budget and stop crime. That will be the future choice for Canadians. It is a future where housing is affordable and food is affordable, where communities are safe, and where our nation is strong at home and back to being respected abroad. We know that future is possible, because we knew it before. Life was not like this before the current government, and life will not be like this when it is gone.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see my friend from a neighbouring riding stand in the House and speak to the fall economic statement. Again, to the member for Thornhill, I give my condolences on her father's passing.

In the city of Vaughan a few months ago, we announced an investment of $59 million from the housing accelerator fund to assist the City of Vaughan in accelerating the approval and development of housing projects for homes for individuals who live in our city and families who are moving to our city. There are about 7,000 to 10,000 people a year who move to the city of Vaughan, which the hon. member is well aware of. Much like the hon. member at one time worked in a private administration that collaborated with the provincial government to announce the building of the subway that is now in the city of Vaughan, the government is collaborating with the City of Vaughan with a $59-million investment.

Does the hon. member not agree with this investment, which will benefit the city of Vaughan and the residents, current and future, who will live in the member's riding, in my riding and in the other member's riding?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the member opposite and my neighbour standing in fancy photo ops with the mayors and the housing minister making announcements, the homes have not been built in Vaughan.

In fact, after eight years of the Prime Minister, rent has doubled in Vaughan, the price of a house has almost doubled in Vaughan, the price of a mortgage interest rate payment has doubled in Vaughan, and it used to take 25 years to pay off a mortgage in Vaughan and now it takes most people in the GTA 25 years to save for a down payment. I am not sure why the member opposite is patting himself on the back, but I will not support his fancy photo ops.

Conservatives will get houses built. We will get the private sector to put shovels in the ground.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to give my condolences on the loss of the member's loved one.

I already kind of know what the Conservative government would look like. Under the leadership of the member for Carleton, in his nine years in government, we saw 800 affordable homes lost under his watch. He supported the Liberals in a $55-billion tax cut to CEOs. We know the number of Canadians living in poverty increased, health care funding was cut by $43.5 billion, nine veteran support offices were closed and, worst of all, under his watch, the retirement age for seniors moved to age 67. I already know the story, because I have seen the same old Liberal-Tory story since the beginning.

I know that the Conservatives talk a good game about affordable housing when their real plan is to line the pockets of investors. I want to ask the member a very specific question. Is her government committed to building rent-geared-to-income co-op and public housing?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her condolences.

At every opportunity, and I think the member's constituents ought to know this, she supports the Liberal government, and it is at every single stage of the game and in every single confidence vote, to raise taxes, to put forward a photo op plan for building more houses. There is innumerable waste on that side.

This is what a Conservative government would look like. It would be a government that takes care of people and does not line the pockets of its own friends.

I like that the member opposite asks what the future government will look like. I think she should get used to saying that. We will certainly put forward a plan when that time comes.

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

We are out of time but before moving on to the next member, I believe the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot has a point of order to speak to.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Chair.

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

I thank the hon. member for that apology.

Continuing debate, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to speak in the year of Our Lord 2024.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope members sort out among themselves just what the apology is for, given that memories seem to be somewhat short here.

I am rather hoping that I can bring a bit more light than heat to this debate. I propose to divide my remarks into three parts. The first part is to actually refer to the fall economic statement. I know that is a novel idea. The second part is to canvass why Canadians are pessimistic about the economy. Then, in an aside, I will compare that to why Americans are pessimistic about their economy.

With that, there is no doubt a disconnect between the economic metrics and how Canadians are feeling about their general state of welfare. If we open the fall economic statement, the first chart shows that Canada is number one in the G7 for real GDP growth. If I said that at the front door of some member of my constituency, they would probably close the door on me. Maybe they would be polite, and maybe they would not. Nevertheless, those are the facts. Our peer nations are not experiencing economic growth at the rate that Canada is experiencing economic growth, and I would contrast that to the concerns Canadians have about their economic welfare and ask them if they would prefer to be at the bottom of the G7 growth spectrum.

The second chart has to do with foreign investment. It appears that foreign investors have a great deal of confidence in Canada's prospects, as we are third in the world, and probably second, since the United States necessarily attracts by far the most investment.

The third chart is with respect to the budgetary balance projections for G7 nations. As Sir John A. Macdonald used to say, “Don't compare me to the Almighty. Compare me to the alternative.” The alternatives are Germany, Japan, the U.K., Italy, France and the U.S. We are number one in terms of budgetary projections. For all the harping, whining and complaining we hear in this chamber about the management of the fiscal framework, Canada is number one, and dramatically ahead of our neighbour to the south.

The fourth chart is on consumer price inflation, which has fallen over the course of the last 12 months by about four points, a significant drop in inflation.

Only economists could possibly be interested in some of these other charts. They are very difficult to convey to folks. I sometimes wonder why they put these charts into these economic statements, but they do.

In real GDP growth in G7 economies from Q1 of 2022 to Q2 of 2023, Canada is again number one in economic growth.

On employment and the change in employment, again, Canada is number one, way ahead of all the other nations. In fact, Japan and the U.K. have experienced negative employment growth since 2020.

I appreciate that trying to convince people, based on charts, about Canada's management of the fiscal framework, the monetary policy and the economy generally is somewhat of a challenge, and I have probably already lost the chamber. Having said that, it is a necessary setting in order to address the concerns Canadians have about their own economic well-being. I would just make the point over again about whether Canadians would prefer this government and this Parliament to address their concerns from a different position in the charts I have just mentioned. Would they like to be last in economic growth? Would they like to have challenges with employment? This is the environment in which we operate, and I think it is a necessary corrective to some of the conversation I have heard today.

If we ask what the concerns of Canadians are, economic uncertainty is their number one concern, along with income inequality, housing affordability, job market challenges, high household debts, climate change and environmental concerns, and global economic trends.

I put the economic uncertainties in the context of global events. We have had a Ukrainian war, the Middle Eastern war and instability in Asia-Pacific. These concerns are of great significance to Canada, particularly as Canada is a trading nation; a great deal of our GDP depends on trade. We have yet to see how the rerouting of ships in the Suez Canal area is going to affect Canadian prospects; it is necessarily going to be an added cost to the cost of goods and services in this country. We have yet to see that play through, but it is a dispute that Canadians are internalizing and recognizing, and I expect that the result will be an increase in commodity prices.

Income inequality is a serious concern, and I have to say that, over the course of this government, there have been a number of really innovative initiatives on addressing income inequality. The first, and one of the most significant in my riding, is the Canada child benefit. Because I have a relatively impoverished riding with quite a number of children, that means something in the order of $100 million a year into my riding alone. If it is not the number one riding in Canada, then I think it is one of the higher-ranked ridings for the receipt of the Canada child benefit. It is similar with the Canada workers benefit and the child care initiative. These are all concerns that have been internalized by Canadians and create anxiety, but the address by the government is well placed in terms of addressing issues of income inequality.

