Bill C-59 (Historical)

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.

The House proceeded to the consideration 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There is one motion and amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-59. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

I will now put Motion No. 1 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

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

moved:

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting the short title.

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

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. As I understand it, what the Conservatives are doing is having a debate about the deleting of the short title of the bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate. The hon. member can raise that during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise and represent the good people of Battle River—Crowfoot in the House of Commons.

Today, I do so to enter into debate on what is, ironically, the fall fiscal update. Many people watching must be wondering why we are debating, come springtime, a bill that was tabled in the fall. I had that same question, but it simply comes down to this. While the Liberals tabled their budget a couple of weeks ago, which I will talk about here in a moment, we are still debating the fall economic statement in the spring.

That is a clear example of the utter incompetence that we have seen from the Liberal Party. The Liberals cannot manage their legislative agenda, and they certainly cannot manage the economy. We are seeing debt spiralling out of control. We are seeing pain and suffering in people's lives. We are seeing pain and suffering in the lives of so many Canadians. That is a perfect example.

The reason I wanted to start my speech emphasizing that is that, when folks watch this, they will look on the screen to see that it has “Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023” written across it. Earlier today we were also debating the budget implementation act, 2024, highlighting the true incompetence and inability of the Prime Minister, the Liberals and their coalition partners who prop them up. Come storm or sunny day, their coalition partners are always there to stand with the Liberals, propping up their corruption, their incompetence and, ultimately, the pain that Canadians are feeling from coast to coast. When it comes to the true root of what I hear as I travel across my constituency, related to both the fall economic statement and the budget that was tabled here a couple of weeks ago, there is crime and chaos in our streets and gravel roads.

It is interesting. I am sure many MPs and, hopefully, some Liberal and NDP members as well, keep something similar to what I affectionately refer to as my “call list”. It can take some time to get through that call list, as there are a whole host of people who want to speak to me out of the 110,000 or so people I represent. I find it incredibly important to speak with individuals who are—

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am questioning the relevance of the member's speech to the motion that was put forward to delete the short title of the act. I am having a hard time trying to connect it to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Obviously, the hon. member recognizes that there is some leeway during speeches. However, I do want to remind members to make sure that they are speaking to the bill that is before the House. Their speeches should be in reference to that.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it so interesting that, in the middle of my speaking about talking with my constituents, the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill would suggest that somehow the pain that Canadians are experiencing is not relevant to the discussion in this place. It is that ignorance, that being so utterly out of touch, that makes it almost difficult to find words. That is why I would suggest that she take notes when it comes to what I am describing about the need to speak to our constituents.

The very basis of why this place exists is that we are the representatives of the people, rather than elites imposing their vision upon a populace who do not have a say. Those are days gone by. While that may be the pursuit of that member and so many members of the Liberal Party, that is an absolutely unacceptable attitude to have in the House of Commons, a place where the common people should have a voice.

I would suggest—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I want to remind the hon. member that his comments were almost speaking to the member herself. I want to remind members that they can debate government policies and about the party itself, but they should not attack individual members. Therefore, I want to caution the hon. member on some of the comments he made because they were attacking the individual member. I am assuming that is why the hon. member was also rising on a point of order at the same time as I was.

I would caution members to make sure they speak to the bill, which is pretty wide, as I just did another check on that. I also want to remind the member that it should not be an attack on individuals themselves, but that it should be on either the government's policies or the government's actions.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would suggest that the member did attack me. It was just not veering in that direction. He made comments about my person and assumptions about what my motivation was. Therefore, I would ask the Speaker to ask him to retract those statements about me.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I ask the hon. member to retract his statements.

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

Madam Speaker, on that same point of order, my colleague was simply pointing out the government's disdain for the general public. This was not—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will indicate to the hon. member that I heard the comments; there were two of them, so I would ask the hon. member to please withdraw those comments so that he can continue on with his speech.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would request some clarity.

I heard the comments, as I was listening very closely. The member did comment on the knowledge of the individual and did use the word “ignorance”, which is not unparliamentary. I think you will find that Hansard is littered with the word, but I did not hear a word that was unparliamentary, so I would ask—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I did catch it the first time. However, I thought the hon. member was changing course, but there was a second time as well. Therefore, I am asking the hon. member to withdraw his comments so that he can go on with his speech.

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

Madam Speaker, I withdraw the comments that have caused so much offence in this place.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot can continue with his speech.

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

Madam Speaker, I think that the last number of minutes is just a demonstration of the chaos and the inability of that Liberal government to accomplish anything.

I would suggest that every member of the Liberal Party and every member of the New Democratic Party do what our jobs are, and that is to speak to Canadians. When we speak to Canadians, we hear stories of pain. We hear stories of uncertainty. We hear stories where vehicles are being stolen from driveways, whether that be urban driveways in downtown Toronto or whether that be gravel roads in rural Canada. The crime, the chaos and the corruption is becoming too much for so many Canadians to handle.

What is interesting, as those Liberals try to interrupt and cast aspersions upon the important debates that we need to have in this place, is that they forget the fact that we serve, and that we need to serve, the people; they forget that. What is so unfortunate are the consequences of their forgetting that simple fact. We may disagree on policies, and I have said this before, and I will say it again, but there was a time when we could look at the government in power and understand that we may not agree with all of its policies, but we still had respect for the institutions and for the offices that those individuals held. Increasingly, I am hearing from constituents who have lost respect for the institutions. They do not trust not only the Prime Minister but also the office that he holds and the direction in which the Liberal government is leading the country. Canadians are suffering, Canadians are hurting, and I hear it constantly.

I mentioned my call list, and as I was preparing for this speech, I was scrolling through that call list. Members will understand my passion when I have heard from so many Canadians who are hurting so desperately, in need of relief, in need of hope, in need of somebody who can provide leadership in this country. However, instead, they have a government that intends to divide, a government that intends to distract and a government that, instead of being responsible, is the definition of irresponsible. The passion that I and so many of my Conservative colleagues express, is that of amplifying the voices of Canadians who have been forgotten by the Liberals and the New Democrats, who have abandoned the very basis of what it should mean to be a member of Parliament.

When we look at the budget, and similar in frame to that when we see the fall economic statement, we see that the Liberals show that there is not a responsible path back to spending within its means. We see the consequences of that. It is not just adding a few extra bonds that the Bank of Canada has to figure out. Those are complicated financial mechanisms that so many do not understand the specifics of. However, when it comes down to it, the consequence is that it raises costs. It is the same thing with the high tax agenda, which those members perpetuate. It is raising costs for Canadians.

We hear so much about how the Liberals support quadrupling the carbon tax, increasing taxes at every turn, yet the consequence of that is Canadians are paying more, and they are hurting as a result. We see that there has been a complete and utter abandonment of common sense within this place, and the result is that the country is moving in a direction that Canadians certainly did not vote for.

It is interesting that, when I travel across the country, like so many MPs, whether it is through airports in my commute or whether it is through the messages we get from folks who watch the proceedings in this place, we increasingly hear, including from some individuals who shared how they voted Liberal or New Democrat in the past, that they will not do it again because they see that what they were told is not what is being offered. The clear proof of that is exactly what we have before us in both the fall economic statement and in the budget that was debated earlier today.

There has been this very interesting trend, as of late, where the NDP is criticizing its coalition confidence and supply partners over there, yet it has said that it will continue to prop up the crime, corruption, chaos and out-of-control spending.

We see how the Prime Minister seems to be quick to point out some challenges the country is facing. What is interesting is that he fails to acknowledge that, for nearly nine years, he has been the captain of the ship. What is interesting, to use and further that ship analogy for just a moment longer, is the fact that when a captain starts steering a ship, what may be a small course correction in the beginning can result in massive pain and in being directionless as the ship continues to sail on.

When one does not take responsibility for the maintenance of that ship, it begins to fall apart. While the captain, standing at the wheel, can blame everybody but himself, the buck stops at the top. The buck stops with the one who is in charge. What is so interesting is that the Prime Minister has, as of late, had revelations that Canadians are hurting. I agree with him on that, but here is the reality. It is the policies of that NDP-Liberal coalition that have caused so much hurt.

Often we hear the other side, and many Canadians, ask what the Conservatives would do differently. We have a record that we can be proud of, shepherding the country through incredible financial difficulties while understanding fiscal responsibility. We have so much potential that exists, in terms of the ability and the hope of the future of the country.

I look forward to being able to respond to some questions here because when it comes to the future of our country, the future is bright, but it seems that the solution needs to include getting rid—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I just want to bring it back to the original question. The motion is that the bill, Bill C-59, be amended by deleting the short title.

I am not sure that the hon. member actually got to the motion and why the title should be deleted or not, but I want to remind members to speak to the motion as well.

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 guess the member could be excused, since he was the one who brought in the motion.

It is truly amazing how the Conservative Party really knows no shame. Think about it; the member who moved the motion is criticizing the government because we are not getting this legislation passed because it is the fall economic statement. Well, duh. Who does one think is preventing it from passing? It is the Conservative Party of Canada. They are doing it by bringing in silly motions that the member just introduced, even though he did not even talk about it.

Can the member explain to Canadians how it is that they can justify filibustering legislation and then blaming the government because we are not stopping them from filibustering fast enough?

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

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased to have the opportunity to respond to that question from the member whose word count certainly is the only thing that he can point to as being successful, in terms of his service in Parliament.

Let me simply suggest this. When it comes to the very root of what we are talking about, it is the government that controls the legislative agenda. The government is quick to blame everybody else for its failures when it is that member himself who, on a number of occasions, has moved amendments similar to this, with the defence that there were important things that needed to be discussed. Therefore, when they do it, it is legitimate; when we do it, in order to make sure that the voices of Canadians are heard, it is somehow filibustering.

Let me be crystal clear. Never, in this place, is it wrong to bring up the pain and the suffering that Canadians are facing because we have to offer hope at a time when people feel hopeless. Certainly, the solution is a change in government because it is tired, corrupt and certainly out of ideas, and this fall economic statement and the budget we debated earlier today are clear proof of that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague brought up the Conservative record. He said that it is something that could be pointed to so that Canadians could get an idea of what they could expect from a future Conservative government.

I had the benefit of actually being in the House from 2008 to 2015. My hon. colleague said that the Conservative government stewarded this country through tough economic times. What he did not tell people was that the Harper government ran seven consecutive deficits in a row, only claiming to balance the budget in the eighth year, which happened to be an election year, and that turned out to be a deficit budget as well. Conservatives did not balance the budget in a single year of their eight years in the House.

Is it the case that Canadians can expect similar behaviour from a future government, of consecutive deficits, although they promise to be fiscally prudent?

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

Madam Speaker, that is ironic from a member of the NDP. Seemingly, there is no promise that the Liberals can break that would force the NDP to renege on the pension and supply agreement that they seem so bent on keeping with the corrupt Liberals.

I am proud of the Conservative record. I am proud to stand and represent my constituents in this place. The member asked what Conservatives would do, and I will be crystal clear on that as well. Conservatives would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, because that is what Canadians are asking for. It is time that everybody in this place pays attention.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

Excuse me, it is the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. I thought that was one of the member's colleagues back there too, but it is not.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order.

There is a lot of talk about unparliamentary language. My colleague has every reason to be offended by your mistake.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

That is not the way I meant it. It was misunderstood. I was looking at who was getting up. I was looking this way instead. That is simply how it came out. I apologize.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette-Témiscouata-Les Basques.

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

Madam Speaker, we are going to make history, but maybe not for the right reasons.

We are witnessing a miracle: The Conservative Party has become the party that cares about vulnerable people, the middle class and families. They call it common sense. I would like to discuss common sense with my colleague.

Currently, we are discussing the bill that implements the economic update. In the economic update, according to the last budget, there is a tax credit for the energy sector to the tune of $20 billion. The Conservative Party has not said a word about it.

I would like my colleague to tell me if he is proud that his party supports a tax credit of $20 billion that could help the middle class, families, access to housing. That is the question my colleague is avoiding. That is the money that will enable oil and gas companies to rake in even greater profits.

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

Madam Speaker, I am proud to represent the heart of the Canadian energy sector, about 2.5% of Canada's economy, which contributes to the equalization that benefits the member's province specifically.

Let me suggest this: A prosperous Canada benefits everybody. For a member of a party that claims to stand up for jurisdictional rights and responsibilities within this country, I would suggest his party adopt an attitude that encourages prosperity and economic advancement, as opposed to trying to bankrupt part of the country, which would have not only a devastating effect on the people I represent but the entire country.

Instead of punishing people, let us build a country that actually builds a prosperous future for all Canadians. That is how we make a rich middle class in this country. It is regrettable that we have a coalition among three left-wing parties that refuse to do so.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I just want to again apologize.

I thought it was a Conservative member who had risen in the corner. I wanted to make sure I had respected party parity. I am sorry.

I just want to reiterate to members to stay within the motion. I know it is large, but please mention the motion every once in a while. That way we can avoid points of order.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Madam Speaker, I can assure you I will remain very relevant. In fact, the person who moved the motion—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you look deep into the recesses of Bosc and Gagnon, it says that if a member gets over 10 million interventions, they are cut off.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I know that is not a point of order. I think the hon. member should mention a standing order next time.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, your time starts now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is truly amazing. We have the Conservative Party of Canada, which many would call the Reform Party, because it is, for all intents and purposes, more the Reform Party than it is the Conservative Party, and I will try to explain to those who might be attempting to follow the debate.

We are talking about the fall economic statement, which is something that was introduced late last year. The Conservative member who moved this motion is criticizing the government for taking so long to get this legislation passed, which is truly amazing, because it is the Conservative Party that is preventing the legislation from passing by filibustering the legislation, and today is an excellent example.

What is the member actually moving? He is moving a motion to delete the short title of the legislation. What is the short title of the legislation? It is the “Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023”. This is a relatively large piece of legislation, and this member, who I hope did not require AI assistance this time around, comes up with an amendment to delete that short title. Then he says that not doing this, not passing this legislation, has a consequence. Well, the member is somewhat right, even though he does not admit that the Conservative Party, or the Reformers in the Conservative Party, are the problem in terms of why it is not passing, and many of them are rural members of Parliament.

Within this legislation is action that would double the rural top-up for the carbon rebate. This means that the Reformers across the way, the Conservative Party, are in fact keeping money away from rural communities in Canada, because they made the decision that they do not want this legislation to pass. To amplify that, they bring in a silly motion meant for one purpose, which is purely obstruction.

Then the member asks who the Liberals are talking to, and he is critical of some of my caucus colleagues. Let me frame it in a different way. After all, the member himself said, “The buck stops with the one who is in charge”, implying the Prime Minister. Let me reverse this on the member opposite. He is trying to ask who we are talking to versus who the Conservatives are talking to, so let us talk about the leaders.

The Prime Minister of Canada came to Winnipeg one day, and we were talking about child care. He came to Stanley Knowles School in my riding, and we talked about the importance of $10-a-day child care. What is wrong with talking to child care workers?

The next time the Prime Minister came to Winnipeg, we went to the Grace Hospital. It was the premier, the provincial minister of health, the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Health. They talked about the $200-billion transfer for a generation of providing services in health care on issues such as mental health, family doctors and so forth. We were surrounded by the real VIPs, which were the health care workers who were there. These are the people we are listening to.

In fact, the last time the Prime Minister came to Winnipeg, we met again with the premier and the provincial minister of housing. We also had the mayor of Winnipeg, and along with the Prime Minister was the Minister of Housing. We talked about the issue of housing and, again, we had stakeholders there.

When we think of the budget or the fall economic statement, what we will see is that they are a reflection of what Canadians are telling us.

Whether it is the member for Avalon, me or the member from Surrey, we take the ideas and the thoughts that constituents and Canadians tell us and bring them here to Ottawa. The budget and the fall economic statement are a reflection of Canadian values and what they are—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have a point of order from the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

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

Madam Speaker, while I am concerned that no other Liberal seems to be allowed to speak, I would ask for a quorum call. On an issue as important as this, I would hope we could find quorum in this place.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sure the hon. member already knows we cannot do quorum calls during these debates. This is something that has been stated before.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby also has a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, we are debating six words, “Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023,” the short title. The Conservatives moved, at a cost now of $70,000 to Canadian taxpayers, to delete those six words. That is what the Conservatives have put on the table. It is unbelievable.

I would ask my colleague from Winnipeg North, through you, Madam Speaker, to stick to those six words the Conservatives want to spend $70,000 to delete.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member did mention the short title.

I will also note that a previous Speaker, on March 21, 2023, indicated that there is some latitude. However, members should be making their comments relevant to the motion that is before the House and should also avoid the repetition of points that have already been made. I just want to say there is some latitude, but I hope the members will reference the title from time to time.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, before the interruption, I was talking about how Liberal members are out connecting with Canadians and reporting back.

When we think of the amendment being proposed today, it is absolutely ridiculous. I believe there are very few outside of the Reformers who would actually support such a silly amendment, because they would understand it is nothing more than a filibuster or an obstruction tactic from the Conservatives.

I was reflecting on how the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus do their consulting. Who do the Conservative Party members consult with? Who gave them the idea to continue the filibustering we are seeing? I have a fairly good sense. It is the MAGA right, the far right element in the Conservative Party today, the individual who wants to demonstrate, even though it is not true, that the institutions we participate in are dysfunctional. The Conservatives bring in amendments of this nature and then say the government cannot pass legislation, when they are the ones who are going out of their way to prevent legislation from passing.

This is a Donald Trump type of tactic from the MAGA right and that has seeped into the leader of the Conservative Party today. It is that far right element trying to take away the validity of what takes place on the floor of the House of Commons.

I pointed out who the Prime Minister is meeting with, but who is giving advice to the Conservative leader? Do we remember Diagolon? It is a pretty far right group of people, and we have the leader of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We have another point of order from the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

Can he maybe state the standing order he is rising on first?

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

Madam Speaker, when it comes to the quorum call, certainly the pretense under which the bill appears to debated, the unconstitutionality—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that we are not doing quorum calls, and I will not entertain any further points of order if the hon. member continues with regard to that.

If the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot has other questions on that, I would say that he can try to raise them during questions and comments, but, again, there are no quorum calls during this debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate. I know it might please the member opposite and maybe some of the Conservatives in the back room. They do not necessarily like hearing the truth, so they stand in here to try to disrupt debate, which is something I find really unfortunate. Quite frankly, I think I should be allowed to start from the beginning.

Having said that, with regard to the Conservative Party and its attitude, where is it getting its mandate from? Who are the people that the Conservatives are trying to please? Let there be no doubt: The Conservative House leadership team, headed by the leader of the Conservative Party and his attitude toward the chamber, is being driven by the far right. Maybe some of the Reformers do not quite get that, but that is the reality.

That is the reason why the leader of the Conservative Party was very comfortable with walking in to the trailer of a member of Diagolon. All of my colleagues know that it is a far right, scary group. If someone does a Google search on it, they will find out. That is who is giving the marching orders, in many ways, for members of the Conservative Party. We are starting to see more and more of that coming from them virtually every day.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During my speech that preceded the speech of the hon. member, or at least that it is what we are considered in this place, it was made very clear that impugning an individual's motives required an apology and a withdrawal.

Out of respect for the Chair and the institution here, I gave exactly that, yet the member has now gone on at length with these tinfoil-hat type conspiracies, impugning the good reputation of members of this place.

I would simply ask that there be a fair application of the rules of this place to all political parties.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. I heard it but I did not see to whom it was directed or how it was directed, so I am going to look into that and come back to the House if need be.

I do want to remind members to try to keep their speech directly to the motion that is before the House, which is on the short title. I would remind the hon. parliamentary secretary of that as well.

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on the same point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think that it is highly inappropriate for members to continue to stand up on a point of order on just a 10-minute speech. I do not know how many points of order there have been. It is very disruptive and does not contribute to debate.

What the member is referring to is when I made reference to the fact that one has the leadership within the Conservative Party actually meeting with organizations like Diagolon. I think that most Canadians would see that as a bad thing. That is where the leadership is getting the advice to do the type of things that it is doing today.

[An hon member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The member should not be interrupting—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We will try to get the information as quickly as we can from the Hansard. We will get back to the House if need be.

The hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change is rising on a point of order.

Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allow a specific number of days or hours for consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages of the bill.

The House resumed consideration 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Report Stage

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

Madam Speaker, a good way to conclude this is to say that the leader of the Conservative Party is behaving like an individual who is standing on a corner and gives a child a dollar to buy a chocolate bar, but every time the child takes a step, he sticks out his foot and trips the child. Then he wonders why the child is not getting anywhere. It is because the leader of the Conservative Party continues to prevent things from happening.

It is a conscious decision by the Conservative Party to prevent legislation from passing. It then blames the government for the legislation's not passing, and therefore argues that the House is dysfunctional. What is dysfunctional is the Conservative-Reform party of Canada today. At the end of the day, the people the Conservatives are hurting are the people we all represent.

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

Madam Speaker, I will highlight the hypocrisy that exists on that side. When the member was interrupted by one of his cabinet ministers, a former convicted criminal, he did not complain about the interruption, yet he certainly does not like the interventions by members on the Conservative side, because the fact is that Liberal members and their cohorts in the NDP want an audience, not an opposition.

The facts are that Canadians are hurting and are demanding change and common sense, yet under the Liberals, there is untold pain and suffering from coast to coast to coast.

Instead of the member's going on at length in this place, saying many words without saying hardly anything of substance, I would ask him to reflect upon the serious job we have, which is to represent Canadians. Canadians are certainly hurting right now, and I would sure like the member to at least acknowledge that fact.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we have acknowledged the needs of Canadians day in and day out. That is the reason we bring forward budgets that are a true reflection of what Canadians' expectations are. We recognize that.

I would suggest to the member opposite and to all the Reform-Conservatives over there that they need to look in a mirror and ask a question. They were also given a mandate, which was not just to filibuster and kill every piece of legislation in the House of Commons. They also have a responsibility, and there are consequences to the actions they take. I would not have a problem at all debating the member or any member of the Conservative Party in front of a public school classroom about the irresponsible behaviour of the Conservative Party and how that behaviour is hurting Canadians in every region of our country.

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

Madam Speaker, we have just seen the Minister of Environment announce that there will be a gag order on Bill C-59, an omnibus bill of nearly 550 pages with 60 different measures and 31 acts and regulations. It is the implementation bill for last year's budget and the fall economic statement.

However, the government delayed introducing it in the House so that we could study it in committee. The government has organized its time poorly and here we are in May sitting until midnight with limited time to debate a subject as important as this.

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary agree with me that the government manages its priorities very badly?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, absolutely not. The Conservatives cannot make filibustering motions to try to adjourn debate in the afternoon, nor concurrence motion after concurrence motion in order to avoid debate on government legislation, and then criticize the government for not being able to get its legislation debated. Members cannot continuously filibuster legislation and then ask the government why it has not passed bills.

We need to look at what the opposition is doing. If Conservatives continue to filibuster legislation and put up roadblocks to prevent it from passing, the government has a choice. It can either admit defeat or bring in time allocation. For the sake of providing services for Canadians and being there in a real and tangible way, we have made the decision to bring in time allocation to force legislation through in order to provide the resources that Canadians need in every region.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives had the opportunity to move something substantive tonight. However, what they moved was a motion to delete “fall economic statement implementation act, 2023”, the six words of the short title, at a cost of $400,000 for the course of this evening. That is nearly half a million dollars in taxpayers' money running while they are debating. That is what they decided to move: a deletion of the short title. It is embarrassing and unbelievably wasteful.

I wanted to ask my colleague why the Conservatives love wasting money so much.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that was one very good example. Let me cite another example. On one piece of legislation at committee, Conservative Party members moved over 20,000 amendments. They did not figure that out themselves; they used AI, of course. The point is that they will do anything to prevent legislation from passing, even at the cost of providing something worthwhile for Canadians, sadly.

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

Madam Speaker, as we know, Bill C-59 is an omnibus bill that is nearly 550 pages long. It contains 60 different measures, about half of which are tax measures, and it amends or creates 31 acts and regulations. We studied this bill at length in committee. We raised various issues, and I think we managed to partially improve it. In my opinion, we made improvements in three areas.

The first good thing that we did was to strengthen the part of the legislation governing greenwashing. We worked with various stakeholders, including the Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement, Quebec's environmental law centre, which has a lot of expertise in this area. The compromise that we managed to come to does not solve all of the problems, but it reminds us of the importance of regulating that practice. I want to recognize the Liberal member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country and the NDP member for Vancouver Kingsway, who made important contributions on this subject.

The second good thing that we did was to strengthen the Competition Act. The testimony of the commissioner of competition was very important. The consumer advocacy group Option consommateurs also made a very valuable contribution. Last but not least, I want to once again recognize the member for Vancouver Kingsway for his hard work. Unfortunately, we did not have time to compare the commissioner's analysis with the senior departmental officials' analysis, which meant we had some tough decisions to make.

The third good thing we did was to strengthen the right to repair.

During the committee study, I came away very disappointed about one aspect that still has not been clarified. I am talking about how the association representing Quebec's orders of mental health professionals is being treated. This association represents the Ordre des psychoéducateurs et psychoéducatrices du Québec, the Ordre des conseillers et conseillères d'orientation du Québec, the Ordre professionnel des sexologues du Québec, the Ordre professionnel des criminologues du Québec, as well as the Ordre des travailleurs sociaux et des thérapeutes conjugaux et familiaux du Québec. We are talking about 2,500 professionals in private practice who must charge their clients tax.

However, clause 137 of Bill C-59 seeks to remove the GST from psychotherapy and counselling services. The professionals represented by the orders I just listed work in professions that have been covered by Quebec's Professional Code since 2012, such as mental health and human relations. Ordinarily, they should therefore be included in the measure set out in Bill C-59.

I would like to quote Mr. Soucis, president of the Ordre des psychoéducateurs et psychoéducatrices du Québec, who said:

However, the Canada Revenue Agency's notice 335 concerning the exemption for counselling therapy states that the professional services provided by a person could be exempted if the person “has the qualifications equivalent to those necessary to be so licensed or otherwise certified in another province”.

Under this interpretation of the bill, it would be confusing and time-consuming, for all of the authorities that participate in such a process, for a professional to have to ask another Canadian authority to verify a qualification when it has already been attested to by the permit that authorizes the person to practise their profession. In its present form, the bill would require the members of Quebec's professional orders to verify with a regulatory agency that oversees the profession of counselling therapy in another province, as is the case in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, that they have qualifications equivalent to the qualifications of the professionals in the province in question.

We would point out that under the Professional Code, our professional orders have a mandate to be the regulatory and supervisory body for their profession in Quebec and that they are capable of doing that.

In committee, the department told us that these Quebec professionals would not have to charge GST and would be included in the measure. However, this conflicts with what the Canada Revenue Agency and Revenu Québec are saying. We tried to clarify this part of Bill C-59, but we were unsuccessful. I sincerely hope that Quebec professionals are not excluded from the measure.

That was a summary of some of the work we did in committee.

However, given that the bulk of Bill C-59 was adopted in committee by the majority, we are now seized with the improved text at report stage. At this stage, again, Bill C-59 contains some good and some bad elements, but the Bloc Québécois is opposing it once again because of two measures.

The first is the $30.3 billion in subsidies to oil companies in the form of tax credits. This means that taxpayers will be paying oil companies to pollute less, when they do not need that money.

The second is the creation of a federal department of municipal affairs called the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities. This is a sign that we can expect more interference, more bickering and more delays, at a time when the housing crisis demands swift action.

Let us look at the oil subsidies.

On April 30, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a study indicating that the latest budget would lead to a shortfall of $39 billion by 2029. The budget includes $61 billion in new spending, including tax expenditures, and there is $22 billion in new revenue, mostly from capital gains.

Bill C-59 alone contains more than $30 billion in tax gifts to the oil companies. Roughly half goes to wasting public money on carbon sequestration, while the other half would enable them to use nuclear energy to extract the tar from the tar sands. This represents more than 80% of the $39-billion shortfall that the Parliamentary Budget Officer unveiled in his recent study, the same shortfall the Conservatives are making such a big fuss about.

Since 2022, the government has announced $83 billion in tax gifts for the oil companies. That is twice the shortfall that the Parliamentary Budget Officer was talking about early last week. Need I remind the House that the oil companies do not need any gifts? According to the Centre for Future Work, the oil and gas extraction sector has made record profits these past few years, specifically $38 billion over three years, in 2020, 2021 and 2022, and half of that in 2022 alone. Apparently, 2023 was just as profitable. Since 70% of the shareholders are foreign, that is money that has left the country.

In the last two budgets, the government announced its intention to introduce six tax credits largely aimed at oil companies. According to information provided by the Department of Finance, these tax credits will total a whopping $83 billion by 2035.

Bill C-59 amends the Income Tax Act to create two of these tax credits, which are tailor-made for oil companies: a clean technology investment tax credit and a tax credit for carbon capture and storage. The first, worth $17.8 billion, aims to replace the use of gas to extract oil from the oil sands with nuclear power, all in order to export more gas. The second tax credit is worth $12.5 billion. Instead of accelerating the transition to renewable energy, the federal government would rather help oil companies pump every last drop of oil, hoping that they will pollute less in the course of their operations. That is the aim of this refundable tax credit for oil companies. It is only available to companies in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, and not anywhere else.

As we know, carbon capture and storage is an experimental technique that is supposed to enable major polluters to recover some of their carbon emissions and bury them in the ground, usually in old, empty oil wells. Carbon capture is a central plank of the oil companies' pseudo-environmental strategy, in much the same way as cigarette manufacturers used to argue that filtered cigarettes were better for smokers' health in the 1970s.

The International Energy Agency, an OECD affiliate, believes that countries will be making a serious mistake if they put carbon capture at the heart of their environmental strategy. It believes that carbon capture is an illusion, that the technology is unproven and that, even if could someday be made to work on an industrial scale, it would deliver only marginal results at an exorbitant cost.

Bill C-59 confirms that the government has acceded to the oil companies' demands. No surprise there. The independent media outlet The Narwhal published a document it had obtained through the Access to Information Act showing that the oil company Suncor had a hand in drafting the government's environmental policy, particularly the section on carbon capture that Bill C-59 brings to fruition.

This is what former Liberal environment minister Catherine McKenna had to say about the carbon capture tax credit in an interview with the newspaper 24 heures, on December 5, 2023:

It never should have happened, but clearly the oil and gas lobbyists pushed for that.

She went on to say:

We are giving special access to companies that are making historic profits, that are not investing those profits into the transition and clean solutions. They are returning those profits to their shareholders, who for the most part are not Canadian, and then they ask to be subsidized for the pollution they cause, while Canadians have to pay more for oil and gas for heating.

Those are some of the reasons why we are voting against Bill C-59.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to work with my hon. colleague from Joliette on the finance committee.

At the committee hearings on Bill C-59, the opposition members worked together to strengthen many provisions of the bill, as the member pointed out in his speech. I think at least six or seven different amendments were made to strengthen consumer protection and empower the Competition Tribunal's ability to police mergers. In particular, I want to congratulate my colleague, as we had similar motion to strengthen the greenwashing provisions in the Competition Tribunal and in consumer legislation. His motion was the one that was passed. Could he elaborate a little on why he thinks that is an important amendment to the legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, again, I want to acknowledge all the work done by my hon. colleague, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, on the Standing Committee on Finance. I was seriously impressed. During the study of this omnibus bill, he had obviously studied it thoroughly and presented several constructive amendments, the vast majority of which were adopted. That is the strength of a Parliament and a committee when there is a minority government, because opposition members can improve bills.

As for greenwashing, I applaud the government's intention to put something in place. The amendments we tabled, which environmental organizations had been calling for, sought to expand on that and require more accountability. Together, we were able to move forward. Greenwashing is when a company portrays itself or its products as environmentally responsible, but these claims need to be better regulated. Companies are not required to market themselves in this way, but if they do, we want their claims to be factual and verifiable, not just in terms of the product. I came to realize that it is a very complex ecosystem, but, together, we managed to improve the bill with the help of stakeholder organizations.

Once again, I want to acknowledge the work my colleague did in committee.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague is like me. I was hoping that there would be something new in the budget. There was nothing for the agriculture and agri-food industry in the fall economic statement. There was nothing in that economic statement, just like there is not much more in the current budget.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the importance of developing Canada's agri-food sector.

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

Madam Speaker, the question posed by the hon. member for Beauce is very important.

Every year, we, the members of the Bloc Québécois, make our budget requests ahead of the economic statement. My colleague, the agriculture and agri-food critic and member for Berthier—Maskinongé, and I always put a lot of focus on the demands of the agricultural industry.

The industry needs a hand, especially with climate change, last year's poor harvests, droughts and flooding. Several measures have been implemented. I presented that to the Minister of Finance. We presented that together. However, once again, there is nothing about it in the budget.

Is the government listening to farmers and people in the agri-food industry? I think that it needs to listen more closely because it is our economy's most strategic sector.

As they say, there is no country without farmers.

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

Madam Speaker, I also really appreciated my colleague's speech.

It is interesting to me that the members of the Standing Committee on Finance were able to work together. I completely understand that, and an amendment proposed by my Bloc Québécois colleague was even adopted. Nevertheless, he said in his speech that he will be voting against Bill C-59. I am trying to understand why.

I would also like an answer regarding this evening's motion. Is he for or against the short title?

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

Madam Speaker, at the end of my response, I will answer the crucial question of for or against. I understand that all my colleagues here are wondering about this. Given there is so much interest, I will keep the members in suspense.

In committee, we manage to work collegially with my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway, but in my speech I also highlighted the important work and collaboration of the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country on greenwashing. That is one really interesting aspect of our work.

Why are we voting against it? There are good things and bad things, but $30 billion for the oil industry is unacceptable. I do not have enough time to answer the question as to whether we are going to support the amendment or not.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, for anybody who may be watching tonight, I think a brief explanation of what their tax dollars are going to is in order.

Tonight, beginning at about 6:30 p.m., due to the Conservatives' motion, we are spending five and a half hours of debate, an entire evening sitting in the Canadians' House of Commons, to debate a Conservative motion on Bill C-59, which is a bill to enact provisions that were announced in the fall economic statement in 2023.

In this long bill with hundreds of provisions in it, the Conservatives' motion and contribution to Canadian democracy is to strip the short title of the bill. I think we have already heard that this has necessitated a late sitting of the House, which is probably going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and hold up all sorts of legislation that is of prime importance to Canadians.

Now, one thing that I think we all agree on is that Canadians across this country, millions of them, are in fact enduring pain, hardship, worry, insecurity and need. Bill C-59, while not perfect and certainly with a fair number of problems and omissions, does contain a number of important measures that would address those needs in a myriad of ways.

While the New Democrats are working constructively as an opposition party to move that legislation forward so that Canadians can get the relief they need, the Conservatives are holding it up. When the Conservatives claim to care about the needs of Canadians who are struggling with economic uncertainty, they are going to have to explain to Canadians why they are holding up the very measures that are contained in the legislation before the House that would help ameliorate those needs.

I also want to say a few things about the business community in this country. On the finance committee, along with my colleagues, I sat through testimony for 20 hours, hearing Canadian stakeholders comment on the provisions of this bill. When they did so, there were two very clear statements that were made to us repeatedly by Canadian businesses. Number one, they wanted this bill passed quickly. Number two, they wanted certainty.

As I will talk about in a moment, this bill contains a number of measures that would provide important tax incentives and tax credits to stimulate business activity, and businesses across this country are waiting for this. They are actually holding their investments. They are holding up creating jobs. They are holding up purchasing machinery and equipment, as well as research in technology, until this bill passes.

What is the Conservatives' reaction to this? They hold the bill up. If that is the Conservatives' concept of common sense, I do not think I share the same definition.

I want to talk about some of the important things in this bill. One of the things in this bill is a measure to implement the NDP's dental care plan. It would introduce an amendment to the provision that authorizes the sharing of taxpayer information for the purposes of administering the Canadian dental care plan.

We all know that, as of May 1, about a week ago, the first one million seniors who successfully applied to the CDCP started to access the dental care they need. Over two million seniors have already applied, with children under 18 and people living with disabilities, with a disability tax certificate, able to apply in a little over three weeks.

I want to stop for a moment, because I heard the Conservatives talk about Canadians who are suffering. Let us think of a senior right now who is at home suffering with dental pain, someone who does not have dentures that fit properly or maybe does not have dentures at all. They are unable to eat an apple. They have pain in their mouth. They have a choice to make: they continue living in pain, or they scramble together some form of money and try to go to a dentist, and pay out of pocket.

The Conservatives say they care about people who are suffering economically, yet they are holding up legislation that would help get the CDCP in place so seniors can go to the dentist and have their needs paid for. Imagine a single mother with a couple of kids at home, and a five-year-old or a seven-year-old has dental pain and they do not have enough money to go to the dentist. Like every parent in this room, we know what we would do. We would do whatever we could. We would sell something, take an extra shift or borrow money to get our child to the dentist. That is what Canadians are doing.

What will the Canadian dental care plan do? It will provide that dental care at no cost to Canadians, freeing up their funds. At a time when Canadians are suffering, what could be of more direct assistance than to have the federal government champion a national dental care plan, which, by the way, the Conservatives do not support and will take away? Funnily enough, every one of them on that side has their dental care needs taken care of by taxpayer dollars. They get to go to the dentist, and their kids get to go to the dentist, paid for by taxpayer dollars, but they do not think that senior, that five-year-old and that single mother have the same right.

I will tell members this. To the NDP, dental care is primary health care, and everybody gets to go to the dentist regardless of their ability to pay. That is what this bill will help facilitate, and it is what the Conservatives are stalling. Is that the Conservative common sense? I cannot wait to go to the doorsteps in the next election and put that definition of common sense to my constituents.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I hear laughing on the Conservative side. Bring it on. Come to Vancouver Kingsway. I will debate Conservatives anywhere, any time, on any doorstep. We will ask the people in my riding whether they think that getting dental care free for everybody in the riding, regardless of their income, is a good move for them, and the Conservatives can make their case why it is not. I will live and die by the results of that discussion.

There are 6,500 oral health professionals who have signed up to participate and are ready to provide for these patients. Later this month, according to the fall economic statement, it will establish the oral health access fund, which will further reduce barriers that prevent Canadians from accessing oral health care. We all know that in rural and remote areas, people cannot get access to the same health care we can get in urban centres, so what did the NDP do? We insisted that there be a $250 million oral health access fund, available in every corner of this country for stakeholders to apply to, to come up with innovative programs like mobile dental clinics, or allowing hygienists to go into old folks' homes, or maybe even outfitting a train car to travel to rural areas to provide necessary dental care to people in their communities. These are the kinds of innovative programs that are just waiting and that the Conservatives are holding up. That does not sound like common sense to me.

This bill does a lot of other things. It takes the GST off counselling services. I have heard Conservatives talk about their concern for people's mental health during COVID. We all know that counsellors across this country have to charge GST, and this bill would take that GST off counselling services, making it a bit more affordable for people. The Conservatives are holding that up. That is not good for Canadians' mental health.

This bill has measures to support affordable housing construction. It would remove the GST on new rental home construction. Conservatives talk about axing the tax. This bill does axe the tax. It takes the GST off new rental home construction. What are the Conservatives doing? They are delaying it. It seems that they only want to axe certain taxes, but they do not want to take the GST off new home construction. If we talk to any builder in this country, they will tell us that this does not make any sense at all. Not only is it not common sense; it is wrong.

There are measures to support workers in this bill by introducing labour requirements to ensure that Canadian workers benefit from Canada's clean economy investment tax credits. They would require job sites to pay union wages and provide apprenticeship training by requiring a minimum of 10% apprentice positions on every job site to get a tax credit. That is not only good for working families, but also to get more young people into the trades.

The leader of the Conservatives claims to care about working people. This is a direct, explicit provision that will help working families and help create more trades. What are the Conservatives doing? They are stalling it tonight. Is that common sense? Not at all.

I want to talk briefly about some of the amendments we made that would help protect consumers and strengthen the Competition Tribunal's ability to prevent unhealthy mergers in this country, which is bad for our economy. The NDP got six different amendments passed to this bill, things that would allow for more honesty in pricing, putting the onus on sellers who claim false prices to prove why those prices are accurate. They would help the Competition Tribunal police mergers by making an assumption that any merger that results in a market share of over 30% will presumptively be bad for competition and reversing the onus. These are amendments that were asked for by the Competition Tribunal itself.

The NDP used Parliament to get those things done. What have the Conservatives done? I think we know tonight. They are stalling, and that is not common sense.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is really struggling to understand what common sense is, and I see that struggle, but let me help explain, hopefully, and elucidate what we mean by common sense.

In the Conservative Party, we do not want to see the government take more of people's money and decide how to spend it for them. We think people should be able to keep more of their own money and decide what they want to do with it.