Finally, before you open the trap door and make me disappear, Mr. Speaker, I thought it would be interesting to compare what Americans' concerns are as opposed to ours. A number of the concerns are clearly shared: income inequality, stagnant wages, job insecurity and cost of living. One is student loan debt. We recollect that President Biden tried to do something about it, but Congress has defeated him on that. Furthermore, Americans are deeply disturbed by their health care costs, even with Obamacare. There is also political polarization and policy uncertainty. We cannot turn on a television without commentary on the almost intractable policy and partisan contrast. Those last three things are not challenges that this country faces thus far, thank goodness, but they do cause a level of anxiety. Moreover, we somewhat reflect the concerns of Americans here with respect to our own economic uncertainty.

The reconciliation between the metrics of this economy and how people are feeling about their own personal economy is the challenge of this government and this Parliament, and it will continue to vex us all. The government has taken a number of initiatives, such as the housing initiatives, that can ameliorate the immediate effects.

Therefore, I encourage colleagues to support this bill, recognizing fully that they are hearing the same thing that we are hearing at the door: Canadians are concerned about their own personal situation.

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

I want to assure the hon. member that I have no trap door anywhere in this chamber, even though there are times that I do wish I had one.

With questions and comments, we have the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between affordable housing and social housing. One is barely 10% below market value. The other offers services and ongoing support, which is something older people in particular need. Speaking of older people, some people aged 65 to 74 are in good shape, others not so much. Creating two classes of seniors is a problem, especially for women, who were not able to put as much away for retirement because they were looking after children and being family caregivers.

Here is what I want to ask my colleague. Recent budgets and the latest economic update did not put an end to this discrimination against seniors. When will the government take care of that?

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

Mr. Speaker, on the category of seniors, of which I am a proud member, I too share the concern of the hon. member. I take note of the irony that, when there was a boost for post-75 seniors, there was not a boost for those 65 to 75. The point being that, from a policy standpoint, the older one gets, the less able one is to adjust to economic uncertainty. I am sure that the hon. member would agree with me that our senior seniors are the people we should address first. I think the government has done an admirable job in that area.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was an interesting presentation. I am sure that the Canadians out there who are $200 away from insolvency every month were absolutely riveted by that information, telling them how great their lives are, when we know that violent crime in and around Toronto is up around 15%.

We know that Toronto has one of the worst housing bubbles in the entire world. We know that rent has gone up, doubled. We know that mortgages have doubled and that it is almost unaffordable for anybody to live in Toronto, certainly for newcomers to Canada wanting to move there.

I would like the member to rectify for all of us here, and for all of the Canadians watching, the incredibly boring and non-enlightening way the rosy picture of Canada was presented, when Canadians know that, every month, two million of them are visiting a food bank. As I said at the start, they are $200 away from insolvency.

Could the member tell us how this equates to this great job that his government is doing?

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

Mr. Speaker, generally my colleagues do not describe my speeches as boring in public. They may privately say that my speeches are boring. I feel badly for the hon. gentleman, who missed the central point of the speech.

The central point of the speech is that the metrics of the country are very good. Would he prefer, in Nova Scotia, to have 10% unemployment, or would he prefer to have 4% unemployment? Would he prefer to be dealing with the challenges of his constituents with 4% unemployment or 10% unemployment?

I regret that the hon. member finds my remarks boring, but maybe, if he had paid a little bit more attention, he would have been able to articulate the central dilemma I was speaking to.

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

Mr. Speaker, he mentioned how proud this government is. The Liberals are proud of the child care program they put forward, which, of course, New Democrats worked very hard to push this government on, and we are happy to see it. There is value there for his constituents, and certainly mine, in ensuring that especially women can come into the workplace and participate in greater levels.

That is very necessary for the growth of our economy. However, one thing the Liberals have not done is to ensure that those who work within child care are paid adequately. Potentially, could the hon. member explain the future plans of the Liberal government to do so, so that we could ensure that those who are taking care of children while we are at work, and we know that we need that excellent care, those in that sector, are being provided with livable wages?

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

We are out of time.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood with a quick answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are out of time but you are not going to pull the trap door. Thanks.

The hon. member raises an interesting issue, and this is where the $10-a-day day care comes in. This is largely a program that is funded by the Government of Canada for, in our case, the Government of Ontario. The provision of the quality of the day care worker and the wages he or she receives and the quality of the workplace are largely dependent upon the Province of Ontario.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House this evening and speak for a few minutes about the fall economic statement and Bill C-59. Of course fall has turned to winter, and yet the topics we have been debating in this piece of legislation are as relevant as ever, particularly the topic of housing. That is where I will focus my remarks this evening.

The need for affordable housing is an issue in every single community in northwest B.C. I know many members in this House are familiar with what is going on in northwest B.C., particularly the level of investment in industrial development. That has brought opportunity for many people. There are many people making good incomes in various industrial industries, but not everyone.

I remember, months ago, talking to a fellow on his doorstep in the city of Terrace. He was a carpenter. He was working on the construction of the new hospital in the city, a much-needed and much-awaited project. He told me about his struggles affording rental housing. He was renting what I believe was a modest two-bedroom townhouse. He had two kids with a third on the way. He said that he and his partner needed more space but they just could not afford it.

There are many people in that situation and people who are earning even less. When we think about people working in the service industry, there are many people who are struggling to make ends meet and struggling with the cost of housing. What we have heard in this debate is that both the Liberals and the Conservatives are relying almost solely on the market to provide housing solutions. As for the ideas that they have presented, whether it is the idea of browbeating what they are calling municipal gatekeepers or building density near transit hubs, northwest B.C. does not have transit hubs. It barely has public transit. These are not ideas that translate to rural British Columbia.

We need different ideas. We need a government that is committed, in particular, to building the infrastructure that our communities need. In cities like Prince Rupert, that means a major investment in water infrastructure. In the city of Terrace, in the town of Smithers, in the small community of Port Clements, people are struggling, and communities are struggling with the cost of infrastructure, like waste water and drinking water. That is what is needed in order to facilitate the expansion of housing development. These communities would welcome private sector development, public sector development, but they cannot do it without the infrastructure.

I will leave it there, and look forward to continuing my remarks at a future date.

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

It being 6:18 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from January 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement and certain provisions of the 2023 budget.

The last two years have not only tested our resilience but have also set the stage for an economic transformation, one that is responsible and forward-thinking. One million more Canadians are employed now compared to when the pandemic started. This remarkable recovery is not just a number. It represents families sustaining themselves and a nation moving forward.

Our unemployment rate at 5.8% is quite low by historical standards. After peaking at 8.2% in June 2022, the inflation rate is trending downward and was at 3.4% in December 2023. Wages have consistently outpaced inflation for many months, which is a trend that speaks volumes about our economic health.

On January 24, the Bank of Canada announced it would hold the key interest rate at 5%.

Governor Tiff Macklem said:

With overall demand in the economy no longer running ahead of supply, Governing Council's discussion of monetary policy is shifting from whether our policy rate is restrictive enough to restore price stability, to how long it needs to stay at the current level.