The NDP sees that the people are struggling because of high inflation and high taxes, but its solution is to have the government pay for more things and say, “We're going to give you this for free and that for free”, without appreciating that the money for those “free things” actually comes from somewhere; it comes from taxpayers. Therefore, people have to give more money to the government, which is then used for all of these, in some cases, good things that the NDP is talking about.

However, would it not be better if people who were struggling could just keep more of their own money instead of it being funnelled through a government bureaucracy that decides where it goes? Would that not be common sense?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member should know about free things from government, because he gets free dental care, and so do his children. I do not see him giving that back. I have not heard of a Conservative giving back their free dental care yet.

By the way, dental care, of course, is not free; it is paid for, but we believe on this side of the House that, collectively, by pooling our resources, we can make sure that every person can get access to primary health care. It is the foundation of our Canadian health care system, so I think that is a wise expenditure of money.

More to the point, I have already gone through a couple of examples where Bill C-59 would return money to taxpayers. It would take 5% of the GST off new homebuilding, which is returning money to our home builders. It would take 5% off the GST for counselling services, returning money so that people can maybe afford to get the mental health support they need.

What I would ask my hon. colleague is this: Why does he not support the bill, which would return money to important parts of our economy, instead of holding us up and costing taxpayers $450,000 tonight to have this absolutely avoidable and nonsensical debate?

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

Madam Speaker, I was not expecting such a lively debate tonight. I thank the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway for his speech, and I congratulate him on the six amendments that he was able to get passed in committee. He touched on them briefly. I would like him to tell us more about that, but I will ask my question.

There have been a lot of changes and improvements to the Competition Act, some of which were requested by the commissioner of competition. When it comes to the Competition Act, we know that Canada had a long way to go. Bill C-56 improved the act, and Bill C-59 and its amendments are improving it even more.

Does the member think that the system is now robust enough that consumers can expect healthy competition at all times, or is there still more work to do in that regard?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am sure there is more work to be done, but my hon. colleague gives me an opportunity to talk a little bit more about the amendments that the NDP, with help from my colleague from Joliette, was able to get.

We adopted an amendment that would ensure that sellers bear the burden of proving that their discounts are genuine. Fake discounts are a common deceptive marketing practice. In some cases, businesses promote a price as a discount when in fact the advertised price is just the ordinary price of the product. They do this on things like Black Friday. We have changed that to reverse the burden.

Another one is strengthening the right to repair provision, something that my hon. colleague from Windsor West has been working on for years. It would force companies to disclose to consumers information that they need to get diagnosis or repair of their products anywhere they want, as opposed to tying them to the seller of the product. This is a very important consumer rights measure that breaks up monopolies and promotes competition in the marketplace. It is something that I would think Conservatives would like, actually. They certainly claim that they like it, but they are holding up a bill here that would make our marketplace more competitive, protect consumers and strengthen the Competition Tribunal's ability to make sure that we have an open, thriving, and competitive marketplace. That is not common sense.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this place as the representative for the great riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill and discuss important issues of the day.

However, I must say that, this evening, I have a bit of a challenge in discussing this motion. It is a disgusting motion that we are discussing, actually, because it has been put forward to delete the short title of a very important bill, Bill C-59. Just to be clear, the long title of the bill is “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”. The long title is a mouthful; therefore, as is the normal course of business, the bill has a shorter title. The short title is simply the “Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023”. The motion put forward by the Conservatives tonight, requiring debate for five and a half hours, is to delete that short title. Just so that everyone is clear, because I know this is a very important motion for the Conservative Party, we are talking about deleting the title “Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023”, not the long title.

Why would we be discussing this motion this evening? That is a question I have asked myself. There is no good answer; the answer really lies in the work that the official opposition party is doing, which we have seen them do over the past year, at least. That is to ensure that there is not productive conversation or debate and that we do not get things done in this place.

Earlier this evening, a member opposite made a comment implying that I do not speak to the constituents in my riding, but that is what I try to do most of. In fact, I think that all of us here should take the responsibility of being the representatives of our constituencies very seriously. Certainly, spending five hours here tonight to debate this motion to delete six words from a bill is not time well-spent. In fact, I could be using this time to speak to constituents. We could be saving money. As the member for Vancouver Kingsway has so aptly pointed out several times, this exercise is costing taxpayers, including my constituents, a lot of valuable money that need not be spent.

The Conservative Party purports to care about fiscal matters and represent common sense. It is quite astounding to me that Conservatives would put forward this motion to debate this evening, especially when we have a piece of legislation in front of us that actually has a lot of important content that we could be discussing or debating.

Knowing that there is a lot of leeway given on what we can discuss, even given a motion as silly and wasteful as the one in front of us, I will comment on a few of the measures in this very important bill that the Conservative Party has continually filibustered on and tried to block, as it has done with most things our government has been doing.

In fact, I would refer to something that happened just a couple of weeks ago. As the chair of the women's caucus, I was actually very discouraged to see the chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women removed.

I do not sit on that committee, but I spoke to every member. To a person, they felt that the work being done by the chairperson and by the committee involved collaborating very well to get important things done for the women of Canada. They felt that the chairperson was removed simply because she was allowing constructive work to be done in this place.

Members of that committee are all saddened by the fact that this member has been removed from her position. The reason I mention that in relation to this very important motion that was put forward to remove the short title of the bill is that this is another example of how the opposition party is trying to block, delay and stall any good work being done in this place.

Let us look a little at what the bill contains and what is being held up by this wasteful motion that the Conservative Party has put forward. We have heard a lot about how Canadians are struggling. In my riding, when I speak to my constituents, I hear how people want relief, particularly on the cost of food. I sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I was part of the study that looked at addressing stability in food prices, given their recent increase. A lot of the recommendations that came up from witnesses were regarding the need for increased and improved competition in Canada.

Bill C-59, which we can still refer to by its short-form title, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023, has many measures that are being blocked now to do just that: to modernize our Competition Act, to give it more teeth and to ensure that it can fight against the practices that have been occurring and have increased food prices in Canada.

Another thing in this important bill is support for adoptive parents, including surrogates, with a 15-week shareable employment insurance adoption benefit. To many families, this is a very important measure. My husband and I are adoptive parents. I know that, when someone brings a child into their home, especially an older child, having that time to spend where one can just be with that child and not worry about other things is very important. While I am not a child psychologist, I read a lot about adoption before we adopted two of our children, and it makes quite a difference. This is a very important measure that many parents and families would benefit from.

For me, as someone who has experienced this, I feel it is reprehensible for the party opposite to be wasting our time tonight talking about removing the short title of a bill in order to obstruct and to delay it. There are parents like me out there who would very much like those 15 weeks to spend with their adoptive children.

There has also been a lot of talk about affordability and the effect of the pollution pricing regime on Canadians. I have heard, because I have some constituents who live in a semi-rural area, that there are not always the same options. Therefore, the rebate that is being given back to Canadians, which gives back more money to 80% of our families, is being adjusted to ensure that Canadians living in rural areas receive more. They would get a 20% top-up on the rebate that is given to other families.

Members of the party opposite often speak about rural ridings, people living in rural areas and the importance of agriculture, and I share their views. Therefore, how, in good conscience, can they talk about this?

I will conclude by saying that there are a lot of important things we could be—

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

We have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated some aspects of the speech by the member opposite, but I found it really rich when she talked about the importance of passing the legislation for the 15 weeks of benefits for adoptive parents. That is precisely what the Liberals took from the private member's bill of my colleague, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, which they chose not to use. They voted against it and then decided to put it in their own bill. Had they simply passed the bill when it was brought forward, it would already be law; families could already be benefiting.

Does the member perhaps regret the decision she made on that bill not too long ago?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is very important for us to put in place, and we have the opportunity to do that now.

This was already being worked on. It was part of the employment insurance revisions, and we knew it was coming forward. However, I would return the question and ask why you are not supporting it now.

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

I am not supporting anything, nor am I against anything.

The hon. member for Joliette.

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

Madam Speaker, in Bill C-59, there is a $17.8-billion tax credit that will help oil companies reduce their use of natural gas by financing the installation of small nuclear power plants to extract bitumen from the tar sands. The gas would then be exported to Asia, including from the LNG terminal in British Columbia.

Does the member believe that this is an environmental plan to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a member of the environment committee and someone who cares deeply about our environment, I believe we need to take every measure we can to reduce greenhouse gases right now. We are in a crisis. Unlike the Conservatives, who keep talking about technology as the only thing that is going to solve our problem, we have a very robust and multi-faceted approach to reducing emissions.

Given the urgency of the crisis, I feel that these tax credits that will help people do what they would not otherwise do are necessary to help us meet our goals.

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

Madam Speaker, I was going to be critical of the Liberal government because—

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

I apologize. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, as an Albertan, I would suggest that the fact that the member's jersey is promoting his hockey team is—

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

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberals have continued the infamous Harper Conservative tax treaties. It cost us over $30 billion each and every year. The Conservatives splurged. The Liberals should have reined that in, but they have chosen not to. This means, of course, that many other things the government could be doing are not getting done.

I want to ask the member to comment on how there is more Conservative splurging tonight. They are trying to delete six words in the bill that are not substantive at all. The cost to taxpayers tonight will be nearly $100,000 for each word. Conservatives seem to spend like drunken sailors when they have the ability. Tonight they are holding Parliament up, and it is costing us $70,000 an hour for this debate on six words.

What does the member think her constituents would think of the Conservative waste of half a million dollars tonight?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hypocrisy we are seeing right now is, unfortunately, not surprising. I do not see any common sense at all in spending this much time debating a motion that wants to remove six words from the title of a very important bill. As I said earlier, there are important things we could be debating.

I know that many constituents in my riding are questioning what exactly this Reform-Conservative-Diagolon party actually stands for and whether its members have any right to be here.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this chamber.

Before I start my remarks on the bill, I seek the Speaker's indulgence for just a moment.

I was notified earlier today that a dear friend and former colleague of mine, Matthew Vaccari, had passed away. He succumbed to cancer. He leaves behind two children and his wife, Heather. Matt and I worked very closely together at Canada Life. I know a number of people at that organization who are very upset and sad and, of course, his family. Matt was a wonderful human being, someone who was full of energy and who always had a positive attitude. It is with a heavy heart that I extend my condolences to his family for their loss and to all the people who worked with him and who knew Matt. He was a wonderful human being.

It is a pleasure to speak to any financial legislation that the government brings forward. I know that there is a lot of debate tonight about the short title and some words, but the truth is that we are talking about a bill that would increase energy costs for Canadians.

In Bill C-59, the EIFEL restrictions would impose an additional cost on public utilities in this country. We had witness testimony at the finance committee from a public utility in Nova Scotia that said that the bill would directly increase the energy costs of ratepayers in Nova Scotia. I understand that it may be inconvenient for the government, or for other parties who support the government, that Conservatives are doing their due diligence, taking their time and looking at ways to slow this legislation down because it would increase the cost of energy for Canadians at a time when they can least afford it.

Wisdom has been chasing the Liberal government for a long time, but it has just not caught up with it yet. How is it possible that, in an affordability crisis, the government thinks it makes sense to introduce tax legislation that would directly increase the cost of energy for certain Canadians in this country, in particular Nova Scotia? There is no debate about it. There is no—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as members would know, many interruptions have taken place this evening, saying that members needed to be relevant. The member started off talking about the amendment, and then he went right into the bill itself. I am just suggesting that if the Conservatives want us to be relevant to the actual amendment, then so should the Conservatives.

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

If I may, the hon. member is being relevant because he is explaining why the stalling is necessary. That is how I understand it, and I do listen to what is being said.

The hon. member for Simcoe North.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, you are tough but fair, and I appreciate you, wholeheartedly, for your very wonderful ruling. I will continue.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would just note that occasionally we get passionate in debate, but Conservatives did not call a point of order on the previous member who spoke, the member from Cohasset, Massachusetts.

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

I really do not think that is an appropriate point of order. I would like the hon. member to be a little more prudent in the way he accuses colleagues of where they are or are not.

The hon. member for Simcoe North.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be from Simcoe North.

As I was mentioning, at a time when Canadians are facing an affordability crisis, the government's stated policy objective is to make energy more expensive. We are the only country on the planet that has increased the cost of energy through direct carbon tax increases and now also through an indirect increase by imposing additional taxes on public utilities, which is commonly referred to as the EIFEL restrictions. Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I speak to this bill tonight, especially on the short title.

I think we can think of many better titles for this bill, including “the Government of Canada wants people to pay more”, “the Government of Canada does not think people pay enough for energy” or “the Government of Canada is just out of ideas”. Those would be far better titles for the bill.

There were some competition provisions in this bill, which also raised some concern. The government has made very significant and substantive changes to competition policy in the last three budget bills. Each time, interestingly enough, it says that these provisions are monumental and that it has made these great changes to the competition policy that have never been seen before, but only a few months later, it brings in some more changes. I say that because it has had a lot of time to think about what it would do with competition policy.

The government proposed a number of substantive changes, and I have to give my NDP colleague credit, who is now the new member of the finance committee. He sliced up and diced up the government's competition provisions in this bill like never before. In fact, the government should be embarrassed that the competition provisions it put forward in Bill C-59 were completely redrafted by its coalition partner. It had multiple months and years to think about the provisions it wanted to change. When it finally said that it had the best changes, it got absolutely railroaded by its supply and confidence partner. That should be embarrassing for the government.

That is why we are here debating this bill and debating the title. If members want another title for the bill, as this is a government that is out of ideas, how about, “we think people can pay just a little more”. That is what the bill should be called because energy bills are going up for people in Nova Scotia with this bill.

In addition, the number of drafting errors in this bill are significant. There was a provision called the dividend deduction rules. As soon as the budget bill was tabled, some smart individual did not think that the government understood how it was going to affect individual life insurance policyholders and that maybe somebody should call it and give it a lesson. It took eight months for it to explain how a particular life insurance product worked when participating in whole life insurance. It eventually brought in a significant amendment to fix it. This bill was delayed because of all the drafting errors in it and because the government did not even understand how these significant changes would affect the cost to Canadians.

These are the reasons for which we are trying to delay the bill. The government does not have a sweet clue about what some of these amendments do.

Now the government is saying that it has to pass the bill because the market is asking for the investment tax credits. Guess what? We can pass the bill tonight if the government wants to, and no one can use the investment tax credits because the CRA and Natural Resources Canada still have not put out the guidance required for companies to take advantage of the investment tax credits. If the government was so serious about getting this bill passed, it would have had all of its homework done, but it does not. Maybe the dog ate it. I do not know what the excuse is, but the Liberal government is not ready. It is out of ideas. It chose to delay this bill until now. It was the government that had drafting errors in the bill. It decided to make energy more expensive in the bill.

The government tried to indirectly make life insurance products more expensive in this bill, but then it realized that five million Canadians would have to pay more for their life insurance products because they were trying to find revenue somewhere and tax the big banks more and tax financial institutions more, not realizing that those costs for that product are passed directly to consumers.

I was very pleased to speak against the short title of this bill, if that means we can keep energy costs lower for some Canadians for just a little longer. I welcome the wonderful questions from the member for Winnipeg North, as I know he always has a zinger.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to disappoint the member, but I am sure that he could imagine how this might seem, to people following the debate, as though the Conservatives are acting like fish out of water, flipping and flopping all over the place.

The member said that they want to hold up the bill and that they do not want the bill to pass. He seems prepared to admit that the Conservative Party just does not want the bill to pass, which is why they are holding it up, yet the person who moved the motion that he was actually debating said that the government cannot pass this legislation.

Does he not see the inconsistency in the discussions that Conservatives, or the reformers across the way, are having with their collective Conservative mind?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what happens in the Liberal caucus, but we have a lot of individual members here who have individual aspirations, individual reasons for how they vote and individual reasons for why they feel compelled to speak.

The reason I am speaking tonight is that the energy bills of the people of Nova Scotia are going to go up as soon as this bill passes. I think it is irresponsible to do anything but try to prevent that from happening just a little longer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to work with my hon. colleague on the Standing Committee on Finance. He always has a thorough knowledge of the issues and makes constructive suggestions.

I want to ask him about the amendment to the Competition Act. He referred to it in his speech. For years, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has been announcing a comprehensive reform. However, the reforms have come in bits and pieces, in Bill C-56 and Bill C-59.

The commissioner of competition told us it was not enough, that it would take this and that. Public officials replied that if we did such and such, it would affect something else that was not in the bill. In fact, we were supposed to have a bill to reform the entire Competition Act.

Does my colleague think that doing things this way amounts to incompetence on the part of the government?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed working with my friend at the finance committee. I think he asked a very relevant question. The short answer is that, yes, it definitely shows the incompetence of the government because, every few months, the Liberals see a shiny new bauble and decide they are going to change the Competition Act.

One would think that the Liberals have had enough time, after being in power for nine years, nearly a decade some might say, to do things properly, yet they chose piecemeal amendments, which they say are monumental every single time, but the amendments do not actually hang together. One wonders what is really going on over there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rather shocked to be here tonight debating a Conservative amendment to change a short title. As this is costing Canadian taxpayers $70,000 an hour, the Conservatives will be wasting $420,000 tonight to change a title.

I ask my colleague if this is how he is going to manage public finances if, by some misfortune, his party ever comes to power.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member likes to talk about wasting money, but the NDP members are supporting the government for incredible amounts of corporate welfare. The NDP has chosen to support this bill with tons of corporate welfare in it and has chosen to support a budget that has tons of corporate welfare in it, but it has only a pittance for those with disabilities. They are turning their backs on a primary constituency for themselves and then trying to lecture us about spending money properly. Members of the NDP are supporting an incredible amount of corporate welfare and are turning their backs on one of their primary, normal constituencies.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I see the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South is on his feet, but unfortunately he is not in his seat to ask a question. I am terribly sorry.

To be honest, colleagues, we are now about 15 seconds over the time for questions and comments. It was going to be a particularly short question.

The House resumed from May 8 consideration 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, last November, the government introduced Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act. Among other measures, Bill C-59 proposed significant amendments to our Competition Act.

I am proud to share that the Standing Committee on Finance has recently completed its review of the bill and has made several amendments to further strengthen existing proposals. Before I get into some of the key details of this critical piece of legislation, I feel it is important to highlight the economic context in which this legislation is being introduced.

Countries around the world are dealing with higher inflation due to a global pandemic, further exacerbated by geopolitical uncertainty. Despite the fearmongering of the Conservative members opposite, Canada's economy is remarkably strong and resilient. That is truly due to the hard work of Canadians themselves. A few proof points demonstrate this: Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio is well below that of our G7 peers; our deficit is declining; and we are one of the only two G7 countries with an AAA credit rating from independent experts. Something that we can all be quite proud of is that Canada received the highest per capita foreign direct investment in the G7 in the first three quarters of 2023. Some may ask why those facts matter. These proof points show that Canada is in an enviable position when it comes to fiscal management. That position is exactly the reason our government can afford to make transformative investments in improving housing affordability and making life cost less.

Unlike Conservatives, who cut support for Canadians, we believe in supporting the middle class through growth and investment. I hear from my constituents often that their top concerns are being able to find an affordable place to live and wanting to find ways to make their day-to-day expenses cost less. This legislation addresses these two core issues head on.

For many years, Canada's markets have been described as overly concentrated and not competitive enough. In fact, a landmark Competition Bureau study last year, based on Statistics Canada data and analysis from a University of Toronto professor, made critical findings in this respect, showing that competitive intensity has been on the decline over the past two decades, reflected in a number of important indicators.

Bill C-59 was introduced to help build a stronger domestic economy through more competition and contestable markets, to bring lower prices, more choice and better product quality for consumers across all sectors. The measures in this bill include strengthening provisions with respect to merger review, enhancing protections for consumers, workers and the environment, and broadening opportunities for private enforcement.

We should not underestimate just how critical these reforms are for modernizing our law and promoting competitive markets. The Commissioner of Competition has stated on multiple occasions that the amendments in Bill C‑56, the affordable housing and groceries act, which was ultimately passed by this Parliament in December 2023, and Bill C-59, are generational. I would therefore like to highlight some important reforms that have been proposed.

To begin with, anti-competitive collaborations between competitors will be under increased scrutiny, as the bureau will be able to examine and, if necessary, seek penalties against coordinated conduct that lessens competition. The expansion of private enforcement and the ability for the Competition Tribunal to issue monetary payment orders in cases initiated by private parties is also a significant change to our existing enforcement approach.