With softer growth this year, inflation rates in most advanced economies are expected to come down slowly, reaching central bank targets in 2025. As I have been saying for a long time, we can see the possibility of interest rate reversal starting mid-2024.

At the macro level, we are on the cusp of a new era, an era defined by rapid global changes particularly in how we address climate change. Today we stand at the brink of a global economic transformation driven by the shift to a clean economy. This is not just a change; it is an unprecedented investment opportunity. The transition to renewable energy, sustainable practices and green technologies is reshaping markets worldwide and unlocking new avenues for economic growth and innovation.

By 2030, the global market for clean technologies is projected to exceed trillions of dollars, offering vast potential for countries and investors that are proactive in this space. This shift promises not only environmental benefits but also substantial economic gains, with millions of new jobs expected. Embracing this change means positioning ourselves at the forefront of a green economic revolution, attracting international investment and establishing global leadership in a rapidly evolving market. This is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss.

As we pivot toward renewable energy sources, electric vehicles and energy-efficient technologies, we are tapping into a market that is rapidly expanding globally. On renewable energy, as we look toward the next decade, the global economic potential of renewable energy is immense and transformative.

According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, renewable energy could account for around 60% of the world's power by 2030, which is up from about 25% in recent years. This shift represents an investment opportunity of up to $10 trillion by 2050.

For Canada, the prospects are equally promising. The Canadian Renewable Energy Association predicts significant growth, with renewable energy potentially contributing up to 40% of Canada's electricity by 2030. This transition, which aligns with Canada's commitment to a net-zero economy by 2050, could stimulate billions in investment and create thousands of jobs, which would position Canada as a leader in the renewable energy sector.

This transition is expected to create millions of jobs worldwide, offering diverse opportunities in sectors like manufacturing, technology and services. Moreover, investing in a clean economy positions Canada as a leader in green technology, attracting global investment and fostering economic resilience.

As we embark on this journey, we are not just safeguarding our involvement but also fuelling a dynamic, future-oriented economy. Our economic plan is not just a response to this global shift but a proactive strategy to ensure that Canadian workers and businesses are not just participants but leaders in the clean economy.

Our plan is not just a blueprint; it is already yielding tangible results. In just over three years, we have initiated more than 90 clean-growth projects worth over $40 billion, including private investments. These projects span across Canada, bringing economic growth to every region and offering quality jobs to the middle class.

The world has taken notice of Canada's potential. The OECD ranking, which places Canada third globally for foreign direct investment in the first half of 2023, is a clear indicator of our competitive advantage. We have what it takes to thrive in the 21st century's clean economies from our rich natural resources, like critical minerals, to our competency in research and innovation, to our skilled and diverse workforce.

Our stable political and economic institutions further cement our position as a prime destination for global business. Canada's clean economy jobs plan is more than a policy. It is a commitment to leveraging our unique advantages. It is about attracting investment and creating jobs across the country, ensuring that every Canadian benefits from this economic shift.

I want to highlight a cornerstone of Canada's future: our critical minerals strategy. The demand for critical minerals, essential for low-carbon technologies, is set to skyrocket. Canada, a global leader in mining, is rich in these minerals. Our mining sector, with a presence in nearly 100 countries and a market capitalization of over $500 billion, is not just an economic powerhouse; it is a testament to our sustainable and responsible approach to resource management. Our critical minerals strategy is more than just an economic plan. It is a vision for sustainable growth and innovation.

Canada is uniquely positioned with abundant resources in critical minerals like lithium, cobalt and nickel; elements essential for the clean energy transition. Our approach is twofold: sustainable extraction and global leadership in supply chains for technologies like electric vehicles and renewable energy. We are not just extracting minerals; we are building partnerships, ensuring environmental stewardship and creating high-quality jobs. This strategy is an integral part of Canada's commitment to a greener future and economic resilience.

We are leveraging our natural wealth responsibly, ensuring that Canada plays a pivotal role in the global low-carbon economy. One of our most ambitious goals is building Canada's electric vehicle battery supply chain. The next decade heralds a transformative era for electric vehicles, marking a significant shift in both global and Canadian economies. According to BloombergNEF, the electric vehicle market is projected to grow to 54 million vehicles globally by 2040, up from three million in 2020. This surge represents a potential market value of $2 trillion.

In Canada, with government commitments to ban sales of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035, the electric vehicle market is expected to expand exponentially. As per Statistics Canada, the shift could generate over $3 billion in electric vehicle sales by 2026, stimulating job creation and technological innovation.

This electrifying transition not only signals a green future but also an economic catalyst for sustainable growth. As the world moves toward electric vehicles, Canada is uniquely positioned to be a leader in this industry. Our skilled workforce and comprehensive supply chain, from mineral extraction to battery manufacturing, set us apart.

To support this growth, the federal government has secured significant investments in the electric vehicle and battery supply chain. These investments, totalling over $34 billion since 2020, are not just about economic growth, they are about securing the future for Canada's auto supply chain workers and their families.

Major projects like Volkswagen and Stellantis-LG Energy Solution in Ontario, and Northvolt in Quebec, represent a new era for Canada's electric vehicle industry.

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

Madam Speaker, the fall economic statement is a continuation of government budgets and policies from the past that reinforce the importance of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, and build in many support programs to assist individuals in many different ways, whether it is the Canada child benefit or the dental care benefit.

I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to why it is so important that we move forward with a dental plan.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, as government, we have taken so many measures over the last eight years and more to encourage more Canadians to participate in economic activity. For example, there is the Canada child benefit, the early learning and child care program. These help to improve women's participation in the economic workforce.

The recent dental care benefit ensures the health of many low-income Canadians and the senior citizens of our country. It contributes to the economic health of Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague spent most of his speech talking about the fact that Canada should be a world leader in building a low-carbon economy.

Unfortunately, this economic statement's proposed approach to reducing Canada's carbon emissions is very weak. Canada is the laughingstock of the G7 due to its low environmental ambitions and, worse, poor environmental performance.

The question I have for my colleague deals with housing. In the economic statement there is an entire chapter on housing, and yet it contains nothing of substance, except for the part on cutting the GST, but we know that is not going to do much to solve the housing crisis.

What can this economic statement do? When will the government understand that there is an urgency to build affordable and social housing?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the reasons I entered politics is one of the three objectives.

The first objective was affordable housing. I am so glad that our government has not only made the commitment but has actually put dollars behind that commitment. Housing is not just a federal issue. Basically, housing comes from the supply that is controlled by the city. The provinces have a very major role in housing.

Where possible and where applicable, the federal government has stepped in, backed by the funding that is available. When somebody asks me about affordable housing, I ask them, “Where is the proposal?” There is money in the bank to fund affordable housing units to be built across Canada.

Also, the federal government is sending agreements directly to the municipalities across Canada. We are providing incentives through funding to make changes at the local level that would enable an increase in the housing supply.

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

Madam Speaker, related to the economic measures in this bill, it is no secret that the massive profits we are seeing in some corporate sectors and the high food price inflation Canadians are facing are directly linked. We have heard the Minister of Industry express many times in the House and out in the public that he is disappointed with grocery CEOs who have seen their profits and profit margins double since 2019.

I would just like to know when the Liberal Party is going to get serious on this, tackle the corporate greed and make sure that food prices start to go down for Canadians so they can afford to feed their families.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, the inflation rate that peaked in June 2022 at 8.2% has come down to 3.4% as of December 2023. The grocery prices have started slowly coming down, but not to the extent that is comfortable for most Canadians. I expect that in the coming months, the general, overall inflation, including the prices at the grocery stores, will come down, and the pain being faced by Canadians will be addressed.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to rise on behalf of the residents and businesses of Barrie—Innisfil to speak to Bill C-59, the fall economic statement.

When my four kids were growing up, there was a TV show with Barney, the purple dinosaur, and the lyrics of one of its famous songs went:

If all the raindrops were lemon drops and gumdrops
Oh, what a rain that would be!

If we were to listen to the Liberals debating the fall economic statement, or anything to do with their economic policy, we would think that Canadians had never had it any better and that things are rosy across the land. I can tell members that, after spending the last six weeks in Barrie—Innisfil speaking to residents and businesses, things are dire right now. They are dire for many reasons for a lot of families, and I will focus on what I heard from my residents and the businesses of Barrie—Innisfil over the last six weeks. In fact, I have been hearing from them for a long time because many of the economic policies that the government has implemented have disproportionately affected Barrie—Innisfil residents and businesses in a way that many may never recover from.

The first thing I will focus on is the carbon tax. We live an hour north of Toronto and do not have access to mass transit like they do in the city of Toronto. We have a Barrie transit system and a GO transit system that gets us where we need to go for special events in Toronto, for example, or from point A to point B in Barrie. However, the difficulty for many people who live in Barrie is that they drive, so they are being impacted by the cost of the carbon tax on their gas bills as they go to work, visit family and take their kids to hockey.

In many cases, hockey does not just happen in Barrie, but all over Ontario. I know that first-hand from having two kids who played AAA hockey. My wife and I often talk about the circumstance where she would be in Belleville and I would be in Peterborough, separately, each with one of our kids playing hockey, and the impact the carbon tax would have had on us as a family at that time. We could barely afford to put our kids in hockey then. I cannot imagine what families are going through right now having to pay the carbon tax on their fuel and everything else, such as heating, whether that is residential or for a business.

I had a bill sent to me today from a local business owner, who runs a restaurant, and his carbon tax, just last month, was $1,431. Members can assume for a second that this restaurant works off of 10% margins. They would have to sell an extra 14,000 dollars' worth of goods or services just to pay for the carbon tax. The fact is that the carbon tax is going to quadruple, so they would have to pay more. Certainly, the business would not get any of that back in a rebate.

Many families are showing me their gas bills, as I have asked them to, and they are saying the same thing, which is that they are not getting back in total what they are paying for gas, for natural gas or for groceries. They are not getting back from the carbon rebate, as the government claims, an equal amount to what they are paying in the carbon tax. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer spoke about exactly that. Many more families are getting less back in the rebate than they are paying in carbon tax, and it is disproportionately affecting low-income Canadians. Many of them are in my riding of Barrie—Innisfil.

I have, as we all have, sent out newsletters and mailers, and we have the ability to ask a question on the back of a mailer. There has been no other issue that I received more responses on than the issue of the carbon tax. The question was simple: Do you support the carbon tax?

I can say that, out of the hundreds of responses I got back from Barrie—Innisfil residents and businesses, 82.5% said that they do not support the carbon tax, 15% said they did, and 2.5% had no response. This was out of the hundreds of responses that were sent back. Also, there was an option to give comments, and here are some of the responses:

“What are they doing with the tax?” asked D.B. in Barrie. Another said, “I would be interested about what improvement our carbon tax collected has made on the climate change so far.”

We have already heard, through various reports, that our emissions have not been reduced significantly, save and except during COVID. That stands to reason because nobody was driving or doing anything at that time. The economy was effectively shut down.

We need to do much more to stop climate change, but I do not believe that the carbon tax in Canada is doing anything to change it.

H. H. in Innisfil wrote, “The carbon tax on home heating is unfair”, while another said, “Don't believe it effectively encourages less fuel consumption”.

D. Morrison from Barrie wrote, “The Government has no idea what goes on in the real country for the average person.” Another constituent wrote, “I pay 62% of my pension in tax. It is obvious to me that this money is not being spent in my best interest”.

Now we hear that the government, because it feels that it has a narrative problem with respect to the carbon tax, is effectively going to try to put lipstick on a pig. It is going to change that narrative. It is going to try to advertise it in a way that more people understand it.

I can tell members that people do understand. They understand when they see their gas bill, go to the grocery store and put gas in their car that the carbon tax is costing them more. When we tax the farmer who produces the food, the shipper who moves the food, the producers and wholesalers who look after the food for distribution and the grocery stores, who ends up paying more? It is the consumer. How bad is it in this country? There are two million people using food banks.

I had an opportunity last week to visit the Barrie Food Bank. It told me that its utilization was 150% greater in December than it was the December before. It is seeing people using the food bank like it has never seen before. It is multi-generational as well. Families are coming in utilizing the food bank as though it were a grocery store because they cannot afford to buy food.

I was also at the Innisfil food bank. What precipitated my visit, in addition to donating $1,312.50 as a result of some fundraising that we did specifically for the food bank, was an email from its director, who wrote:

I finished the yearly report for the Innisfil Food Bank so am sharing some of the stats here. We have seen an overall increase of 29% over the course of the year. The majority (43%) of our visitors attended the food bank between 2 and 5 times this past year. 24% of our clients came 6-12 times/year. Our busiest months were October (our highest ever) and January (which is pretty standard). Over 55% of our people are supporting dependants.

The food bank's increase is consistent, or even less, than what we are seeing across the country, and there again is that multi-generational use. The email continues:

We are seeing an increase in multi-generational homes. This means that someone is supporting both children and parents or grandparents are supporting their own kids but also their grandkids.

This is in a G7 country where we are supposed to have abundance, where people are not just simply supposed to scrape by, but have the dignity of work, producing a paycheque and providing for their family. That is sadly not happening.

What we have seen with this fall economic statement is the government commit to another $20 billion in spending with no fiscal guardrails. We have debt and deficit increasing like we have never seen before in this country. Interest rates are continually at a level where they become unaffordable.

The other thing I heard about was the impact of mortgage rates and how it is affecting Barrie—Innisfil homeowners.

I was doing the Salvation Army kettle in Stroud. I had a self-employed person come up to me who said their bank would not provide them with a mortgage. That person had to go to a secondary lender, not at 4% or 5%, but at 9%, and will be at risk of losing their home. Mortgages are up for renewal for 900,000 homes in this country over the next three years, and as a result of the fiscal policy of the government, many are at risk.