More competition is always beneficial to consumers, but the bill also takes some more direct approaches to protect consumers. These include strengthening provisions on deceptive marketing so that vendors must present the full cost of a product or service upfront, without holding back mandatory fees, which is known as drip pricing. Businesses making environmental claims about their products will be required to have undertaken adequate and proper testing before advertising those benefits. Together, these changes would ensure that consumers have accurate and complete information about products and services to make informed purchasing decisions.

We have also made strides on the right to repair. Thanks to the bill, a wider variety of service providers would be able to offer more options to consumers when they are choosing where to repair their products. These reforms, along with various administrative changes aimed at facilitating efficient enforcement of the act, are crucial to ensuring that Canadian markets remain competitive and in line with international best practices.

It has been acknowledged by all members of the House that our competition framework requires reform, and my colleagues have engaged in thoughtful discussion on ways to modernize the existing marketplace framework. The committee members were notably quite interested in enhancing protections for consumers and the environment, and I would like to draw attention to some now.

First, clarifications were made to ensure that in the Competition Act's various provisions on drip pricing, the only amounts that can be excluded from the upfront price, are those imposed by law directly on the purchaser of the products, such as sales taxes.

Next, with the committee's amendment, sellers advertising reduced prices would be required to be able to prove that the regular price is authentic to publicize discounts. On the topic of doubtful environmental claims, or so-called greenwashing, the law would also require that those who make environmental claims about their business or business activities, not only specific products, have adequate and proper substantiation in hand to support such claims.

This bill goes beyond making generational changes to competition in Canada. It also takes concrete action to build more homes faster, including new rental housing. Bill C-59 proposes to eliminate GST on eligible new housing co-operatives built for long-term rental, as outlined in the fall economic statement. This is just one of many measures our government is proposing to ensure that more people across all provinces and territories find the housing they need, at a price that they can afford.

Amidst a period of inflation and growing affordability concerns, it is crucial that our markets remain resilient and open to competition. Bill C-59 would reform Canada's competitive landscape, encourage greater innovation and improve affordability for Canadians. It would also get more rental housing built faster so that we can ensure housing is affordable for every generation.

I would urge my colleagues from all sides of the House to work together to expeditiously pass this crucial piece of legislation, instead of doing what we have seen in committee, which is to slow the bill down. We continue to see the Conservatives try to obstruct key pieces of legislation that are helping Canadians in their time of need, and that is not what we have been put here to do.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the member mentioned a bit about housing, and I will ask him a similar question that I have asked other Liberal MPs about the fall economic statement and the lack of investments going to the territorial governments to help alleviate the housing crisis in the north.

Does the member agree, for example, that we should have heard the three territorial premiers when they asked for $600 million in the budget? Continuing to ignore those kinds of calls shows a lack of supporting the economy's needs, which could be generated by supporting housing in the north.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the utmost respect for the member opposite, having worked with her on several committees, heard her testimony, and seen her great advocacy for her community.

I know the particular bill we are debating tonight, Bill C-59, has a measure to waive GST on new co-operative rental housing construction. That is obviously one measure of many in a package of measures that are included in this year's budget, which would make a difference.

I note that the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities had a great intervention earlier with the member opposite. He detailed specific investments that are quite sizable in northern, rural and remote indigenous communities. I know my work on the HUMA committee years ago was part of those studies, and I am glad to see that our government is following through with significant investments.

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

Madam Speaker, this fiscal economic statement has led to a budget where the debt servicing costs $54.1 billion, which is more than the federal government transfers to provinces for health care. We all know health care is very important.

How did the member find his way to supporting a fiscal economic statement that led to a budget that spends more on debt each and every year than this whole country spends on health care transfers to provinces?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can relate to the member's commitment to having a strong health care system in Canada today. That is exactly why our government, through the health transfer, has increased funding to provinces and territories.

I would note that the amount is approximately $200 billion over the next 10 years. We have also followed that up with bilateral agreements that add to those investments and identify key priorities across the country. A stronger health care system is essential.

It strikes me as a bit rich that the member opposite is talking about health care, when the Conservative Party, and many Conservative premiers, seem to struggle to utilize those dollars to truly strengthen our health care system. My family members and people in my community cannot even get a $3-million planning grant to move forward on building a local hospital.

Our government has invested in health care, and we look forward to seeing those investments land on the ground for families.

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

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague from Whitby, who I work with at the Standing Committee on Science and Research.

My question for my colleague is on the effectiveness of implementing, creating a new department of housing. Quebec already has the ministry of municipal affairs and housing and the Société d'habitation du Québec.

The last projects that were funded in Quebec, in my region in particular, were funded from money in budget 2022. It took two years to budget the money, transfer it and come to an agreement with the Government of Quebec. I would like my colleague to explain what Ottawa will be able to do better than Quebec. I would like to know what Quebec cannot do with its current expertise.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the member, having worked with him on the science and research committee. I know him to be a productive member of Parliament who advocates for his community well. It was great to see, in our current budget, the great investments in research that we both advocated for.

With regard to housing investments, our government is working collaboratively with Quebec, and all other provinces and territories. It does take time to design programs and roll them out at the national level, but we look forward to the strongest possible collaborative relationship with the Government of Quebec in ensuring that Quebeckers get the housing they need, just like all other Canadians.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege to stand this evening and speak on behalf of the constituents of Lethbridge and, of course, representing those across the nation as well.

I have the privilege of speaking to the budget implementation act concerning the 2024 Liberal budget, which was put forward on April 16. These are some headlines that came out in newspapers across the country following the dropping of the budget: “Liberal hike to job-killing capital gains tax is inexcusable”; “Capital gains tax change draws ire from some Canadian entrepreneurs worried it will worsen the brain drain”; “David Dodge wasn't wrong, this federal budget is 'one of the worst in decades'”.

Here is the next one: “The Liberals move from borrow and spend, to tax and spend”. Another one is, “Canada's budget 2024: More spending, higher capital gains taxes, and bigger deficits”. This one mentions that the federal budget is “the worst in decades”. These are the types of headlines that came out following the Liberal budget, and they are not wrong.

I am not sure if members have heard of an oil salesman. It is a term that originated in the 1900s from an infamous imposter who sold snake oil as a miracle medicine. It turns out that this snake oil was just a concoction of mineral oil, beef fat, red pepper and turpentine, but he would go around and he would claim that it had magical healing properties, so people would spend a whole lot of money on it in hopes that it would deliver the results that were promised to them. Eventually, this con artist was found out, was exposed for what he was doing, and he actually became a very powerful symbol used throughout the land to warn against false advertising.

When I look at the Liberals' budget of 2024, I see a snake-oil salesman, a commitment to doing something but actually achieving the opposite, and a commitment to helping Canadians but actually thwarting their success, which is why we get the types of headlines that I just read into the record.

On April 16, the Liberals announced that they would be strapping an additional $14 billion in new deficit spending to the backs of Canadians. This makes it the ninth year in a row that the Prime Minister has run deficits, while claiming that the budget would balance itself. We all know that is ridiculous; budgets do not balance themselves. He also said that we would change the economy from the heart out. We also know that this is ridiculous. Hard-working people change the economy in a positive way. A blind or ignorant prime minister changes the economy in a negative way, and unfortunately, what we see is a whole bunch of negative.

The Prime Minister continues to promise that Canadians are better off with his budget, but at the end of the day, we know that families are actually worse off. In fact, the National Post just came out with an article this week, saying that if the economy had stayed where it was in 2015, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, we would all be earning $4,200 more per year, which means that under the Liberal government, every single Canadian is $4,200 per year worse off.

In other words, the Liberal government is not actually helping Canadians; the Liberal government is hurting Canadians to the tune of $4,200 per year. That is alarming. That is a lot of money. That is a good chunk toward the down payment of a house. That is a good chunk towards maybe a new vehicle, maybe toward putting one's child in sports or just being able to pay household bills and to make ends meet.

This year, Canadians will have to pay over $54 billion just to cover the interest that has been incurred because of the government's out-of-control spending. That is a whole lot of money, $54 billion, and we lose sight of what exactly that means, so let me spell that out. That is more than what the government collects in GST paid toward just the interest payment.

That is double what this government has committed to our Canadian Armed Forces, the men and women who serve this country, who unfortunately are going without proper food, care and equipment because the government refuses to fund them adequately. Meanwhile, double the amount that is spent for the Canadian Armed Forces is being paid just to substantiate our interest payments.

Further to that, it is the same amount as what this government transfers to provinces for health care. Imagine the hospitals we could build. Imagine the doctors that could be hired. Imagine the types of care that Canadians could enjoy if we did not have to put that money toward just maintaining our debt.

This is the result of a government without vision for its people. It lands us in this place where things are broken. People are desperate. I hosted a town hall just over a week ago, and the room was filled. People were eager to come and share their concerns with me. Overwhelmingly, the things they talked about were housing, the cost of groceries, fuel and other essentials in life. They were desperate for me to offer them hope and, unfortunately, under the current government, I could not do that. All I could do was ask them to hold on for the day that a new government is coming. The way that the Liberal government has ruled and the decisions that it has made, as can be seen in the 2024 budget, simply bring us down.

People in my riding have been sending me their carbon tax bills. One shows that the cost of the carbon tax bill for a household is $4 more than their actual consumption. They are spending more on the tax than they are on the consumption. Another shows that this family is spending $18 more on the carbon tax than they are on their consumption. Another bill was double. Their actual gas cost was $33.11, and their carbon tax cost was $63.41. They are paying double on the tax versus consumption. There was another bill where they actually only spent $20 on consumption, and they spent $34 on their tax.

There is a business that is spending $600 more every single month just to cover their tax. Imagine that. Another business is spending nearly $1,000 more every single month just to cover the carbon tax.

Imagine the impact that it would have for Canadian families if the punitive carbon tax were to be scrapped. We know the Liberal government is not accomplishing any of its environmental objectives. It has failed on every single one of them, so we know the carbon tax is not about that. There is no metric to point at to show success. We are led to believe that it is for no other reason than simply to be punitive in nature. The government has accomplished its goal. Canadians are paying far more for the carbon tax than they are for the actual consumption of natural gas. Canadians are punished. Well done, Liberals.

At the end of the day, it means that Canadians are paying that carbon tax not just on their natural gas bills, but also on the fuel they put in their vehicles, the home heating, as well as the groceries and the necessities they require for their households. Folks are struggling. Two million people are lining up at food banks. In my riding, food bank use has increased by 75%. That is a problem.

The government could do something about that, should it wish to. However, the 2024 budget shows that it does not. It is the same failed policies that have led this government for the last nine years. Unfortunately, Canadians are caught in the middle of that. Conservatives will do better. That is our commitment to Canadians. We look forward to forming government very shortly.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite must know about the challenges that many Canadians have faced in terms of postpandemic recovery, with mental health issues on the rise and with many Canadians stressed out about an uncertain future. Bill C-59 proposes to waive GST on accessing psychotherapy. I think that is a great measure for ensuring that Canadians can get access to the mental health care they need, when they need it.

Can the member opposite tell me whether she supports that measure?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked me to comment with regards to the mental health of Canadians. There is plenty of evidence to show that mental health is directly affiliated with an individual's economic well-being. When they cannot pay their mortgage, when they cannot pay their rent, and they are lining up at a food bank in order to survive, when they are sending their kids to school without getting the proper nutrition in the morning, yes, that does weigh on them.

I am so sorry, you are laughing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member that she is to address questions and comments through the chair and not directly to members.

Order, on both sides.

Again, I just want to remind the hon. member that she is to address questions and comments through the Chair.

I would urge the hon. parliamentary secretary not to egg her on. If he has other questions and comments, he should wait until the appropriate time.

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is really unfortunate that the hon. member across from me is laughing at that. The mental health of Canadians and the economic well-being of Canadians are not laughing matters. I wish the Liberals would treat this with some sobriety.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Lethbridge for her speech. Unsurprisingly, she spent a lot of time talking about the carbon tax.

Now it is important to look at the objective of pollution pricing. The aim is to get people to change their habits. When too much greenhouse gas is generated, it has an impact on the climate and on health, and it puts the financial system at risk too. I always use the example of cigarettes. When we wanted young people to change their habits and smoke less, we raised the price of cigarettes and we also stopped advertising cigarettes.

Given the climate challenges we are facing, what does the member propose to ensure that people change their habits and try to adopt behaviours that are more in line with environmental protection?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member just compared the carbon tax to advertising against cigarettes. In the same way advertising against cigarettes helped bring down the usage rate, I believe the argument she is making is that a carbon tax would also bring down the usage rate of fuels.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order.

I want to remind the hon. deputy House leader to keep his thoughts to himself, and if he wants to try to get up on a question and comment, he should try to do so. Again, I would ask him not to talk out loud and to maybe jot his comments down.

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, this way of thinking put forward by the Liberal government is absurd. We have folks across Canada, about 96% of them, who are dependent on natural gas for heating, which is not exactly an option in this country.

I come from Alberta, and we need to heat our homes in the winter. I think most other places, if not all other places in this country, need to heat their homes in the middle of winter. I think that is just a basic necessity of human life. Further to that, I come from a riding that is largely rural. Getting on a city bus or transit train is not really an option, so they depend on being able to drive a vehicle in order to provide for themselves or to get from point A to point B. Further to that, the transportation of goods in this nation is reliant on transportation units, such as semis and trains.

If we continue to attach a carbon tax to these necessities, these things that are just a part of our way of life, it is not going to bring down carbon emissions; it has been in place for eight years now. It clearly—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have to allow for one more question.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Lethbridge is correct when she is talking about the increase in oil prices, diesel prices and gas prices. However, that has coincided with a massive profit increase in the oil and gas industry. Since 2019, their net profits have gone up by over 1,000%.

I am curious as to why the Conservatives keep ignoring the elephant in the room. Is it willful ignorance, or are they that afraid of confronting their political masters in the oil and gas lobby?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, again, I am not sure what fictitious world the hon. member comes from.

In Canada, we very much rely on natural gas to heat our homes, and the Liberal government has attached a carbon tax to that. We rely on using transportation in order to get our goods to market, and the Liberal government has attached a carbon tax to that. Farmers do tremendous good to actually take carbon from the environment and use it to produce food, and yet they are penalized with a carbon tax. Further to that, grocery stores have a carbon tax applied to them just for simply hosting the goods that we need to purchase.

Then all of that lands on the backs of Canadians. A carbon tax is an absolute farce.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑59 today. As tabled, the federal budget proposes a series of measures that will impact all of Canada. However, it is critical that we consider the unique impact these measures will have on Quebec, a distinct society within the Canadian federation. I believe that budgets should always reflect the general needs of Canada, as well as respect Quebec's specific needs and its jurisdiction.

The bill in question is a key document, as it outlines both the financial overview and specific allocations for various government programs and initiatives. It is sort of like setting political promises to a musical score. The main objective for the Bloc Québécois will always be to ensure that budgets consistently reflect the specific values, needs and aspirations of Quebeckers.

Bill C-59 is a nearly 550-page omnibus bill that contains 60 different measures, about half of which are tax measures, and amends or creates 31 acts and regulations. Naturally, Bill C‑59 is made up of good and bad elements, but there are two measures preventing the Bloc Québécois from voting in favour of Bill C‑59.

Indeed, the bill contains two measures that could be described as very bad. There is $30.3 billion in subsidies to oil companies in the form of tax credits, meaning that taxpayers will pay oil companies to pollute less when they do not need that money, which seems very sarcastic. That $30 billion could have been used to help families, who are struggling more and more every day. I think everyone agrees that families are currently in greater financial trouble than oil companies. Instead of greasing the wheels of oil companies, the government could have used that $30 billion to fight against homelessness and increase access to housing.

The government could have taken that $30 billion and done some of the good things the Bloc Québécois suggested. For example, it could renew the rapid housing initiative and make it permanent; create a program to acquire and renovate existing rental buildings for non-profit housing organizations; set aside a specific portion of funding in all housing programs to ensure that Quebeckers receive their fair share; increase the transfer for rent subsidies; transfer the affordable housing innovation fund and the new co-op housing program to Quebec; increase funding for renovation of the existing social housing stock currently under contract; support community rental housing projects by providing ultra-low-rate loans; offer lower-rate loans to first-time buyers to give young people access to home ownership again; relax the prohibition on the purchase of a home by non-Canadians for people who live here and intend to stay here, regardless of their status; significantly increase the envelope for indigenous housing to address the housing shortage on reserves by 2030; and tackle homelessness by increasing and renewing the Reaching Home program for five years.

We have a lot of homelessness back in Val-d'Or. There is no money. There is no support administered by the federal government or transferred to the provinces. The government could have set up an emergency fund to help cities and municipalities support the homeless in their communities, and could have given them the resources to do it.

As we can see, this $30 billion could have been used effectively to make a big difference in the lives of Quebec families. This $30 billion could have been transferred to the provinces and territories so that governments could better support and fund food banks.

I would rather see children going to school with full bellies and in good health than give money to oil companies with deep pockets and healthy finances. I also think that our seniors could have benefited from this money, because they deserve a lot more than what the federal government is offering them. They worked hard, very hard, their entire lives and they deserve to live with more dignity today. I am sure they would have been very happy to get that extra money. This $30 billion could have been used to increase old age security starting at age 65 or to implement measures for our seniors.

The fact is that the Bloc Québécois made some good proposals to the government. We asked the government to implement an action plan to encourage the retention and hiring of experienced workers, including an increase in the employment income that can be earned without affecting the GIS. The government could have provided a tax credit to encourage experienced workers to stay on the job. It could have continued to pay the deceased's OAS and GIS to the surviving spouse for three months. It could have enhanced the caregiver tax credit and made it refundable so that everyone could benefit, including people with modest incomes.

No, none of that was done. This government thought it would be better to help rich oil companies than our seniors. In my riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and elsewhere in Quebec, there is also the forestry sector that could really use a helping hand. Since last summer's forest fires, the forestry industry has taken a beating. Hundreds of people have been laid off at various mills in Quebec. In my riding, for example, Resolute Forest Products announced to its 50 employees on March 26 that it was suspending operations at its sawmill in Comtois, near Lebel-sur-Quévillon, for an indefinite period. The Béarn sawmill in Témiscamingue, owned by Chantiers Chibougamau, closed its doors indefinitely on April 25. A total of 120 workers were laid off. In just over a month, nearly 600 workers have been affected by this wave of layoffs across Quebec.

The money for oil companies could have been used to help the forestry industry. We do not know what will happen this summer. Are we going to have to live through the same hell we experienced last summer? How much forest area will burn? The forestry industry in my region is an important player in our regional economy. Is it or will it be in jeopardy? One really has to wonder. I also think that it would have been a good idea to use the money for rich oil companies to increase the health transfers to the provinces thus guaranteeing equitable access to care for everyone, particularly after the challenges posed by the COVID‑19 pandemic. In short, there are many examples of how those billions of dollars could be put to better use.

The second bad measure in this bill is the creation of a federal department of municipal affairs. Yes, Bill C‑59 creates the department of housing, infrastructure and communities. There is already a minister, but unfortunately, there is no department and we cannot count on an army of civil servants to interfere in provincial jurisdictions, which is the Prime Minister's favourite activity. By creating a full department, Bill C‑59 gives the minister the organizational capacity to interfere more, to impose more conditions on the provinces and municipalities, and to intensify disputes and delays. I wonder who in the House likes to pick fights. This bill definitively answers that question. What about the massive amount of money it will take to run this new department? That is money that could have been used elsewhere, to make life better for everyone. One thing is very clear. Housing, local infrastructure, land use planning and municipal affairs are not federal jurisdictions.

In closing, although the budget implementation bill also contains some good things, it remains essential that these proposals be adjusted to more specifically meet the needs of Quebec. The Bloc Québécois will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that Quebec is not just a partner, but a key player in designing policies that affect its constituents. We are at a decisive crossroads. Before us is the chance to shape a stronger, fairer and more sustainable Quebec. In the future, we see an innovative, green and prosperous Quebec, a Quebec that thrives and inspires not only within Canada, but around the world. Quebec has to be master of its domain, and its jurisdiction has to be respected. We do not accept a budget that would treat Quebec as just another province, without taking into consideration its specific realities. We are advocating for a strong Quebec in a just Canada. Accordingly, because of the measures cited, we will be voting against Bill C‑59.

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

Madam Speaker, we know, and the member most certainly knows better than I do, as I live in British Columbia, that many people in Quebec cannot afford groceries, while the grocery giants and CEOs continue to bring in billions of dollars in profits. It is a very unfair situation.