Conservatives are going to be focused on four things in this session of Parliament: axing the tax; building homes; making sure we help the government fix the budget, with suggestions that are going to do that; and stopping crime. There is only one alternative to govern in this country, and that is Canada's Conservatives, so we can have common sense for everyone and restore common sense and decency for people in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to reinforce that the Conservatives used to say “triple, triple, triple”, and now they have the “four priorities” they are trying to sell Canadians on. It is the government expenditure one that really worries me. That is the hidden agenda item. We know one of the hidden agenda items is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am going to stop the hon. member. There seem to be conversations going back and forth, and I actually heard somebody yelling as well. I ask members to please be respectful. If they want to have conversations, they should take them outside. If they want to make a comment, they should wait for questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things we do know is that the Conservative Party is going to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Imagine; that is $10 billion of government money, along with—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry; I just indicated that if individuals want to ask questions or make comments, they need to wait until the appropriate time. I am sure that if they were the ones who had the opportunity to ask a question right now, they would ask for that respect to be afforded to them.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am talking about the hidden Conservative agenda. One of the things that was leaked was to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We are talking about billions of dollars across this country, and it would have a devastating impact in many communities. For example, in rural Manitoba, Internet hookup is actually being enhanced through the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

Could the member tell us why the Conservative Party is so determined to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think Canadians were sold a bill of goods with the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I do not believe it is $10 billion; I believe it is much more than that, $35 billion in fact. If the member wants the answer, I can give him the answer. It is $35 billion, and I would question how many of those projects have actually been built and how much has gone towards executive bonuses.

It is no secret. The hon. parliamentary secretary makes it out to be some dark secret that we are going to cancel the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Maybe we will put in a better program, or, worse yet, maybe we will balance the budget, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition has said, with a dollar-for-dollar scenario. Every household does that. If I am going to spend a dollar here, I am going to find a dollar of savings there.

After all the consultants, all of the wasted spending and all of the corruption that has gone on with the government, I am sure we are going to be able to find many dollars to help fix the budget.

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

Madam Speaker, I respect my colleague who just made a speech, so I am going to appeal to his intelligence.

Quebec already has its cap and trade system, and it works. We know that, by 2015, Quebec had reduced its emissions by 8.8% over 1990 levels. That means it is working.

If my colleague believes, first, that climate change exists—which is not a given in his party—second, that climate change must be fought, and third, that there are economic tools that work to lower carbon emissions, as demonstrated in Quebec, then why is he so opposed to economic tools that we know work?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are going to strongly disagree on this issue. There is no question that there will be strong disagreement between the way the Bloc feels and the ideology of the government. We happen to believe that clean Canadian energy and clean Canadian technology are the answer to reducing climate change, not just here at home but also around the world.

I happened to meet with a European Union representative whose primary focus is to source clean sources of energy. What they said to me was that Canada has become an unreliable partner in that because of ideology. We have the best environmental standards, the best human rights standards, the best labour standards and the best technology in the world to supply the world with clean Canadian energy. If we are not doing that, ideological attacks on our energy sector aside, if we are not supplying the world with clean energy, then who is supplying it? Russia, Iran, Venezuela and others are.

We are going to disagree on this. It may be an ideological thing, but the fact is that we have clean Canadian energy that could help reduce emissions not just here at home but also around the world.

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

Madam Speaker, one thing I never hear from the Conservatives is the importance of ensuring that the rich and CEOs are paying their fair share of taxes. This is something my NDP colleagues and I have been—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There seems to be some microphone feedback. We will try that again.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether the member could clarify why we are not hearing from the Conservatives on the subject of CEOs and the rich paying their fair share. Ultimately, I am not hearing a strong plan from the Conservatives. Specifically, I am wondering with the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is some feedback again, with an echo. Let us try that again.

I will allow the hon. member to restart, and then I will allow the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil to answer.

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

Madam Speaker, what are the Conservatives going to cut if they go forward with their proposed plan? What services, at a time when people are struggling, are they going to be cutting? Why are they not getting rich CEOs to pay their fair share?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think I made it very clear in a previous answer, and Conservatives have made it clear, that we are going to do what every household does: If it looks to spend a dollar, it is going to find a dollar of savings. Think about single moms and families. What about those moms who are going to bed worried every night about keeping a roof over their head? What do people think they are doing? There is no reason the government should not be living in the same manner.

The Leader of the Opposition has made it very clear what our plan is. We know there is wastage. We are seeing it with the $54-million arrive scam app. We are seeing it with billions of dollars being spent on consultants. Our focus is going to be on ensuring that working families have hope and opportunity for the future, not just for the next generation but also for generations to come. That is our focus. As I said earlier, we are determined and we are extremely focused on that task.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023.

This legislation, which would deliver on key measures from our fall economic statement, would advance our plan to make life more affordable, build more homes faster and develop a cleaner economy that works for everyone.

This is the next step in our economic plan that, since 2015, has supported people in Halifax West and across the country through the Canada child benefit, enhanced benefits and pensions for seniors, stronger public health care and a Canada-wide system of affordable early learning and child care. These investments have helped bring us to today, when we have seen a strong recovery with a million more jobs in Canada than before the pandemic, a record number of working-age women in our labour force and, just last month, wages growing at the fastest pace in three years. In fact, wage growth has outpaced inflation for 11 consecutive months now, but we are not out of the economic woods yet.

Inflation is still high, higher than where we would like it to be. Elevated prices continue to put pressure on Canadian families. I hear about that every day from my constituents.

Over the past year, the federal government has taken more steps to make life more affordable for people in this country who need it.

It is no secret that we need to do much more.

This bill is part of that work.

There are a number of things I can talk about that Bill C-59 would do for Canadians. It would remove the GST and HST on counselling and psychotherapy services to make mental health care more affordable. It would extend employment insurance benefits to parents who adopt, better supporting those families.

Right now, adoptive parents are entitled to EI parental benefits, but not to the 15 weeks of maternity benefits.

It would create new, paid leave for federally regulated workers to support families who experience pregnancy loss.

A truly strong economy and labour force are built upon compassion and an understanding of the difficult situations some families encounter.

Bill C-59 would also introduce new measures to further our economic plan and continue supporting a strong middle class. It would achieve that by enshrining our suite of clean investment tax credits in law, all while providing businesses with an incentive to pay a prevailing union wage. That is huge.

This is the first time in Canada's history that investment tax credits are contingent upon such labour requirements.

Let us bring this back to my own community in Halifax West. The two things I hear about most these days, especially since we signed our transformative health care deal with Nova Scotia, are affordability at the grocery store and the need for more housing. This bill would introduce both.

On housing, Bill C-59 would remove the GST on new rental home construction for co-op housing, complementing the action we took in the fall and spurring new construction. Let us recall just how much we have done to increase housing supply over the last several months, because it is major. We are investing $1 billion more in affordable units like non-profit, co-op and public housing. We are helping build 30,000 more rental units by extending $15 billion in additional low-cost financing to builders. We are reforming the apartment construction loan program to offer low-cost loans to build more student housing on and off campus, a move that I know Dalhousie, Mount Saint Vincent and St. Mary's universities are all looking at closely.

We are launching a home design catalogue so pre-approved designs, including modulars, that can benefit Atlantic Canada specifically can be used to build more homes faster. We are funding 222 new units of public housing in Nova Scotia, the first expansion to our public housing stock in decades. We are unlocking 9,000 more units in HRM over the next decade by funding Halifax's housing action plan through our housing accelerator.

While Conservatives pick fights with elected mayors and councils, we work with them, providing the right incentives and getting major changes made so we can build homes faster in Canada. That is the way forward: collaboration.

We are going to get more homes built for Canadians, and we are also tackling the problem of high grocery prices head-on through a generational change to competition law in Canada. Bill C-59 is part of that. How is it? By amending the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act, building on changes we have proposed in Bill C-56, we would help stabilize prices and improve consumer choice. This includes supporting Canadians' right to repair; further modernizing merger reviews; enhancing protections for consumers, workers and the environment, including improving the focus on worker impacts and competition analysis; empowering the commissioner of competition to review and crack down on a wide selection of anti-competitive collaborations; and broadening the reach of the law by enabling more private parties to bring cases before the Competition Tribunal and receive payment if they are successful.

I know I welcomed this week's news that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry is calling on the Competition Bureau to use its new powers to take another look at the cost of groceries in Canada. This is how we crack down on tactics that big corporations use to raise costs for Canadians.

Is there more we need to do to act on these two top voter priorities? The answer is yes, absolutely.

On this side of the aisle, we are going to stay focused on them both, fully in solution mode.

All members will have the opportunity to take part in this work, and that starts by supporting Bill C‑59.

Let us support the swift passage of Bill C-59, and let us keep working together on solutions to the challenges Canadians are facing at this time.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member across talked about the government's investments in housing, and I am proud of the NDP's work to fight for significant investments in housing and, in particular, a focus on urban and northern housing for indigenous peoples. However, we know that the current Liberal government is failing first nations when it comes to housing, and I am talking about on-reserve housing. Some of the most acute housing crises in our country are on first nations with what many in the communities I represent refer to as third world living conditions.

If we go beyond housing, we know there is an estimated$350-billion infrastructure gap in first nations, including the needs first nations have because of the disproportionate impacts they are facing with respect to climate change. Unfortunately, yet again, this fall economic statement is a missed opportunity for the Liberals to act on the priorities and the desperate needs of first nations on housing, on infrastructure and on climate change mitigation. I am wondering when the Liberals will finally act to make the investments on first nations that are desperately needed.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, that is an important question. The cost of housing is top of mind for the residents in Halifax West, for renters, mortgage holders, prospective first-time buyers and of course the first nations community. In fact, I was proud to be part of an announcement in Hammonds Plains to announce the building of the Acadia First Nation indigenous shelter for women, specifically in the Hammonds Plains area. That is something this government has brought about, and that is in construction mode right now. It is something we are focused on, and we are very much engaged in that.

Again, there are many solutions we need to work on. This is not a one-solution-fits-all, and it is not one solution that is only for government. It is for all parliamentarians from all political parties. It is for different levels of provincial, municipal and federal governments and also for other stakeholders.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals like to blow the horn about their announcements regarding housing. However, the fact is that we have the lowest number of housing starts since the 1970s. People are struggling. I live in the Vancouver area, and inaffordability is just skyrocketing with respect to being able to get a home or rent a place. I wonder if the member would just agree with Conservatives that the Liberals' policy and what they are accomplishing is an unmitigated disaster.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak again on housing.

Listen, since I have become a member of Parliament, not even two and a half years ago in September 2021, I can say that the work I have seen that this government has done on the ground in Halifax West and in the Halifax Regional Municipality has been unprecedented. People need to go to that area and see all the cranes, all the good construction and the work going on. A number of people have come to me in the last number of months since we introduced a number of changes with the accelerator fund. What we have done with the municipality and with the removal of the HST on new housing stock that is going to be built will be a game changer, I would say, across the country. It certainly is in my region and in my part of the country. I very much look forward to what the next year or year and a half will look like. I see a lot of positivism and a lot of good things coming.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague carefully, and I commend her for her work.

There is something that she did not mention. We are going through one of the worst housing crises in 35 years. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, told us today that Canada's vacancy rate is 1.5%. The rate has not been that low since 1988.

The budget mentions housing, but not homelessness. I would like to draw my colleague's attention to the fact that homelessness has increased in Quebec by 44% in the past five years. The housing crisis is wreaking havoc everywhere.

The Liberals' national housing strategy is not working. Today, CMHC gave us more proof of that.

I would like my colleague to tell us what her government is going to do in the next budget. Despite what we had hoped, the last economic update did not say that any funds were set aside for housing.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague with whom I serve on the Standing Committee on Science and Research. We work together in a very collegial way.

I agree that Canada needs more housing. That is the truth. In that regard, the government is doing excellent work across the country to build more housing more quickly. I am seeing that every day where I live these days.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, once again, I am rising in the House not only on behalf of the residents of Calgary Centre but also on behalf of Canada's finance industry and others who are lamenting the disastrous course our country is on as we dither away our national advantages.

Finding better economic solutions for Canadians is what I seek to do as a representative in the House. It is a focus. It builds on career expertise. It is part of my party's fundamental path forward to fix these budgets. However, in order to fix the budgets, the budgets have to want to be fixed, to put it lightly. Here I am again looking at a brick of legislative changes, along with a self-congratulating narrative about all the great outcomes Canada is experiencing, but not so much.

The bromides that came with the minister's speech on this latest tumble into economic irrelevance might play well for ostriches, but for anyone paying attention, there is actually very bad economic news. I do not want to spend a whole speech on the nonsense pats on the back the Minister of Finance delivers in her own performance review, but I would be remiss in not publicly rebuking at least some of the financial fiction that she uses to build a case that Canada is somehow doing well economically, all while real GDP is down and GDP per capita is down.

The minister seems to like the debt-to-GDP measure, and her target not to be exceeded over two years ago now was 40%. Although this number alone was much higher than it has been in years, that number becomes less relevant with each budget cycle that runs that ratio higher. Again in this fall economic statement, it will be up to 42.7% in the near future. That ratio, by the way, is irrelevant for anything but comparison purposes with other countries that are going broke.

The minister and her government colleagues seem to like to even change that metric so that it suits their ends and looks good comparatively. How do they do this? I am sure with ample support from a litany of bureaucrats, they add back the holdings in Canada's pension plans to their net debt numbers: the CPP, the Canada pension plan; and the QPP, the Québec pension plan. That is a total of about $700 billion. None of that belongs to the government. It is managed at arm's length for the benefit of Canadians.