We know that the NDP, the leader of the NDP and my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford have done a lot of work to make changes to the Competition Act that are included in the fall economic statement, which includes stricter prices for companies involved in price-fixing.

I wonder if the member feels that we should continue to allow rich CEOs to reap extraordinary profits off the backs of people who are struggling to keep food in their fridge.

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

Madam Speaker, the $30 billion could have been allocated differently. Oil companies do not need money. Our families do. People are trying to find housing and there is none. Why wait until after 2025 to provide money for housing?

It makes no sense. The government is not taking action.

I think that families and children are what is most important.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, there are many good measures in the 2024 budget that resonate with the people in my riding of Sherbrooke, including the school food program, money for housing, money for the New Horizons program and money for homelessness. However, what I am hearing the most is that students are very happy to see that the grants for post-secondary education have been increased.

I am wondering if my colleague is also hearing positive things about that measure in her riding and if, as a result, she will vote with us in favour of the budget.

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

Madam Speaker, we must keep in mind that it has been 20 years since students have seen an increase. Thanks to my colleague who has worked very hard on this file, the government is taking action.

The important thing is that the government stop shelling out billions of dollars to oil companies. It is very important to help families and people in need. There are a lot of homeless people everywhere. We are seeing it in Val‑d'Or. We need to help these people too.

The money must be transferred to the provinces, and Quebec in particular, because there are needs and this is essential.

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

Madam Speaker, this bill talks a lot about the middle class. However, in my riding, the middle class is poorer because of rising taxes and the rising cost of housing and food.

What is the situation like in Quebec? Is it the same there?

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

Madam Speaker, yes, the situation is the same pretty much everywhere, in Quebec as in the rest of Canada. Everyone knows that. I am still talking about families and parents who need a home or a place to live for their family. There are children going to school who do not even have enough to eat. Food insecurity is becoming more and more of a problem pretty much everywhere, so we need to help these people.

The government needs to do something about this, and fast.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague gave a very down-to-earth presentation describing what the Bloc Québécois had proposed to really help people.

When she talked about the billions of dollars going to oil companies compared to what could have been done, she listed a lot of things. She was full of ideas.

I would like to know which of these ideas she would prioritize if money could be diverted from the oil companies to something else. What would be her priority?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who does great work.

I would like to see the environment prioritized more. Not enough money is being spent on the environment. We have had forest fires and we expect more. Other places have had floods. What is the government doing?

The government cannot wait. It must act now.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take to my feet today to talk about the fall economic statement.

First, if I have some latitude, I want to say that Canada just lost a national treasure not too long ago. It came out in the National Post that Rex Murphy passed away this evening, at the age of 77, after his battle with cancer. I hope that I will be able to read some of Rex's best quotes into the record. I am sure that we will recognize him later on, but I thought it would be fitting. He was, I think, an iconic writer in our country for years. I think he has the respect of all sides. He was a great, proud Maritimer as well. I googled some of his best quotes. I am going to read a couple here.

Rex Murphy said, “Everything written, if it has anything in it, will offend someone, and if the mere taking of an offence were to amount to a license to kill the offender, well the world will be sadly underpopulated of novelists, columnists, bloggers and the writers of editorials.”

He also said, “Not every article in every magazine [or] newspaper is meant to be a valentine card addressed to every reader's self-esteem.”

This is a personal favourite of mine: “Stay away from philosophy kids. It'll ruin your mind.”

He also said, “Hollywood is a narcotic, not a stimulant. It wants to sell you something. Literature wants to tell you something.”

This is another personal favourite. I am a country music singer, so this is the last one. He said that Shania Twain has done more for country and western than heartbreak and whisky combined.

To Rex Murphy, may he rest in peace.

The fall economic statement was a disappointment from our point of view. It really did not address some of the major concerns and issues we had. It did not fix the budget, stop the crime, build the houses or axe the tax. We know that Canadians from coast to coast are continuing to find it harder and harder to put food on the table. That is something that sorely needs to be addressed in this country. As of last year, two million people used a food bank across this country. It is now expected, from food bank data, that three million people will do so in 2024. This is not the Canada that I want my children to grow up in, and I think most people would agree with that.

I had a great opportunity this week to attend the Food, Fuel, and Fertilizer Global Summit, held in Regina, Saskatchewan. They had some of the most forward-looking thinkers in the industry when it comes to prudent agriculture, energy and resources. One of the speakers was Tim Gitzel from Cameco, a company located in northern Saskatchewan. They said an agreement was made among 24 nations, and in the next couple of decades, they want to triple the amount of nuclear energy to fight climate change. That is a big commitment from nations across this world. That means they can go from 400 to 1,200 nuclear reactors.

That was not addressed in the fiscal update or even in the budget at all. Canada can be a world-leading nuclear power, but it is falling by the wayside because the government has an ideological philosophy that is not in favour of nuclear power.

Another speaker at the summit was Bruce Bodine. He is the CEO for Mosaic, which has its head office in Regina, Saskatchewan. They are one of the leading producers and exporters of fertilizer in the world. That is so important; a speaker said at this summit that, in the next couple of decades, we are going to have to produce as much food to feed the world as we have in the past 10,000 years.

That means we are going to have to grow our agriculture sector. In the fall economic statement, there is nothing that looks at growing our agriculture sector. In fact, the government has had policy after policy that continues to kneecap this sector. By 2030, the carbon tax will cost ag producers $1 billion a year; this will come out of the pockets of our agriculture producers across the country. Can one imagine the innovations that they could have if they kept that money themselves and put it into new technology and new machinery?

I was able to go to Ag in Motion in Saskatoon. It is one of the leading agricultural shows in North America, where they actually have on-site demonstrations. I was able to go to a Yara plot. The person who took me from Yara said to scan some leaves. I had a little instrument. I scanned 20 leaves in a plot, and it gave, to the decimal point, how much fertilizer one is supposed to put on that plot.

A lot of people in the chamber and in the ag community do not realize how advanced agriculture has become. While fertilizing in a field, that changes the amount of fertilizer one puts in real time. Lower spots have a bit more moisture, so one puts less fertilizer. Higher spots on the hill are drier, so one puts a little bit more. We do not need the government to tell agriculture producers how much fertilizer they need to use; they are already doing it.

Another great technology that has come out of, not government but the private sector for agriculture, is GPS and field mapping. I remember 10, 15, 20 years ago, on our farm, we had a disker, and we would over-seed 10 feet all the time just to make sure we had enough seed. Now, with GPS and field mapping, there is no over-seeding; there is no going back and forth over a field. That is saving emissions when it comes to the machinery, which is not going back and forth over the field as much.

However, we did not see anything in the fall economic statement to promote agriculture. In fact, we always hear the opposite from the NDP-Liberal coalition. We see that agriculture is a bit like a person the Liberals do not want to talk about. They like it because it brings in some money, but they do not promote it on the world stage. They always ask, “How can agriculture in Canada lower emissions?” However, according to the ECCC, they are not even tracking them. Actually, the environment commissioner just came out with a report on the agriculture strategy of the Government of Canada, and there is no strategic plan in the Department of Agriculture to lower emissions. That is straight from the environment commissioner's report.

The Liberals have been in government for nine long years, and they talk about climate change every day, but there is no strategic plan to lower emissions. That is exactly what the non-partisan environment commissioner said in the report. It is actually a condemnation of how little the Liberals have planned. They will throw a bunch of programs at the wall, but none of them have stuck, because they actually do not have a plan to lower emissions.

The carbon tax is not a plan. It is not an environment plan; it is a wealth distribution plan, and we see that time and time again. When we are talking about how the Prime Minister is not worth the cost, he is not worth the cost of food, because people now cannot afford to put food on the table. He is not worth the cost of housing, because, despite the fall economic plan and the budget, housing costs will continue to increase. They have doubled since the Liberals took government. The Liberals have doubled the cost of mortgages, and they have doubled the cost of home properties.

The amazing part is that, 10 years ago, it took 25 years to pay off a mortgage in Canada. Now, under the NDP-Liberal government, it takes 25 years to save for a down payment to get a home. It is no wonder now that eight out of 10 young Canadians believe that they will never own a home. That has happened over the nine long years that the government has been in power. It is no wonder that the Liberals' polling is the worst it has ever been with younger Canadians. They have lost faith, because they do not believe this is the country where they can get ahead.

I had the pleasure to serve with Premier Wall in the Saskatchewan government. On his last day, when he gave his final speech in the Legislative Assembly, he ended with this, and I'll end with this as well. This is about how a person should always be judged after they leave politics or when they are done: “Did you leave things better than you found them?” The unequivocal answer for the Liberal government is absolutely not.

I know the Liberals are fans of slogans, so I will leave them with this: Instead of build back better, they should put it back the way they found it.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that great speech. I know that he always represents his constituents greatly in this place, and I want to thank him for all the experience that he brings, particularly from Saskatchewan.

It has been coming up more and more in this place, and I am not sure who came up with it first, but someone is proposing that we change the GST to the DST, or the debt servicing tax. Could the member make some comments around that?

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

Madam Speaker, I know that the member represents his constituents well also.

I would say it is a scary point in Canadian history when the federal government, the NDP-Liberal coalition, is spending more money on debt servicing than on health care. My friend is right. The amount of GST the government is bringing in is equivalent to what it is paying in debt. There is so much more that we could be if we had our fiscal house in order. That is something we will deliver as a common-sense Conservative government, and we will make sure we give Canadians the government they deserve.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague ended his speech by suggesting that the government put things back the way they found them.

I have a suggestion for him, and that is to put things back the way they were in the 1960s, 1970s or earlier, before we started seeing rising temperatures and the damage that was causing.

Does my colleague have any idea how much climate inaction costs?

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

Madam Speaker, a lot of people continuously talk about the inaction on climate, but that is not the point I was talking about. I was talking about all the innovations we have made in agriculture and in our energy sector to lower our emissions. We should be a guiding light for innovation and technology in those sectors. The last barrel of oil on earth should be drilled in Canada because we have environmental standards, labour standards and human rights standards that are better than those of other oil-producing countries.

Canada produces 1.5% of the world's emissions, and of Canada's 1.5% of emissions, agriculture accounts for 10%. We are leading the world. There is a great study by the Global Institute for Food Security that I wish all of my colleagues would read because, compared to all other jurisdictions that produce what we do, we have the lowest emissions per bushel on earth.

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

Madam Speaker, I love the narrative by Conservatives about the total emissions of Canada compared to globally. Now I would encourage the member to tell the House what the per capita emissions of Canadians are, because they are a lot higher than those of the vast majority of other countries in the world.

While the member is at it, perhaps he could inform the House what the Conservative plan is when it comes to addressing climate change, because we hear nothing. All we hear is the Leader of the Opposition say is that they believe in technology, but that means nothing.

What is the Conservative plan?

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

Madam Speaker, I am proud to talk about what we have contributed to the world.

What the member fails to understand is that we also produce a lot that helps feed the world. We produce the wheat, barley, peas, lentils and other crops that feed millions of people around the world, and we have to export them around the world. The fact that the member cannot comprehend that we are an exporting economy and thus that our emissions would be a little higher is, quite frankly, not surprising.

Second, we have the natural gas that could displace Russian gas for our partners so they would not continue to feed a war machine. That would also increase our emissions a bit, but it would lower global emissions. Third, if he wants to find out about our environmental plan, call an election and we will run on it.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order.

I would ask people who want to have conversations to go out into the antechamber so that the House can continue its work.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

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

Madam Speaker, it is good to be a New Democrat today and every day, as we stand in the House firmly on the side of the right to choose, and to treat the illegal toxic drug crisis with compassion and facts. This is the complete opposite of the Conservatives' ideologies that are harmful and their arguments that are lacking in facts and compassion.

Tonight as we discuss the fall economic statement, I am proud to stand here as a new Democrat with a leader, the member for Burnaby South, who is willing to name corporate greed in the House of Commons while the Liberals and the Conservatives continue to protect big corporations that are gouging Canadians at the cash register. That is a major driver of inflation and hardship for Canadians.

The Conservative opposition frames itself as an alternative to the Liberals, but the corporate-controlled Conservatives are no better than the sitting Liberals. They too believe the market will fix every problem, even though it is a fact that unbridled corporate greed is driving up the cost of food, housing and gas. When it comes to housing, this market-driven ideology has resulted in record displacements and homelessness across Canada, even among seniors who should be safely retired in their home.

There is no way to solve the housing crisis with market solutions alone. The federal government, in the mid-1990s, stepped away from producing non-market housing, and 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 finance committee heard from home developers, financiers and real estate people that the market is not going to solve the problem. That is not to say that we do not need more market housing, but it is to say that we want to see the government focus specifically on non-market housing, which has been neglected for years and absolutely must return in a significant way. We must do this; the government must do this in order for us to solve the housing crisis.

It is a problem with the current government and will be a problem with any future Conservative government because the parties share the same market-driven ideology. The Liberals must address corporate greed. The leader of the NDP has given them the road map through his bill, the lower prices for Canadians act. The Liberals need to act on it immediately.

Another thing the government must do is legislate corporations that want to invest in Canada and create jobs in Canada, particularly in the natural resource sector. The natural resource sector is experiencing a rebirth, and there is an expectation by New Democrats that it is going to be creating good union jobs in that rebirth. That is why I am very proud of the labour conditions that are attached to the investment tax credits in the fall economic statement. The legislation would implement those labour conditions for companies investing in Canada. This generation of young Canadians needs good union jobs. New Democrats want investments in Canada from companies that respect their employees and are prepared to pay their workers well.

Too often in Canada, the governments, both Conservative and Liberal, have accepted a situation where they are happy to have companies come in and compete on the cost of labour, have a competition about who can pay the least to do a job. I am very proud to say that with the legislation in the fall economic statement, we would be implementing for the first time ever, because of the NDP, conditions on an investment tax break that centres workers in the middle of it and has an apprenticeship requirement. In the long term, employers with foresight see the value of passing on training and knowledge and of creating a workforce they can avail themselves of, but we know there are employers that do not have that strategy, and that is why we need legislation.

I want to come back to housing because it is an important topic. 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, 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.

Since the economic statement was first tabled, the AFN has estimated that the infrastructure gap for the first nations, Métis and Inuit communities has reached over $400 billion. Alongside that, it was rumoured before the recent budget was tabled that the government was contemplating deep cuts at Indigenous Services Canada. New Democrats fought hard to prevent that, but investments by the government continue to fail indigenous peoples.

I want to come back to the question of the role large corporations are playing in driving up the cost of living in Canada. A report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer as recently as December 2021 said that 1% of Canada's population owns and controls 25% of all the wealth in this country, and the bottom 40% of income earners in Canada share just 1% of all of the wealth that is produced in Canada. This is not fair.

What has happened since the year 2000 is that the proportion of wealth controlled by the top 1% has increased exponentially. That needs to change. The big hole in government revenue comes from the people in the top 1%, who are walking away with much more of Canada's overall wealth than they used to because they pay significantly less tax than they used to. Their tax rates are unrealistically low. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have let the people at the top off the hook from having to pay their fair share. That inequity needs to be fixed.

I will close by saying Canadians are working hard, playing by the rules and doing everything right, but life is getting harder. It does not have to be this way. New Democrats are working for the people. In the bill, there are stricter competition rules that would lower food prices, investment tax credits that would drive higher-paying jobs and measures that would lower rents, with a $16 billion investment in affordable housing funds and apartment construction loans.

It is not as strong as the investment the NDP would make, but so much better than what the Liberals would have done on their own, and the Conservatives have shown over and over again that they side with their wealthy donors and give them the tax breaks they lobby for.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the way the member started off her speech today, by talking about the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body.

Unfortunately the House has been under assault over the last few days, with the member for Peace River—Westlock talking about preborn children. He and the member for Yorkton—Melville today spoke on the front lawn to an anti-abortion rally, where the member for Yorkton—Melville said, “The truth is not being told in the general media, or in our House of Commons, about what abortion really does to your heart and mind and your soul and your body, let alone to that life that is lost.” She went on to say, “We in the House [of Commons], as Conservatives, stand for equality between women and men from the instant of conception.”

I am wondering whether my NDP colleague has had an opportunity to reflect on what has happened over the last week, from the Leader of the Opposition's comments about using the notwithstanding clause to the member for Peace River—Westlock's comment and to now what is being said on the front lawn of Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to echo the comment that was made by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre today: “Keep your hands off our uterus.”

Just before my speech in the House today, a Conservative stood up and asked us to roll back the clock. I am very concerned about how far back the Conservatives are willing to roll back that clock.

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

Madam Speaker, a little while ago, the member put up on social media an idea that in order to fight climate change, all the indoor hockey rinks in Canada should be shut down. Not only is that extremely un-Canadian, but it also is a radical proposal that would just destroy the heart of what it means to be Canadian. What other radical and extreme ideas does she have for fighting climate change that would be extremely un-Canadian and would destroy the way of life of people?

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

Madam Speaker, I am so glad this question came up because the Conservatives have a really hard time with facts, and what the member said is unequivocally untrue. I have never said anything about hockey.

I think what is important is how much time Conservatives spend on social media, making ridiculous memes and lowering the tone in this House. We are talking about the fact that they want to roll back rights for people who have a uterus. That will happen if the Conservatives ever become government in this country.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have been paying keen attention to gas prices in my riding. From February to March of this year, the price jumped by 30¢ a litre, from $1.59 to $1.89. When the British Columbia carbon tax came into effect on April 1, it jumped up by only three cents. Only a week later, it jumped up a further 10¢.

I wonder if my colleague could talk about the extreme disconnect the Conservatives have over their obsession with the carbon tax and completely ignoring their political masters, the oil and gas lobby. They will not say a single word on behalf of their constituents to confront their real masters in this place.

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

Madam Speaker, the oil and gas corporations and their CEOs are double-dipping. Not only are they taking subsidies from taxpayers, but they are gouging them at the pumps, and the Conservatives are letting it happen.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member on many of the things she said. I know that in our discussions on Bill C-59, the Competition Act reforms, there was much collaboration between the Liberals and the NDP at committee. We took some of the NDP's suggestions and further strengthened the measures. I would ask her if she knows what is left to do on the Competition Act reforms as per her leader's bill.

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

Madam Speaker, what I will say, since the Liberals are asking, is that it is time to break up the monopolies. It is time to break up the monopolies that are driving up cellphone bills and food prices in this country. They are not allowed in the United States. The Liberals, and the Conservatives before them, have let this flourish in Canada.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have been talking about Bill C‑59 for a long time, so I will get straight to the point.

There are both good things and bad things in the bill. The Bloc Québécois is opposed to it. I think that has been said. I have very strong feelings about one of the reasons we oppose it. The government is once again giving gifts to the oil industry.

For the umpteenth time, the government is kowtowing to this sector, giving it $30.3 billion in oil subsidies in the form of tax credits. As a result, taxpayers will be paying oil companies to pollute less, even though they do not need that money. What is more, the companies have no intention of cutting production or undertaking projects that will help Canada meet its climate and environmental protection commitments. Quite the contrary.

Oil companies do not need this money, but they keep asking for it, and the government gives it to them. They have the most powerful and influential lobby, so the government always gives them whatever they want. From pandemic-era asks to arguments in favour of technologies that do not work and increasing deregulation, oil companies always end up with plenty of money.

In recent years, as the pandemic wound down, the oil extraction industry was posting record profits. It raked in $38 billion in 2022, and 2023 promises to be just as lucrative, though the figures are not yet available. Who benefits from these returns? It is the shareholders, 70% of whom are foreign. That is a lot of capital leaving Canada.

The current government's budgets are loaded with goodies for this sector, with plans to introduce no fewer than six tax credits largely intended for oil companies and totalling no less than $83 billion by 2035. The industry is thrilled. Two of the tax credits are tailor-made for the industry: a clean technology investment credit and a carbon capture and storage credit.

Let us start with clean technology. How are the oil companies going to get their hands on the lion's share of the $17.8‑billion pot of money earmarked for clean technology? Let me try to make this simple, but by no means simplistic. It takes a lot of energy to extract the molasses-like substance known as bitumen from the Alberta sands. Right now, the sector uses gas. Selling the gas is a lot more profitable, however, and that is what the oil companies would prefer. The good news is that after punching through Wet'suwet'en territory for the Coastal GasLink project, a new Shell and LNG Canada methane port will make the dream of exporting gas a reality within about a year. This is where the genius of clean technology comes in. Everyone supports it. Everyone believes in it. Just tack on the word “clean”, “green” or “sustainable” and problem solved, the Government of Canada will mind its own business.