Taking a $1.3-trillion debt, federal only, and taking away more than half that debt from the pockets of Canadian retirees is a nice trick calculation. There is always an offsetting rule in finance. If the government uses Canadians' retirement savings to offset its own debt, that leaves a liability owed to Canadians that would be unfulfilled. That $700 billion is not a free pool of funds to address growing government debt. It belongs to Canadians who have contributed and who are counting on those funds for their retirement.

What we find out from Canadians very quickly is that, if they find out their governments are trying to mess with their retirement savings, they are offside. This year, the government is again increasing the amount that Canadians need to give from their paycheques to the CPP, an effective increase in a payroll tax.

This is not the only way the government is changing the availability of pensions. In this fall economic statement, the government is changing the way pensions are allowed to operate. There are a couple of very important changes to pension oversight. Pensions will now be overseen by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, or OSFI, as we call it. That is a federal regulatory body designed to ensure that Canada's banks are operating with the interests of the Canadian financial system and financial consumers in mind. Why? OSFI is overseeing a move to be the government's agency in charge of moving our country's financial system to a new norm of green finance, otherwise known as “sustainable finance”.

I have seen a lot of finance in my career on both sides of transactions, investor and agent. All of these moves toward green finance and sustainable finance are just ways of altering who gets paid from whom, as in who the taxpayer is subsidizing to make money. The Minister of Finance openly states in this fall economic statement that Canada is a leader in green finance, a leader in subverting financial math, like the outcome changes if the math is just tweaked a bit.

There is no secret math that makes this work. There are only payers and payees; those who get the funds and those who give the funds. The government has been relentless in doling out funds for industrial strategy, but the equation does not change, and the irreversible law in finance is always “follow the money”. The money flows right into the pockets of the government's friends. This needs to end. We need to fix these budgets. Our job here is to fix these budgets.

Let me give an example, because my colleagues across the way will want it, of what actual sustainable finance is. I will refer to a company in Calgary called Enbridge. It is a very good company on sustainable finance. It sets metrics for how it is actually going to perform for its investors' aims, and that allowed it to reduce its cost of capital by about 25 basis points. That means if it hit a number of metrics along the way, including DEI, which is diversity, equity and inclusion, in its board, in its makeup and in everything else the investors are looking for, the investors in that bond were willing to accept 25 basis points less than the market rate in order to be there. That is what we call sustainable finance.

Enbridge is a Canadian leader in that sustainable finance mechanism. It has nothing to do with equity. It has to do with market debt and getting a bit of a premium there, a bit of a discount to the investors, about how they can actually participate and move the needle, but those funds are few and far between. Enbridge has been very good at making sure it meets those requirements and serves that market well.

I want to talk about in this budget, as opposed to just criticisms, the Canada growth fund. It is an element, as we know, in the fall economic statement: $15 billion new dollars. There is no organization, no way of actually saying what its mandate is, and nothing that compels it to do anything outside of pooling $15 billion of funds and spending it on behalf of the government.

What will it do exactly? It will not do what the Canada Infrastructure Bank does. I heard my colleague across the way complaining about our position, that we are going to do away with the Canada Infrastructure Bank. It is not a secret; he called it a secret agenda.

It will not do what the strategic investment fund does, with billions of dollars going out to chosen industrial strategies that are accomplishing who knows what in the long run.

It will not do what the layers and layers of government support to fudge economic numbers do to push into new economic opportunities in which we have, as Canadians, no economic advantage and are following other countries that have much more expertise in this sector. Let us pretend Canada's economic advantage currently is not real and move to a fiction that we have a different economic advantage. Let us spend, so far, $135 billion in the effort.

Let us go back to the Canada growth fund; $7 billion of that $15 billion is being allocated toward carbon contracts for difference, the new subsidy du jour. I do not know if any of the bodies on that side of the House even understand how that works, but let me try and explain.

Contracts for difference hail from the financial world. They help to hedge against volatile prices, e.g. for shares or commodities. The seller and the buyer agree on a strike price for a certain product at a certain time. If the agreed price is below the market price at that time, the buyer has to pay the seller the difference between the agreed price and the market price. If the market price is higher than the strike price, the opposite happens: the seller has to pay the difference to the buyer. So this instrument is a good way of alleviating [some of] the risks of investing.

Unfortunately, it has many risks associated with it as well, and those risks have been detailed in many jurisdictions. Such socialized subsidies could lead to short- and long-term distortions, reducing the effectiveness of the price signal as an operational and investment decision driver. In energy and emissions markets, market participants can already use the available short- and long-term trading patterns, but additional support for low-carbon technologies is already granted through several instruments aiming to mobilize funding.

I will reiterate that the government has numerous instruments along the way, all of which are failing Canadians and making it much more expensive to do things in Canada. What is the accomplishment? The accomplishment is moving our industries offshore and making Canada less competitive on the world stage.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's speech and to his background in the financial sector.

On inflation and interest rates, many people in Canada seem to think they are the responsibility or shortcomings of the federal government. Does he not appreciate that the inflation rate is a global inflation rate? All the G7 countries are experiencing that. Interest rates are high in every single G7 country. Compared to many other G7 countries, our economic growth, including the latest numbers that came out yesterday or today, in the GDP growth rate shows that we will not go into a recession but are going to manage a soft landing.

Does he not agree that Canada is doing pretty well compared to our G7 partners in all metrics of the inflation rate, the interest rates and the economic growth that we are witnessing?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what economic data he is looking at. When I look at shrinking GDP in Canada, shrinking GDP per capita, shrinking GDP across the board, real GDP, I am saying that it is the worst in the world. It is the worst among our competitor countries. We actually are doing worse economically. We are trying to cover that up by bringing more people into Canada, which of course will increase our GDP, but our GDP per capita is sinking like a rock as a result.

We are not doing well economically, and it is part of the financial fiction the government keeps putting forward. It is not working well. Interest rates are high in Canada. Interest rates are high in many places. This is partly because of financially failed experiments the government continues to push toward. If it does not think the carbon tax, the carbon contracts for difference, and everything else it is throwing at the wall in order to make everything more expensive in Canada are not having their own unique effect on inflation, then it is not watching the ball. It needs to do away with all this excess tax it is putting on the backs of Canadians.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague. I was listening to his speech and, by way of introduction, he told us how good the Conservatives are at fixing and balancing the budget. He also spoke at length about the carbon tax.

I see a real carbon tax. It is the one that all Canadians are paying to the oil industry: $30 billion for a pipeline and $12.5 billion to the oil industry for carbon capture and storage.

My colleague's leader often says that we have to find a dollar's worth of savings for every dollar spent. I am wondering how they will balance the budget by being so lenient with big oil.

Can my colleague enlighten us on that?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting because the oil industry gets next to nothing in subsidies. There are many other Canadian industries that receive far more in subsidies. The electrical industry gets $135 billion.

Who is going to pay for this? The natural resources industry is paying for it for now. It is primarily the oil industry that is paying a lot in taxes and a lot in royalties to the government. The natural resources industry is paying for the government's targets in other sectors.