With this subsidy to enable the extraction of this toxic molasses to continue and even increase, Bill C‑59 will pay oil companies to buy small modular reactors or SMRs. These are nuclear reactors. The energy from the SMRs will replace the gas that oil companies are currently using, so that they can extract more bitumen and make more gas available for export at taxpayers' expense and especially for their own profit. I am not making this up. It is really well thought out. We still do not know all of the characteristics of the radioactive waste that these SMRs produce, and yet oil companies will be using them in a context where Canada still has no control over the governance of such waste. It is a real model of cleanliness on all counts. Excuse me if I laugh.

For the fervent soldiers across the aisle who might try to tell me that we know that the clean technology tax credit will also benefit renewable energy, no, that is not true. First, there is no qualifying limit for this tax credit. In other words, the astronomical costs of the SMRs are going to drain the allotted budget, leaving very little for the other manufacturing sectors. This is expected to cost the public treasury $17.8 billion by 2035, according to estimates from the Department of Finance. Despite the repeated requests from my esteemed colleague, the member for Joliette, the government has not seen fit to provide the Standing Committee on Finance with a breakdown of the numbers to help us calculate how much of the money would go to the oil companies.

So much for Canada the champion, the leader of leaders, and its much-touted transparency.

What can I say about the carbon capture and storage investment tax credit? There is a lot to say. I talk about it often, but I will reiterate a few points.

I will begin with the fact that the government says that the $13‑billion carbon capture and storage investment tax credit will be available to every major emitter, such as cement plants and steel mills, but that is not true. It is pretty obvious that it is available only to oil and gas producers. There is nothing for Quebec's major emitters, unless the intended message is that Quebec should just produce oil and gas. No thanks. Legislation was voted on for this.

A 2022 Pembina Institute report entitled “Waiting to Launch” shows that, despite making record profits, the oil sands industry is not investing in decarbonization efforts in accordance with its climate commitments. The infamous Pathways Alliance is publicly calling for easily available measures such as process improvement, energy efficiency and electrification. Again, the oil and gas industry has more than enough money to put these measures in place. However, its priority is buying back shares and paying dividends.

The federal government fell into the industry's trap. In my opinion, the government saw it coming, but fell for it anyway. Pathways Alliance's game plan depends entirely on major investments by the federal government. Essentially, it sees consumers as the ones responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, it makes the federal government responsible for the costs of carbon capture projects. This is an industry that is transferring all the risks and costs of the transition to the public. It is putting the burden on the shoulders of taxpayers and consumers.

The United States is not always a good model, far from it. However, our southern neighbours seem to be wising up to the truth a bit faster. In fact, just last month, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget and the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability published a joint report stating that “[t]he companies' massive public-facing campaigns portray [carbon capture and storage] as a viable and available solution to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, but the companies acknowledge internally that they are not planning to deploy the technology at the scale needed to solve the warming crisis”. Clearly, these companies know what they are doing. The report also states, “The industry's true goal is to prolong, perhaps indefinitely, the unabated use of fossil fuels”.

There is something deeply disturbing about the federal government's fiscal trajectory. Bill C‑59 and Bill C‑69 share a connection. I will briefly explain.

Bill C‑69 creates a clean hydrogen investment tax credit and sets out the terms and conditions. When the government announced it in 2023, it estimated that it would total $17.7 billion by 2035. It is a refundable tax credit. Even if the company pays no tax, it is entitled to the refund.

With Bill C‑69, the government will cover between 15% and 40% of the investment costs required to produce hydrogen. We are talking about green hydrogen, a net-zero energy source. Costs are still prohibitive. Right now, hydrogen is made from natural gas. It is good for the companies, because it creates another market for their gas. As a result, even if gas consumption were to stagnate, they could continue to increase production if they converted their gas into hydrogen.

The oil and gas industry's agenda is well crafted, Machiavellian even, because it covers all the angles. Still, one would have to be deaf or blind, or both, to not notice and take action. Either the government is drinking the Kool-Aid the industry has been serving at the hundreds of lobbying meetings they have had, or it is collaborating with the industry.

I will close by saying that if oil companies dip into the first pot, Bill C‑59, for carbon storage in gas extraction, they can then get even more out of the second pot for converting that same gas at taxpayers' expense. That is bad for the energy transition, but it is a dream come true for freeloaders.

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

Madam Speaker, I know there has been a lot of rhetoric in this House from the Conservatives about declining productivity. That is of no surprise when the oil and gas industry in Canada, one of the largest contributors to the economy, is not reinvesting in R and D, is not reinvesting in innovation, but instead is skimming profits and redistributing them to wealthy shareholders.

I am wondering what the member thinks about that.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, as I said in my speech, they have no intention of meeting their greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. They say they do, but look at what the United States found out.

It seems clear to me that oil and gas companies in Canada definitely do not want to stop production. The money is for their shareholders, and most of those shareholders are foreign companies. Wonderful. Capital is leaving the country, yet we kowtow to oil companies, promising them billions of dollars.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask the member about the greenwashing provisions in the Competition Act. The government worked collaboratively and very closely with Bloc and NDP members to strengthen the provisions within the Competition Act that deal with products that claim to be sustainable and also general claims that companies may make. I think those provisions in the Competition Act really prevent against greenwashing and ensure that companies have to substantiate and have evidence for the claims they make.

Could the member opposite speak to whether she supports that and whether she will be supporting Bill C-59 as a result?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member knows the Bloc Québécois's position on that. Yes, there have been improvements and we are not saying that we need to start from scratch. We never said that. What we are saying is that it does not make sense to be giving oil companies billions of dollars, like we are doing now.

It is funny because we were talking about greenwashing recently at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. The commissioner gave a really good definition of it in one of his reports. It is a shame that I do not have it here with me, but I will give an example of greenwashing. Whether we are talking about carbon capture and storage for oil companies or the much-talked-about SMRs, it is ridiculous to think that nuclear energy is clean energy. That is absolutely ridiculous. Nuclear energy has never been clean energy. The more elected members buy into that idea, the further we will sink into another form of greenwashing.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her wonderful speech on the environment. It was very clear and straightforward.

I would like to ask her the following question. Does she see any interference in Bill C-59 and does she see even more of it in Bill C-69?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She also made a good speech, in which she spoke about the billions of dollars going to oil companies.

We need to look at the root of government interference, which is fiscal imbalance. What does that mean? First, Ottawa takes in more revenue than it needs. Second, Ottawa uses that financial leeway to interfere in areas outside its jurisdiction. That is exactly what the government is doing with Bill C-59 and Bill C-69.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer said it himself: If the trend continues, eventually the provincial governments, including Quebec, will be virtually bankrupt, while the federal government will see its revenues increase.

What will the result be? The federal government will be able to intervene in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It is an unprecedented centralization of power in Ottawa's hands. That is one of the many reasons why we will be voting against these two bills.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, there seems to be so little interest in the fall economic statement, that I do not think there is quorum.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member knows full well there are no quorum calls at this point. If he would like, I can send him the document so he does not have to raise the point of order again.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Rimouski‑Neigette-Témiscouata-Les Basques.

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

Madam Speaker, a leopard cannot change its spots.

Once again, it is clear that the Liberal government is trying to interfere in Quebec's affairs and fantasizing about taking over jurisdictions that do not belong to it and in which it has no expertise. Why? Maybe it is trying to justify its existence and appear relevant. Budget 2024 and this bill are perfect examples of that. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C‑59. Let me say this loud and clear: The federal government's unabashed assault on Quebec's jurisdictions is scandalous.

By choosing to create a federal department of municipal affairs, which it calls the department of housing, infrastructure and communities, Ottawa is announcing yet more interference in how Quebec runs its internal affairs. The size of the public service has jumped by 42%, or 109,000 public servants, and the tax burden has increased by $20 billion, but the Liberal government wants to make the public service even bigger, doubling its army of highly paid public servants, whose thankless task it will be to interfere in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, and who will give the federal government the organizational capacity to impose even more conditions on Quebec and municipalities.

It is readily apparent that this massive public servant hiring campaign will make it easier to coordinate the centralization of power and decision-making in Ottawa. The father of the current Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, tried a similar approach when he created the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs in 1971. The experiment was a dismal failure. As the saying goes, like father, like son. We need the humility to learn from our past mistakes in order to avoid repeating them.

As a proud regionalist and elected official in a riding that includes 39 municipalities and three regional county municipalities, commonly known as RCMs, I know what I am talking about. Many of them are already having a hard time getting what they are owed from the federal government, because of funding that never arrives on time or cuts in financial support for the cultural sector, for example. Why complicate the process with more delays, costs, disputes and even more delays? Municipalities need fast, effective and direct action to address the various issues. They are the ones that deliver services most directly to the public. The federal government, however, is doing the exact opposite by adding more layers of red tape that will only increase costs and lengthen delays.

I should also point out that the Parliamentary Budget Officer recently said, about federal services, “public services themselves appear to have deteriorated. Not all of them are at the level one would expect from the public service.” Do my fellow citizens really want the federal government to manage more things? Well, no.

The really sad thing about this part of Bill C‑59 is that the Liberals are offering a solution that no one asked for instead of meeting expectations within their own areas of jurisdiction, and that is really detrimental. I feel like I am repeating myself, but the housing crisis we are currently experiencing, which is dragging on because of half measures that do not solve the problem, must be addressed quickly. People are suffering. Social housing in particular has been chronically underfunded since the 1990s, yet the federal government is not stepping up. Instead, it is trying to take even more responsibility despite its ineffectiveness and incompetence in other matters.

The vacancy rate in Rimouski is 0.6%. A balanced market sits at 3%. That means it is almost impossible to find housing. Families are living in motels. It is disgraceful. It is not just in my riding, either. My colleagues and neighbours throughout the Lower St. Lawrence are in similar situations, with a rate of 0.7% in Rivière-du-Loup and 1.2% in Matane. The answer is simple. We are asking the federal government to stop trying to manage everything, to stop micromanaging, and to simply do what is expected of it, which is to transfer the money to the Quebec government, unconditionally. Then we can tackle the crisis and try to resolve it. The Bloc Québécois is not going to make concessions. We will stand firm.

Let us now talk about the second major concern that we have with this bill. While we want to do away with fossil fuels, the Liberals are reminding us that they are great allies of the oil companies by adding a $30.3-billion subsidy in the form of tax credits paid for by taxpayers. I am talking about the taxpayers who are watching us at home this evening. That $30.3 billion belongs to them. This is not really surprising. We know that Suncor had a hand in drafting the government's policy. The image that comes to mind is that of a firefighter arsonist.

In Rimouski, these same super wealthy companies are increasing the cost of gas for residents, sometimes by up to 20¢ overnight. They have a virtual monopoly and yet they are putting a huge burden on the shoulders of those who depend on their vehicles to get around, make a living and get to work. I already know that some members will tell me that those individuals can just use public transit to get around. They are right, but when the federal government abandons the regions to focus on large urban centres, then public transit in the regions is obviously not sufficient to offer a real alternative to vehicle use.

The Lower St. Lawrence has practically no trains or buses anymore. The number of weekly private bus departures has gone from 6,000 to 882 since 1981. That is an 85% drop. I met the heads of Via Rail recently. They told me that the trains that go to Rimouski have been in service since the 1950s or 1960s, that the rail cars are at the end of their useful life and that these lines will have to be shut down in a few years if the federal government does not invest in them soon. That means we are going to lose one of our last links to the rest of Quebec if the government continues to do nothing. This situation has been going on for too long. Budget 2024 was not the boost we were looking for to save the regional connections.

I get the impression that we are going backward. Our ancestors who built the railway must be rolling over in their graves looking at their descendants shutting it down, when we do not even have an alternative in place. Is the federal government waiting to swoop in at the last minute like a hero at the risk of further isolating the regions?

I will not get into the fact that there are virtually no flights in the regions. The wonderful corporate citizens at Air Canada took advantage of the public health crisis to cease their operations in June 2020 and they never came back to our region, or to the Mont-Joli regional airport, more specifically.

As a result of all of these transportation problems, some of my constituents now even have to take a taxi to Quebec City to get hospital services. I hold the federal government responsible for that, because it is refusing to abide by its agreement to cover 50% of Quebec's health care costs, which compromises access to health care and the development of these kinds of services in the regions.

Now, if the billions of dollars earmarked for oil companies had instead been allocated to transportation, imagine how much the government could have actually improved the situation. We see that the government's priorities are not always in the right place and that the regions still do not matter to the Liberals. They basically never do.

Consequently, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-59, which both encroaches on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and demonstrates the full extent of the Liberal government's hypocrisy. There has never been a more centralizing government. I get the impression that it wants to revise the definition of a confederation. We are no longer in a confederation; we are under a central government that wants to appropriate all the powers and change the rules of the game without consulting the players. I would even go so far as to say that the rules of the game are constitutional agreements. We cannot take it lightly when agreements with partners are not being upheld. The government claims to want meaningful collaboration with its partners, yet it does not even respect its own agreements with its so-called partners.

Moreover, we will not support the creation of a department whose main task will be to interfere more aggressively in Quebec's jurisdictions and double the government's army of public servants. Nor will we support the $30.3 billion subsidy to ultrarich oil companies that will undoubtedly compromise our ecosystems and slow down the energy transition that Quebec is spearheading.

That concludes my speech. I welcome questions and comments from my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, the fall economic statement is supposed to build an economy that works for all Canadians, but I can tell from the member's comments that clearly it is not working for the economy in Quebec. I wonder what the member thinks the government should have put forward in order to promote the economy in Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a saying that goes, “If you want something done right, do it yourself”. That is good, because the Bloc Québécois is a separatist party. It is in favour of independence. It wants to take care of its own business by itself, for itself, without needing anything from a federal government that does not always share Quebec's priorities.

As my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton just said, this is clearly a direct attack on Quebec's jurisdictions. The government no longer wants to let us make decisions for ourselves, by ourselves, for the well-being of our people and in accordance with our priorities.

There is no way we can vote in favour of something that is not in line with our constituents' priorities. Our autonomy is being compromised. There was not even any consultation. That is completely unacceptable. We are therefore well within our rights to vote against this bill, another brazen attack on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

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

Madam Speaker, when we talk about the importance of people being able to make ends meet, there are two things in this bill that stand out for me. One is around the pregnancy loss leave, which would establish a new paid leave for workers in federally regulated sectors who experience loss of pregnancy. When talking to constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, this is something that comes up often.

Another piece that stands out is the adoption benefit for employment insurance, which introduces a 15-week EI benefit for adoptive parents. I really appreciate seeing items like this being included to make sure that caregivers and those who have experienced the loss of a child are able to take the time necessary either to be with their loved ones or to grieve the loss of a loved one.

I am wondering if the member can share if he feels that those are important items that we have in place for Canadians across the country.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of this measure, which finally recognizes how distressing such situations can be for parents.

We did not wait for the federal government to create our child care system. It has been around for 25 years. The same goes for our other social programs, such as the Quebec parental insurance plan, which has been around for many years. Quebec has a strong social safety net. Again, we did not wait for help from the federal government.

The Quebec parental insurance plan provides between 15 and 18 weeks of benefits after the type of situation my colleague mentioned, whether it was a spontaneous miscarriage or a planned termination. There is an adjustment that varies depending on the situation, but all that is to say that this is a good measure.

However, just because there is one small measure in a sea of bad measures does not mean that we are going to support this budget. When things are good, we have to say so. When they are not so good, we should not be shy about saying so either.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the regions, which we know have needs with regard to transportation and airports. I would like him to explain the needs we have in the regions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has one minute to answer.

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

Madam Speaker, it will take me a lot longer than a minute to make the federal government understand that the regions exist and that they have specific needs, just like Quebec, which is also distinguished by its nationhood and its own specific needs.

Air transportation is practically non-existent in the regions. When its pals at Air Canada ask for millions or billions of dollars in wage subsidies, the government is there to help. However, when it comes to providing services to regular folks and putting planes on the tarmac, the government is nowhere to be seen.

As for rail transportation, our friends at Via Rail want financial support to renew their rolling stock, which is so old it cannot run any longer. It requires constant patch-ups and repairs. In the near future, what will happen? How will the trains keep running?

Once again, the government is abandoning public transit, especially in the regions of Quebec. That is completely unacceptable. It compromises life in the regions, including the empowerment and growth of rural residents.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the fall economic statement for the constituents of Kootenay—Columbia and for Canadians.

After nine years, the Prime Minister has repeatedly demonstrated a concerning lack of regard for the best interests of Canadians. The pattern is unmistakable and is underscored by a persistent tendency toward overspending that has become all too familiar.

Instead of prioritizing the needs and concerns of Canadian citizens, the Prime Minister has consistently favoured overspending, disregarding a balanced budget essential for economic growth. The irresponsible approach not only undermines the trust and confidence of Canadians, but also jeopardizes the long-term economic stability and prosperity of our nation.

It is our duty, as representatives of the people, to hold our leaders to account and to demand accountability for their actions. We must ensure the government's spending is aligned with priorities and the values of Canadians, promoting transparency, efficiency, effectiveness and accountability at every turn.

The Prime Minister's track record of overspending serves as a stark reminder that he refuses to acknowledge the role in Canada's massive debt, which has grown to a staggering $1.2 trillion. It is an absolutely unfathomable amount. Along with that debt comes interest. The interest is $54 billion. To put this into perspective, $54 billion is more than what we spend on a Canada health transfer to support provinces and territorial health care.

It is deeply disturbing and downright offensive to Canadians that the NDP-Liberal government treats our constituents' hard-earned money this way. The level of management is unacceptable and undermines the fundamental trust between constituents and elected officials. We owe it to our constituents, frankly, to do better.

It is not just about fulfilling our duties as elected representatives, but also about honouring the trust and confidence our citizens have placed in us to steward our nation's resources wisely and responsibly. There is a profound expectation for us to make decisions that will foster prosperity and progress for our country, to build a Canada that Canadian citizens are proud to call home.

Regrettably, what I am hearing from my constituents paints a different picture. The country's debt has a ripple effect that touches every aspect of our society.

One area where we see this impact is in housing. The cost of housing has skyrocketed to the point where many young families in their thirties are realizing that their dream of owning a home may never become a reality. They have resorted to renting from homeowners who are also experiencing record-breaking interest rates on their mortgages, which is forcing higher rent increases.

At the same time, our population is growing rapidly, but we are not building enough homes to accommodate everyone. The imbalance between supply and demand is inflaming the housing crisis and is making it more difficult for people to afford housing.

Those who try to help are denied. Stephen from Revelstoke reached out to me regarding his grant application, which is approximately $15 million over the course of a few years to a housing accelerator fund that he and his organization had been denied. Realizing that the lack of housing and affordability is the number one issue in Revelstoke, the same as in many other communities, especially those in the hospitality and tourism industry, Stephen was curious how the communities would keep up with demand. They were shovel-ready, yet they were told they were too organized, so they would not be getting the funding.

Another area where we see increases is with taxes. Allan from Kimberley wrote to me quoting the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance saying that the budget is “to help Canadians.” However, in his words, he said that it would not help his granddaughters, aged 3 and 14, and that they would be the ones to pay for the federal debt when they start work.

Brenda from Creston is frustrated and wrote to say that surely it is understood that burdening the already overly burdened public with yet more taxes is unfair, while those in office take liberties with how they spend money. She said that she was adding her voice to those who have already asked that steps be taken to reduce spending and that the Government of Canada identify with its citizens during these expensive times. In other words, they are asking that the Government of Canada be accountable to the taxpayers.

Rick from Cranbrook said that he just wanted to drop a quick email to state his opposition to the budget. He said that it does nothing and provides no benefit for Canadians other than the privilege of paying a rapidly increasing proportion of their taxes to service ballooning debt. Again, it is $53 billion.

My constituents are fed up. They are fed up with the financial stress, the limited financial flexibility due to higher interest payments, the lack of economic growth and the certain intergenerational burden the government has brought upon us.

A question asked by many is about how such a resource-rich country is in so much debt. With the minerals, forestry and energy, we should be global leaders and well into the black.

The lengthy permitting process for new mines in Canada can take up to 25 years to get approval. This is a significant challenge for the mining industry and hinders the timely development and export of critical minerals. To address these challenges, it is essential for the government to allocate the necessary resources to expedite environmental reviews and permitting processes. The government has to recognize the need to accelerate the permitting processes and the production of the critical minerals that are essential for a variety of industries, including technology, renewable energy and defence. However, these permitting policies continue to undermine Canada's attractiveness to mining, investments and others.

Trail has critical minerals, and the Elk Valley has steel coal, a critical mineral for steel. Yesterday, KC Recycling came to Ottawa to talk about how it recycles 95% of lead-acid batteries, yet we are still shipping batteries from Canada to third-world countries instead of recycling them here.

The ongoing U.S.-Canada softwood dispute has placed Canadian manufacturers in a prolonged period of uncertainty with no negotiated settlement in sight. The extended period of instability has a significant impact on the forest industry, limiting its ability to generate revenue and to contribute to the economic growth of our country. Canadian lumber producers are burdened with punitive tariffs that impede their competitiveness and that hinder their ability to thrive in the global market. The imposition of tariffs has not only undermined the profitability of Canadian lumber exports, but also exasperates the existing challenges faced by manufacturers, including the rising production costs, supply chain interruptions and market unrest. Furthermore, the uncertainty surrounding softwood lumber stifles innovation within the industry, hindering long-term capability.

Canada has an abundance of natural gas, especially in British Columbia and Alberta. Exporting liquefied natural gas to the EU presents a fantastic opportunity to tap into a new market and potentially to boost our economy. Selling LNG to the EU could play a critical role in diversifying Canada's energy exports. Right now, we rely on the U.S. market for energy exports, which leaves us vulnerable to shifts in its energy policies and market conditions. By expanding our reach to the EU, we could spread out our risk and could ensure a more stable income stream for our natural gas industry.

Moreover, exporting LNG to the EU aligns with global efforts in the transition to cleaner or more sustainable energy sources. Natural gas is a cleaner alternative to coal and oil, and supplying LNG to the EU could help it reduce its carbon emissions and meet its energy needs in a more environmentally friendly way. This can strengthen Canada's reputation as a responsible energy producer. Additionally, fostering strong economic ties with the EU through energy trade can enhance our diplomatic relations and co-operation with other countries. It is a win-win situation that benefits both Canada and the EU.

With the basic examples provided, it is absolutely a disservice to Canadians for the NDP-Liberal government to not try harder to keep the debt down and balance the budget. Every family knows that if they spend more than they bring in, they go into debt. The main difference is they realize they have to pay back their debt, while the Prime Minister tries to pay back his debt by increasing taxes on Canadians.

When will the Prime Minister own up to his financial failings, admit we need to do better and balance the budget?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I pose my question to the hon. member, I too want to express my sincere condolences on the passing of a Canadian icon and a Canadian treasure this evening, Rex Murphy. The Speaker seems surprised. Obviously, this is news to him.

On the reverse of that, I want to wish Lillian Vaughan, a Barrie—Innisfil resident, a happy 105th birthday today. I know that she is a big supporter of the Barrie Colts. She is at home this evening with Bryan and Jennifer. Happy birthday to Lillian.

Rural Canada is obviously a big part of the member's riding. I wonder if he can talk about the fall economic statement, the latest budget and their impact on rural Canada. I represent half a rural constituency in Innisfil, and I find there is a disproportionate negative impact on rural Canada. I wonder if he could speak about that.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for informing the House of the passing of a great Canadian.

I also wish a happy birthday to Lillian.

The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia,.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the thing about rural Canada is that we have to drive. We have to drive our families to events, whether it is for school events or whether it is for a hockey game, and some of our driving is 300 kilometres, sometimes further. Our seniors have to drive to go to medical appointments, which could be in hospitals that are 200 to 300 kilometres away. Where it gets difficult is with the rising price of the carbon tax for our people who use vehicles. We do not have transit systems like downtown Toronto. It is very disproportionate, and it makes it very hard for those on a limited budget, like seniors, to be able to afford to go get the help that they need.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the tail end of the member's speech, he was talking about LNG. Let us call it what it is: It is methane, CH4. No one here will argue that, when burned, it is cleaner than coal. That is a scientific fact. I do not think people have a problem with the burning of it; it is the unburned methane that is a very real problem. When that escapes into the atmosphere, it is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is.

I think the real problem is that Canada has many abandoned and leaky wells. Often, the companies that have exploited that gas have left it to the people of Canada and our tax dollars to clean up. I want to hear a serious response from the Conservatives on how they address that problem. We are not disputing the fact that it is cleaner-burning than coal, but what do we do with the leaky wells that we have often had to pick up the tab for?

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I have travelled together, and I have a lot of respect for him.

With natural gas, I do believe that the government already had some funding to fix the leaky wells. I believe it was in budget 2017, 2018, 2019, somewhere in there.

The thing is that there is a lot of money to be made by selling our LNG to places like the EU, which is just a start. If we start doing that and start getting the tax dollars, because the government has no money and the only money it has is what it gets from taxes, that will, in turn, help us to be able to fund, like the member said, leaky wells and other issues that we need to fund, because we do not have any income coming in, and it would help our GDP.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to respond to the NDP member who spoke earlier with regard to leakage from abandoned wells.

I would just observe that Canada can adopt regulations and rules that will be a world standard. We talk about doing the same thing with our carbon pricing. Therefore, if we believe we can be a world standard with rules that are adopted with regard to carbon pricing, surely we can be a world standard with regard to leaky wells, and if that is so, then gas produced in Canada will be a superior substitute and better for climate change, producing less climate change due to less leaking methane, than in other countries. That is a very good reason to expand our industry here in Canada rather than to shut it down.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to speak on behalf of the people of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook in Nova Scotia, and I am pleased to speak to Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023.

When I say “fall...2023”, I know that those listening to me must be perking up their ears. It is because the Conservatives have been dragging their feet, as they often do, to slow down the process and delay the passage of bills that will help and support Canadians.

The bill is really our government's economic plan for making life more affordable and ensuring that we continue to invest in housing and create an economy that works for all Canadians. Over the past few years, our government has introduced a number of measures to help Canadian families. We know that many families are struggling right now because of the cost of living. That is why we are introducing direct measures to help Canadians in difficult situations.

For example, the Canada-wide early learning and child care system that we are implementing from coast to coast to coast is saving many families a lot of money. When I say “a lot”, I do mean a lot. Thanks to this new national system, families across the country are saving between $2,000 and $14,000. My colleagues can imagine what that means to these families. I can say that my daughter used to pay nearly $2,000 a month for child care for her three children, and now she pays $800. Now she can invest the remaining $1,200 in something else to help her family. There is no doubt that this is making a big difference for families and their budgets.

Furthermore, our government's enhancements to old age security, the Canada pension plan and the guaranteed income supplement allow more retired people to live comfortably in dignity. It is very important that the benefits increase every year so that they do not fall behind.

We are well aware that groceries cost more. My children remind me often, and when I go to the grocery store, I also notice that the prices are too high and that something needs to be done. In June last year, we distributed a grocery rebate worth hundreds of dollars to 11 million Canadians to help them out.

We also made college and university more affordable. We helped young people by permanently eliminating interest on student loans and Canada apprentice loans. To help students, we increased grants from $3,000 to $4,200.

Our government fully understands that better competition means lower prices, more choice and more innovative products and services for Canadians. That is why, with Bill C-59, we are proposing to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act to ensure that Canadians have more choice when it comes to the companies that they do business with. With these changes, we will be able to strengthen the Competition Bureau's tools and powers. We will be able to further modernize merger reviews, which is always an important issue. We will be able to strengthen consumer and worker protection. We will give the competition commissioner the means to examine more types of anti-competitive collaborations and find solutions that work.

These measures will help us increase competition. This will enable Canada to align itself with international, not just domestic, best practices, to ensure that the domestic marketplace promotes fairness, affordability and innovation.

Our government also understands that psychotherapy and counselling services play a key role in the lives and mental health of millions of Canadians. With Bill C-59, we are making essential services more accessible by eliminating the GST and HST on professional services provided by psychotherapists and counselling specialists.

On another matter, our government wants to help adoptive parents through Bill C-59. While EI maternity and parental benefits provide essential support for new parents, adoptive parents are currently entitled to EI parental benefits but not the 15 weeks of maternity benefits. We are therefore introducing a new 15-week EI benefit for adoption that both parents can share.

As members can see, our government has already implemented several measures to make life more affordable. We are continuing our work with Bill C-59.

In conclusion, I think it is clear that the government wants to make life more affordable for Canadians. We have already implemented a number of measures over the past few years to help take the strain off Canadians. We will continue in the same direction to support Canadians. Obviously, we are making sure that the measures we propose fall within our ability to pay. Fortunately, we are in a very strong economic position to invest in Canadians. We continue to make those investments.

I invite all my colleagues in the House to vote for Bill C‑59 so that we can continue to make life more affordable for Canadians.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would note that my hon. colleague comes from northern Canada, as do I. Where we come from, the distances are large and the climate is cold, and the carbon tax is costing all of our constituents a lot of money just to live.

Would the hon. member agree with us that it is time to axe the carbon tax, so that our constituents can afford to live?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that when he talks about axing the tax, he is talking about axing the rebates.

I would like to remind him that eight out of 10 Canadians are getting more money back in their pockets than what it is costing them up front. He should know, as his constituents are receiving over $1,500 per year, and he is talking about making those cuts. Those cuts would be the beginning of the process, because we know that the Conservatives would cut a lot deeper. They would cut the dental plan, which is, of course, major for seniors, with over nine million people receiving it. The Conservatives would be making cuts after cuts, like they did to veterans in 2014.

We are investing, and the Conservatives are looking at making cuts.

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

Mr. Speaker, the federal housing advocate has called out the government for failing to uphold Inuit's right to housing. For the people in Nunavut especially, and my colleague has done an incredible job of representing them, there have been significant failures to address the significant housing shortage there now.

We were pushing for the federal government to provide Nunavut's request of $250 million in housing in this fall economic statement. Could he explain why that did not happen and when the federal government will meet its obligations to people in Nunavut?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for all the hard work she has done on the veterans affairs committee. I appreciate that we have been able to work together on a number of projects.

I would like to remind my colleague that the big reason we have a housing crisis is because, when the former Conservative government was in power, it did not see any responsibility in contributing toward housing. Whereas, our government brought forward the first national housing strategy ever in the country, and we have put some major projects on the table.

As well, we have just invested, in budget 2024, a continuation of rapid housing with the accelerator fund and the use of modular homes, which is a new innovative approach, and taking the tax off the construction of rentals. We are doing this right across the country, and we will focus on every part of the country. I am sure Nunavut will be at least part of that process.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do believe the member is an honourable member, but when he stands up in this place and he says that more Canadians are getting back more from the carbon tax than what they are paying, nobody believes it.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that is not true and that more Canadians are paying more in the carbon tax. In the province of Ontario, it is $600 more. Canadians are paying more for gas and to heat their homes, and businesses are paying more in the carbon tax. How can he stand up here and say that to Canadians when the information out there is contrary to what he says?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is an honourable member as well, but he is taking pieces of the report and trying to apply them to the whole. We know that eight out of 10 Canadians are getting more money back, and the people in his riding are receiving more money back as well. One cannot just cut little pieces to make them look like something else.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate 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.

What a difference four months can make. Indigenous peoples, leaders, advocates and Canadians were shocked and angered at the cuts announced by the Liberals to Indigenous Services Canada in the fall economic statement. How could the government, in the face of a $350-billion infrastructure gap for first nations, be proposing cuts to the services indigenous peoples and communities rely upon?

The Liberals said it would not affect services, but never in the history of cuts this big has that been the case. While they will never admit it, the Liberals reversing some of those cuts is a tacit admission that it would have been the case.

Let us be real about what a $350-billion infrastructure gap looks like. It is a lack of a hospital for the Island Lake region here in northern Manitoba, a region the same size population-wise as Thompson. Communities, such as Shamattawa, are having to deal with a tuberculosis outbreak because the housing crisis is so bad.

First nations on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, such as Poplar River, St. Theresa Point, Garden Hill, Wasagamack, Red Sucker Lake, Oxford House, God's Lake Narrows and God's River, have to live in enforced isolation by the federal government because of the lack of an all-weather road, and the devastating impact of climate change that is rendering its ice roads less and less dependable.

Communities such as Peguis have recently announced that they are taking the federal government to court because of the lack of support they received during the devastating floods of 2022. It has crumbling roads, a housing crises, and a lack of care homes, day cares, youth drop-in centres and recreation centres.

How could the government show this kind of disdain when it comes to its most important relationship? The Liberals say this gap will be closed by 2030, but we know that is not true. Department officials have made it clear that this will be another Liberal broken promise. The AFN has estimated the gap will not close until 2040. The ministers in charge of indigenous services, northern affairs, infrastructure and Crown-indigenous relations refused to meet with the Assembly of First Nations representative to discuss the government's failure on infrastructure and housing.

Ultimately, this failure rests with the Prime Minister, who always says the right thing when it comes to first nations, but pathologically refuses to deliver. He is now refusing to release the quarter billion dollars on housing. The federal government shortchanged first nations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta because the federal government was using outdated census data. For a Prime Minister who says he is committed to first nations and reconciliation, it seems his preferred method for delivery of services is court ordered.

First nations were clear that the cuts to Indigenous Services Canada for key programs, such as Jordan's Principle, could not stand. The sunsetting of programs related to mental health or the harmful legacy of residential schools was a non-starter. The NDP was clear on this too. I am proud of the work of our team has done, in solidarity with first nations, Métis and Inuit communities, to roll back these cuts. We were clear with the government that it had to reverse these cuts if it wanted NDP support because it is that important.

However, it is clear the Liberals still do not get it, or they do, but they simply do not care. What other conclusions can one draw when the Liberals are investing less than 1% of what is needed to end the housing crisis facing first nations? It is a housing crisis so severe that we could double the amount of homes for first nations and people would still be living in overcrowded conditions.

It is no wonder the Minister of Finance did not mention the word “reconciliation” once in her speech on the budget. Why would she? This year's budget highlighted the $57 billion the government is spending that is court ordered. It is clear the government only helps first nations when either the NDP pressures it to or the courts order it to do so.

I know many of the people across the country are sick and tired of the harmful and divisive partisan bickering that takes place in this chamber every day and of how nothing is done here the way it should, but the NDP showed what principled politics can look like. We held firm on our demands. The Liberals folded, and we reversed the cuts. We did that with 25 MPs. While the Conservatives were happy to spend their days arguing and fighting for the best clip to use for fundraising, we in the NDP got to work to make a difference for people who in many cases need it the most.

Imagine what we could do with 35 MPs or 50 MPs, or even as the official opposition or government. An NDP government would not give away hundreds of millions of dollars to billionaire CEOs so that they can pay dividend checks. We certainly would not have bought fridges for Galen Weston. We definitely would not have spent less than 1% of what is needed to end the housing crisis on first nations.

With 25 MPs, we reversed the cuts to indigenous services, forced the Liberals on dental care and pharmacare, and brought in a capital gains tax. We did not point fingers. We did not plug our fingers into our ears. We just got to work to deliver for indigenous communities, for working people and for Canadians, because for every failure in the budget, there is an important win to be found.

While there is no wealth tax, we did force the Liberals to bring in a capital gains tax on gains above $250,000. While the Liberals refused to reverse the Conservative $60-billion corporate giveaway they have ignored for almost a decade, we forced them to deliver so that kids would not go to school hungry. We also know that 3.7 million Canadians will now have access to diabetes medication and 9 million Canadians will have access to free birth control, all due to NDP pressure.

Meanwhile, we have a Conservative Party, led by a hyperpartisan Conservative leader, that seems hell-bent on bringing back a war on women. Shamefully, we also saw at least one Conservative MP stand with anti-choicers, who were standing against a woman's right to choose and against women's human rights on Parliament Hill today.

Looking at this budget, and looking at the wins for working-class people, how could one make their signature opposition to it be access to free birth control in 2024? Why is the Conservative Party so bereft of ideas that it is forced to recycle their worst ones from yesterday, a few decades ago or maybe even a few centuries ago, when it comes to women?

It is no surprise they are single-mindedly focused on making Parliament fail for people. For a leader who likes to cosplay as a defender of the working class, he sure is happy to echo the message of the well-heeled lobbyists he pretends not to meet. He may say he will not meet lobbyists, unless you include his chief strategist. He may say he will not connect with billionaire CEOs, but he will fundraise off them. He may say he will not speak with the wealthiest corporations in the country, but he will echo their every message. I want to point to the recent work of The Breach in uncovering the extent to which so many people connected to Loblaw, Metro and others are big donors for both the Liberals and Conservatives.

It is ironic that the Conservatives, a party whose slogan is “bring it home”, are so fundamentally opposed to housing solutions in the country. What homes are they “bringing it” to? They are consistently opposing funding for housing for first nations living in overcrowded and mouldy homes, and their approach to housing would mostly help rich investors make more money off the housing market and leave Canadian families behind.

Our message to Canadians is clear. If they want more cosplay and stunts, if they want more coddling of billionaires and if they want to watch their tax dollars go to the wealthiest people in the country, they should vote Liberal or Conservative, but if Canadians want a country where indigenous justice is a priority, where no one is left behind, where we can have a health care system that is truly there for our needs, and where the wealthy pay their fair share to fund the services and the society we need, the NDP is the party for them.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly sounds like Conservatives are living in this member's head with the constant attacks. I recall when I was House leader and the costly coalition was formed, the unholy alliance between the NDP and the Liberal Party, I referred to that situation as the NDP heading to an abyss of irrelevance. Certainly, if I check out the latest polls, the NDP has not gained any status at all among Canadians. In fact, many Canadians feel like the New Democrats have sold their collective soul to the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party. As such, I am wondering how the member can reconcile that, given the status of the party in the polls.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it curious that the member is hyperfocused on what I said about his own party. Perhaps he is feeling a bit defensive. If he had heard my speech, he would have heard the wins that we in the NDP pushed for, as I mentioned, such as the reverse to the major cuts that were being planned to Indigenous Services Canada.

I know that the Conservative Party does not care much about investing in indigenous communities, so maybe that was not heard or cared for. Also, we talked about what we have delivered on pharmacare and on dental care, particularly around diabetes medication and birth control.

Again, these are priorities that the Conservatives are actively fighting against. I think that speaks more about them. Our wins speak to our work and our values.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, whenever the NDP asks questions about the lack of investments that the Liberal government and the previous Conservative government have made to indigenous housing, we are always told about how much more the Liberals have been investing. I wonder if the member can tell us what the impacts of those statements are on indigenous peoples who live in overcrowded housing conditions and who live in mouldy conditions.

Meanwhile, children are going to school without the sleep that they need to get the good grades that they need.

Can the member explain what happens when those promises are being broken?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say how proud I am to be able to work alongside the member in fighting for indigenous communities, for Inuit communities, for first nations. Of course, we share a common border. It is a privilege to work with such a fierce advocate, and I want to acknowledge all of the work she has done, particularly on housing.

To the question of broken promises, I cannot help thinking of the statement that every child matters, which we know is so much tied into the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

Every time Conservatives and Liberals break promises when it comes to housing, indigenous health, infrastructure and education, the signal that they are sending is the opposite of every child matters. It is that indigenous children do not matter and that their futures do not matter, certainly not the way that non-indigenous children's futures matter. Racism runs deep in our country and in the practice of government, and nowhere is that more evident than in the lack of funding and the broken promises that we have seen from Liberals and Conservatives alike.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I really struggle with, and I think this member spoke about it, is the hypercritical nature of what we seem to get for everything that this government brings forward in support when working with the NDP, whether it is related to climate change, whether it is related to supports for children or whether it is related to making sure that we are building housing.

All we ever get from Conservatives are slogans and they do not actually give solutions. I am wondering what her comments would be on that.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, many of my constituents remember the way in which the Harper government cut us off at the knees in working-class communities and in indigenous communities. The leader of the official opposition was part of that government.

Actions speak louder than words, and I am proud of the actions that we have delivered as the NDP. Certainly, I think we all know the Conservative track record, which is the opposite of what they are committing to Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to the fall economic statement.

Here we are. We had to time allocate the fall economic statement. For those that might not clue in, including some of those who are heckling me already in my preamble to my speech, the fall economic statement, believe it or not, was tabled in the fall. However, here we are, as we approach June, and we still have not had an opportunity to vote on this because the Conservatives relentlessly prevent us from bringing forward an opportunity to vote. Those are the tactics that they use.

When I think about the measures that the government has brought in to support Canadians, notwithstanding the endless rhetoric that I hear from Conservatives about those measures, I am extremely proud to be part of a government that has made meaningful efforts to support communities and individuals and to give people the chances they need.

Around everything that the government has been doing, in particular the budget that we are debating concurrently with this one, the main theme is fairness. I would say the theme of fairness applies to the fall economic statement that we are debating now as well.