We are going to be paying for this for many years, but I am not sure how much. The government is now giving $4 million per worker to the electric vehicle industry. It is too much. We need to stop this from happening.

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

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for my colleague and friend. First off, Stephen Harper, in the dismal decade when he was in power, put in place a series of sweetheart tax haven treaties that the Parliamentary Budget Officer says cost us over $30 billion a year. That is $300 billion over the last decade. Are Conservatives prepared now to finally apologize for having gutted the federal budget in that way?

My second question is regarding all the votes we saw in December, where Conservatives voted to cut food safety, air safety, health care, affordable housing, national defence and the RCMP. There were 120 votes to slash and gut all the services Canadians depend on. Have Conservatives finally realized it was a mistake to make those proposals and to have those votes to gut all of those important Canadian programs?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, governments, like everything, like everybody, like every household, like every entity, need to balance their budgets. When governments get out of control and spend too much and rack up too much debt, it leads to too much interest. It leads to too much being paid for the cost of that interest, which comes out of the pockets of Canadians. This is excess funding.

Governments have to get back to a cycle whereby they are actually balancing their budgets by a five-year cycle or even year by year, but the ability to foist today's taxes onto tomorrow's taxpayers is wrong. It is going to continue to be wrong, and it is going to continue to mount under the current government. It needs to stop. We intend to stop it.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, happy new year. I appreciate the opportunity to rise today and to speak in the House on behalf of the good people of Waterloo to Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act.

Since 2015, the federal government's economic plan has invested in the middle class, strengthened Canada's social safety net and worked to build an economy in which everyone has a real and fair chance at success. A key pillar of the government's plan has been a focus on making life more affordable for Canadians, because when people have the support they need to thrive, they can contribute to the economy, build a better life for themselves and their families, and play an active role in their communities.

Regardless of what the Conservative Party of Canada members say, our plan is having a positive impact on Canadians. I recognize that when Conservatives speak of Canadians, they speak of the people who are doing well financially and therefore would benefit from their typical non-refundable tax credits.

People ask, what does that mean? Conservatives are classic for their gimmicks. The people who benefit from their non-refundable tax credits are often the wealthiest. The most vulnerable do not benefit, and I have dozens of examples in the riding and region of Waterloo. They know that if they are not in the economic situation to be paying additional taxes, they do not benefit from Conservative gimmicks of non-refundable tax credits.

I have heard lots of stories and had lots of conversations. People speak about the sports credit and the textbook credit, and the list goes on. They did entertain what Conservatives had to say, and then tax time came and their financial situation did not allow them to benefit. They asked me, what is the difference? I said that the difference is really understanding the way the rules in our tax system work. When the Conservatives speak of non-refundable tax credits, they are speaking about their wealthy friends. They are speaking about the people who would benefit from their financial situation and often not the most vulnerable in our community.

Then people refer to the most recent issue that Conservatives are having. We all know Conservatives are riled up about the price on pollution, or the carbon tax, as they call it. The majority of Canadians agree that pollution should not be free, and the reality is that eight out of 10 families benefit from the climate action incentive that the Conservative Party of Canada wants to remove from Canadian purses.

The Conservatives continue on about this price on pollution, but they do not talk about the fact that 80% of Canadians, eight out of 10 families, are actually receiving more than they pay. They are concerned about the very people they will continue fighting for day in and day out. When they speak, they relate to the average person. The average person hears them, and they say, “Oh, they are talking to me.” However, we all know that at the end of the day, they are not fighting for that average person. Therefore, let me repeat that 80% of Canadians receive more than they pay, and the wealthiest, who do not benefit, are the ones who would benefit from the Conservative plan on the backs of the most vulnerable.

Canadians want to undo the efforts that we have brought forward to make sure that we prioritize the environment, and I believe that the price on pollution is the reason we should continue recognizing the importance of fighting for the environment. The price on pollution is another excuse the Conservatives use as to why they have turned their backs on Ukrainians. Ukraine has had a price on pollution. Ukrainians recognize the importance of fighting for the environment. They know that the environment does not see borders, yet the Conservatives will take any opportunity for partisan gain.

When we have a world and a country where there are many people with a diversity of opinions, we need to recognize the importance of why we are here.

I think about why I ran in 2015. I ran in 2015 because of the government of the day under the leadership of Stephen Harper. Because I did not vote for his government, I was told that my voice did not matter, and I did not have a say. I remind Conservatives and I remind all Canadians that when people sacrificed their lives and fought for our rights and freedoms, they fought for our rights and freedoms regardless of whether they agreed with us or not.

Tough conversations are tough. Governing is tough. Every member of Parliament in this House has a really important role to play, and I recognize the value of it. Listening to people who are like-minded and who agree with us is really simple. Reaching out and listening to opinions and perspectives that do not match our own is tough, and that is something that I will continue to do in the riding of Waterloo.

When I ran in 2015, I committed to my constituents that I would represent their voices in Ottawa. I promised them and I reassured them that, regardless of my personal opinion, as their member of Parliament, their voices would be heard in this chamber, and I will continue to ensure that this is the case.

The House resumed from January 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑59.

The question is on the amendment. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

[Chair read text of amendment to House]

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #659

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion.

Pursuant to Standing Order 69.1, the question is on clauses 1 to 136, 138 to 143, 168 to 196, 209 to 216 and 278 to 317 regarding measures appearing in the 2023 budget.

(The House divided on clauses 1 to 136, 138 to 143, 168 to 196, 209 to 216 and 278 to 317, which were agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #660

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare these clauses carried.

The next question is on clauses 137, 144 and 231 to 272 regarding measures related to affordability.

(The House divided on clauses 137, 144 and 231 to 272, which were agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #661

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare those clauses carried.

The next question is on clauses 197 to 208 and 342 to 365 regarding amendments to the Canada Labour Code.

(The House divided on clauses 197 to 208 and 342 to 365, which were agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #662

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare those clauses carried.

The next question is on clauses 145 to 167, 217 and 218 in relation to vaping products, cannabis and tobacco.

(The House divided on clauses 145 to 167, 217 and 218, which were agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #663

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare those clauses carried.

The next question is on clauses 219 to 230 of the bill.

(The House divided on clauses 219 to 230, which were agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #664

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare these clauses carried.

The next question is on clauses 273 to 277 of the bill.

(The House divided on clauses 273 to 277, which were agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #665

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare these clauses carried.

The next question is on clauses 318 and 319 of the bill.

(The House divided on clauses 318 and 319, which were agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #666

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare those clauses carried.

The next question is on clauses 320 to 322 of the bill.

(The House divided on clauses 320 to 322, which were agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #667

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare those clauses carried.

Finally, the next question is on clauses 323 to 341 of the bill.

(The House divided on clauses 323 to 341, which were agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #668

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare these clauses carried.

The House has agreed to the entirety of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, at the second reading stage.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

It being 11:44 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 11:44 p.m.)