It is hard for me to really debate anything this week without reflecting on the comments I have heard from Conservatives in the House. The Leader of the Opposition started a discussion by saying that, if he becomes prime minister, he would use the notwithstanding clause to invoke the laws that he sees fit. He wants to live in a country where one man gets to decide what the laws are of the land. He does not care about the judiciary. He not care about the processes or the systems that are in place. That is all that the Leader of the Opposition wants, and that is what he is demonstrating when he talks about using the notwithstanding clause.

After that, we saw the member for Peace River—Westlock start to talk about the “preborn”, protecting the preborn and encouraging the government to bring in policies that would protect the preborn. It cannot be a coincidence that the Leader of the Opposition starts to talk about using the notwithstanding clause, and then Conservative members bring up the issue of abortion and outlawing abortion in Canada. It cannot be a coincidence that these people assembled on the front lawn of Parliament Hill today to cheer on the member for Peace River—Westlock and the member for Yorkton—Melville.

This is what the member for Yorkton—Melville said on the front lawn of Parliament Hill, and this is not the 1960s. It was today. She said that the truth is not being told in the media or in our House of Commons about what abortion really does to one's heart and mind, soul and body, let alone that lost life. The member then went on to speak on behalf of all Conservatives when she said, “We in the House, as Conservatives, stand for equality between men and women from the instant of conception.”

The member for Barrie—Innisfil also believes in equality from the moment of conception. I appreciate his saying that. Now we know where Conservatives stand.

People are probably wondering how this all ties into the fall economic statement. That is where I am going with this. I wish that the member for Peace River—Westlock, the member from Barrie—Innisfil and the member for Yorkton—Melville cared just a little about that child when it is an actual child.

If they did, they would vote in favour of things and support initiatives such as the national school food program that would actually put food into the bellies of children. They would support initiatives such as the Canada child benefit that actually supports children while they are growing up. They would support initiatives like $10-a-day child care to help families, and in particular mothers, who more often than not are the parent that stays at home to take care of children, and to help them when they need help.

I am aghast at how much Conservatives, including those heckling me right now, are so preoccupied with the preborn, to use the words of the member for Peace River—Westlock, and have no regard whatsoever, or at least do not acknowledge any regard, for children that need to be taken care of right now in our communities. One has to ask oneself why that is. Is it because they somehow have this passion for the preborn? No, it is not. They are not interested in children or the preborn. What they are interested in is controlling a woman's body. That is what they care about. That is the Conservatives' angle on this.

That is why 80 of the current sitting Conservative members of Parliament, I am sure more than half of them in this room right now, are endorsed by anti-abortion organizations. They have given the Conservatives the green light. Can anyone imagine an organization that gives a different colour light based on one's willingness to support its anti-choice objectives? People get a green light if they are considered really anti-choice. They get an orange light if the organization is somewhat cautious about whether it can trust that they will be anti-choice enough, and then they get a red light if they are pro-choice, meaning the organization does not support those individuals.

In 2024, this is the world we live in. I know Conservative members, in particular, female Conservative members, have challenged me, such as the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, saying how dare I talk about this issue, as though I cannot talk about this issue because I am a man. I have news for her and the Conservatives who are heckling me now. I have an obligation to ensure that my five-year-old daughter has the same rights that her mother had when she was growing up. I have an obligation to ensure that the rights that my mother's generation fought for and the rights that my wife enjoyed continue for my five-year-old daughter as she grows up. That is why I am speaking up about it, despite the Conservative heckles and despite what is happening on Parliament Hill in this chamber over the last couple of weeks.

It is extremely unfortunate that Conservatives have decided that they feel emboldened to start having these discussions once again, because their leader is giving them the authority to be the worst versions of themselves that they can possibly be. Unfortunately, that is where we are right now. The leader of the Conservative Party is encouraging members to act in the way they are acting, to say what they are saying and encouraging the members for Peace River—Westlock and Yorkton—Melville to go out on the front lawn of this place and start talking about restricting a woman's right to choose what to do with her body.

As long as I am here, I will not let it happen. I will stand up to it, and I genuinely believe that a majority of the members of the House will continue to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is misinformation and disinformation that the member has just laid out to the House. The Conservative leader has been clear that he will uphold the party position, which is that it will not support any abortion legislation. However, the level of desperation that exists across the aisle is interesting. Liberals must know how far down they are in the polls because every time they get that far down, they go there again.

With respect to the fall economic statement, the member thinks so highly of the programs that have been introduced. However, the food program for schoolchildren has no food in it. It is a plan to interfere in provincial jurisdiction. The dental plan has no dentists signed up in the Northwest Territories, Yukon, P.E.I. or Nunavut, and I could continue. It is a fiasco. Does he not recognize that?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition actually feels that way, what he needs to do is stand up, turn and face the 80 Conservatives who have been endorsed by anti-choice organizations throughout this country.

In terms of the member's question about dentists, I know that over 70% of the dentists in my riding have signed up. There are thousands of dentists that have signed up for the program in Ontario. There are thousands of dentists in British Columbia and Quebec, so—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

Some of the heckling is getting a little loud. It was quiet and pretty good before. I am just going to ask members to please allow the hon. member to speak. The person who should have the floor is the person who has been recognized by the Speaker. We do allow a little bit of flexibility, but I am just asking members to keep it down.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I have never before witnessed a Conservative Party that not only objects to policies but also actively roots for their failure. That is what the Conservatives are doing. We are trying to provide pharmacare and dental care, and they are not only against them but are also actively rooting for the programs to fail.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just looked myself up on Campaign Life Coalition's website, and I got a giant red light too, so I think I am doing well. One of the things, interestingly, is that not only am I listed as pro-choice and a defender of human rights, but also that it lists my ideology as pro-LGBT. I think that is interesting to note in terms of the coalition and defending human rights. However, maybe I am crazy and maybe I should be condemned for being in favour of paper tops for cups at Tim Hortons as well.

The Leader of the Opposition has often gone after pensions, calling them “payroll taxes”. Could the hon. member explain why that is a problem as well?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would wear that red light as a badge of honour. I think it is absolutely shameful that people focus so much of their time on trying to figure out how they can try to correct other people because they do not fit into the mould that they see as being ideal for them. They really need to stop paying so much attention to other people and start reflecting on themselves to figure out what is wrong with themselves.

With regard to the member's question about pensions, of course the Leader of the Opposition would refer to the CPP as a payroll tax. It is not a payroll tax; it is something that people pay into. It is something that the employee pays into, as does the employer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel it is unacceptable that we are discussing abortion rights today. Women have the right to choose what they do with their bodies. I therefore feel it is inappropriate that we should engage in such discussions today. This is what the right to freedom is all about.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. It is up to women to choose.

Maybe the member for Peace River—Westlock should step aside and let women choose what they want to do with their bodies, rather than trying to take his ideology and his ideas and impose them on other people. Maybe it is time for him to self-reflect a little bit to figure out how he can make himself a better person, rather than trying to control what other people are doing with their bodies.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite a fiery debate this evening. It is an honour for me to rise on behalf of the constituents of Oshawa and speak about the CBC, or the communist budget of Canada. I know that when members hear “CBC”, we think of the propaganda arm of the Liberal government, but, no, that is not what we are talking about today; that is a whole other speech. Today I am actually focusing on the latest budget boondoggle from the current Liberal-NDP government.

When we talk about communism these days, we have to make sure that we also acknowledge the modern terminology being used to describe the ideology that the Prime Minister said he admires. Liberals use the term “globalism”, but it is the same centralized income redistribution government that has been promoted by socialists and communists for over a century.

Do members remember a few years ago when the Prime Minister was asked which country he admired the most? His response stunned many Canadians. He could have said it was Canada, the U.S., France or the U.K. Do members remember what he clearly said? He said he admired the basic dictatorship of China, because it allows for getting things done, and wow, what horrible things it has done. Do Canadians really want the same things to happen in Canada?

The disastrous budget bill, the fall economic statement implementation act, would make the likes of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin truly proud. With its inflationary spending and planned higher taxes, the bill would just continues to fuel the fire of the NDP-Liberal government's soaring national debt while in turn making the lives of hard-working Canadians in my community far worse.

The NDP-Liberal government's huge commitment to and enthusiasm for raising taxes, especially carbon taxes, has intentionally caused pain and suffering for Canadians. The MP for Whitby actually said here in the House that Canadians should be prepared for a painful transition to net zero. What government or oppressive ideology intentionally wants to cause pain for its population? Like I said earlier, the Liberals call it globalism, the redistribution of wealth and resources. I call it communism.

I remember that Margaret Thatcher said that the problem with the never-ending spending spiral is that eventually the government runs out of other people's money. We have reached that point. The credit card is maxed out, the cupboard is bare and the effects are disastrous. The NDP-Liberal government this year will spend $54.1 billion to service the debt, which is the same amount we collect for HST. It is more than the Liberals transfer to provinces for health care. It is shameful.

With the communist budget of Canada, the government continues its tradition of throwing the money of hard-working, everyday Canadians at Liberal priorities while having no actual comprehensive plan, and, of course, no plan to ever balance the budget. It has no plan for success.

Here are some examples. Under the current government, the cost of rent has surged, leaving many Canadians homeless, while, in the process, also destroying the dream of younger generations of ever owning a home. In Oshawa, when I grew up, the dream of home ownership was always within reach. Most of my friends' dads worked at GM, and with one salary, my friends could afford a home, get married and have three or four kids. They always had a better car than we did, and many had a cottage to go to on the weekends. That was with one salary.

Last week I spoke to a young couple. Combined, they were making around $200,000, and they were finding it hard to save for a home and get approved for a mortgage. It used to take 25 years to pay off a mortgage, and now it takes 25 years to save for just a down payment. Now, sadly, young Canadians are giving up on home ownership. Rent inflation has increased 10%, and the budget would do nothing to stop it.

Core inflation is up 2.9% and shelter inflation is up 6.5%. Per capita GDP shows Canada is being left behind with numbers the same as they were in 2015 when the current government took control, while the United States is up 23 points. R and D spending in Canada is at the bottom of the OECD, around 1.5%, while countries such as Israel and South Korea are at more than 5% of GDP.

Our economy is predicted to be the worst-performing in the OECD until 2060. In 2015, when the Liberals took over, Canadian business investment, GDP private gross fixed capital expenditure, real, rebased, was higher than in the U.S. and in Mexico. Now, Canada is down 49 points compared to Mexico, and a staggering 81 points behind the U.S. according to Stats Can, BEA and data from Bloomberg.

Mining investment is down and refining is down. There is nothing in the budget to help increase the exports of clean Canadian natural gas to a desperate world that needs it. Canada is being left out.

More and more Canadians are now turning to food banks as they cannot afford the cost of groceries to feed themselves and their families. In Oshawa, our food banks, for the first time, are running out of food before noon. It has never been like that before.

I was told of one household in Oshawa where 16 seniors are sharing one home. Is this what the Liberals mean when they say their policies are going to hurt, be “painful”? I guess so. However, this is not a success they should be celebrating.

Conversely, Canadians are tragically having to choose. Must they force themselves to freeze since they cannot afford the cost of heating the homes they already cannot afford to own? Do they eat or do they heat? What would Lenin have said about this? Perhaps this quote makes sense if one admires basic dictatorships, “The best way to destroy the capitalist system [is] to debauch the currency.” The Liberals are doing a great job of that. In the Financial Post, Jean-François Tardif said the “Canadian dollar could sink to 50 cents” in a decade.

Lenin said that about a century ago, and this generation is witnessing this policy being implemented as the NDP-Liberal government budget does nothing to return strength and confidence to our system.

In addition to this, the communist budget of Canada will include nearly $40 billion in new inflationary spending while forcing Canadians to spend $54.1 billion to service a debt of the NDP-Liberal government. As I said earlier, and it is worth repeating, it is more money than what the federal government currently gives to the provinces for health care.

Many notably, Liberals have already spoken out against the CBC. We could talk about David Dodge, former finance minister Bill Morneau and former Liberal finance minister John Manley. He warned that this is a problem, and it is going to continue.

It was the notable Communist leader Vladimir Lenin who put forward the ideas that the best “way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation”. That is exactly what this communist, globalist budget would do.

The Prime Minister has constantly ignored the concerns of the budget from senior Liberals, and now continues to cause pain by crushing struggling Canadian families who cannot afford higher taxes and more inflationary spending, which drives up the cost of everything and keeps interest rates high. In my community, the carbon tax is the big enemy, but what is their environment plan?

The Prime Minister and his socialist environment minister announced an electric vehicle mandate. All sales of passenger cars, SUVs, crossovers and light trucks must be hybrid electric, and 100% of new vehicles sold would have to be electric vehicles. However, there is no detailed plan on how to make this happen. Oshawa is a great promoter of clean, green nuclear energy and there is nothing to help it in the budget. It could be a leader in the world.

Our grid cannot handle the increase in demand due to EV mandates. Apartment buildings and homeowners will need to pay a fortune for retrofits. Provincial governments would be forced to handle the costs. Auto dealers and companies would face huge challenges and expenses. Who will they be competing with?

I want to remind Canadians that the number one battery producer is not Canada, and the announced battery plants will not be producing Canadian batteries for many years. How difficult is it to open new mines in Canada? Our mineral exploration investment is at an all-time low this year.

Whose economy does the EV mandate policy benefit the most? Members should take a guess. Yes, it is China, the country whose greenhouse gas emissions are leading the world. Why would a Canadian government implement policies that support an economy in China? Yes, I forgot. That is the system of government the Liberals are trying to aspire toward.

No would-be globalist government would be complete without trampling on fundamental human rights. We will remember the lockdown. It was the destruction of small Canadian businesses and vaccine mandates, the Prime Minister gleefully and enthusiastically creating an identifiable minority group and then proceeding to dehumanize, isolate and bankrupt it. He used all government powers to restrict its participation in Canadian life. There was no travel, no restaurants and no church. We had to sign up for vaccine passports. We were told to do what he said.

To close, I just want to say the budget needs to be defeated, and we have to elect a new Conservative government that will axe the tax, build more homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Oshawa should know that the rapid housing initiative has created hundreds of housing units across Durham region, including in his riding of Oshawa. I was at the announcements. I am sorry that he did not make it.

The federal government also invested $259 million through the strategic innovation fund in General Motors Oshawa, along with the Ontario government, to produce electric vehicles. After an over $2-billion transformation, General Motors Oshawa is now producing electric vehicles.

How can the member opposite deny the workers in our region the major employment opportunities that General Motors Oshawa has created and that our government has helped invest in?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that our government invested in General Motors to create more jobs than these announcements will create. The sad part about it is this: If we look at the investments the Liberals are bragging about, the foreign direct investments, the numbers are true; however, the only way they could get these companies to invest in Canada was through huge subsidization.

The worry that I have here, and why this budget is so bad, is that we need to become more competitive; our productivity needs to work. The member for Whitby needs to understand that, and this budget and these announcements are doing absolutely nothing to help our future competitiveness.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, what I appreciate about Bill C-59 is that, inserted into it, because of the great work of the NDP, are measures to lower bills for Canadians, as well as to end the free ride that has been given to CEOs for too long. Some of these measures include better protections for Canadian consumers in the areas of prohibiting drip pricing, deterring greenwashing and moving toward a right to repair.

Could the member respond to how he would communicate the protections we are creating for consumers in his riding?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for that question, because our government previously worked on a right to repair bill. We actually worked with members from the NDP to implement that. I can say that, with this moving forward, it is always a good idea that people have a choice.

However, when the member brings up that her New Democratic Party is helping lower bills for Canadians, I have to say that I get people sending me their bills every single week with respect to the carbon tax. One senior, who is a wonderful 82-year-old lady from Scotland, has an apartment and just cannot afford it anymore. How is she supposed to live? This crushing of the bourgeoisie between the millstone of inflation and higher taxes has to stop. It is not what Canadians want.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a two-part question.

The first part is that Ford just announced that, in its first quarter, its EV department lost $1.3 billion. It has delayed a bunch of its EV products.

The second part, and we have not talked about this near enough when we talk about the economy, is that Mexico has surpassed Canada as the largest trading partner to the U.S.A.

Could the member reflect on those two things?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up something extremely serious. Ford and the other automakers are having challenges because of how these mandates are being forced upon the auto companies.

My big concern, as I stated in my speech, is that these battery and electric vehicle mandates are supporting the Chinese economy. With the announcements the Liberals are making, again, the batteries will not be coming out of these plants for a long period of time.

Yes, I want us to have a successful auto sector. The auto action plan that we put in as a Conservative government did help that, but what is in the statement and the budget does absolutely nothing.

With respect to what the member brought forward in regard to Mexico, Mexico has been investing in productivity and competitiveness. It has outstripped us. We were ahead of it in 2015. Now we are 45 points behind Mexico and 81 points behind the Americans, because the current government is not investing in productivity in Canada. That is what we need: We need to unleash Canada. Our best days are ahead of us; we just need to get rid of this tired old Liberal government.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak to Bill C-59, which delivers on key measures from our 2023 fall economic statement. It is designed to make life more affordable, to build more homes faster and to forge a stronger economy.

This is a key part of our government's economic plan; since 2015, our plan has been squarely focused on improving life for the middle class and those who want to join it. From enhancing the Canada workers benefit to creating the Canadian dental care plan; delivering regulated child care for $10 a day, on average, in eight provinces and territories so far; and providing 11 million individuals and families with targeted inflation relief through a one-time grocery rebate in July 2023, our actions have strengthened the social safety net that millions of Canadians depend on.

In fact, since 2015, our government has lowered the poverty rate by 4.6%, thanks to direct income supports and a strong economy that benefits all Canadians, all the while ensuring that we maintain the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.

Compared with before the pandemic, we can proudly say that, today, over one million more Canadians are employed. However, we cannot refute that still-elevated consumer prices and looming mortgage renewals continue to put pressure on many Canadian families or say that there is not more important work ahead of us to address affordability.

When it comes to housing affordability, supply is at the heart of the major challenges facing Canadians. That is why we are taking real, concrete action to build more homes faster, including new rental housing. Bill C-56 proposed to eliminate the GST on new rental projects, such as apartment buildings, student housing and senior residences, built specifically for long-term rental accommodations. Bill C-59 goes even further by proposing to eliminate the GST on eligible new housing co-operatives built for long-term rental, as outlined in the fall economic statement.

Swift passage of the bill would enable more people in every province and territory to find the types of rental housing they need at a price they can afford. The legislation would also help protect tenants from renovictions, which statistics show are displacing individuals and families, as well as increasing the rate of homelessness.

Our federal government also recognizes the clear link between housing and infrastructure, which is why the fall economic statement proposes to establish the department of housing, infrastructure and communities, currently, Infrastructure Canada. Bill C-59 would formally establish this new department and clarify its powers and duties as the federal lead on improving public infrastructure and housing, so our communities would have the infrastructure they need to grow and remain resilient.

Another important housing measure in the fall economic statement includes cutting the red tape that prevents construction workers from moving across the country to build homes, as well as cracking down on non-compliant short-term rentals, which are keeping far too many homes in our communities off the market.

Our government is also providing $15 billion in new loans through the apartment construction loan program, which accelerates the construction of rental housing by providing low-cost financing to builders and developers. As recently announced by my colleague, the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, we will be broadening this program by including student residences to help more students find housing across the country. This crucial change would relieve pressure on the housing market by freeing up housing supply that already exists in communities. Budget 2024 delivered a top-up to support the construction of even more units.

In addition, we have launched the Canadian mortgage charter, which “details the tailored mortgage relief that the government expects lenders to provide to Canadians facing a challenging financial situation with the mortgage on their principal residence. It also reaffirms that insured mortgage holders are not required under the regulations to requalify under the minimum qualifying rate when switching lenders at mortgage renewal.” Our goal is to protect Canadians by ensuring they have the support they need to afford their homes.

On a similar topic, I would be remiss if I did not also mention the new first-time homebuyer tax-free savings account, which allows Canadians to save up to $40,000 tax-free towards the purchase of their first home. We launched this account in April 2023, and to date, it has helped more than 750,000 Canadians, and counting, reach their first home savings goals.

A more competitive economy benefits all Canadians by offering more choice and greater affordability for consumers and businesses alike. Building on changes proposed in Bill C-56, Bill C-59 would amend both the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act to modernize competition in Canada, thereby helping to stabilize prices across the entire economy. This includes supporting Canadians' right to repair by preventing manufacturers from refusing to provide the means of repair of devices and products in an anti-competitive manner. It also includes modernizing merger reviews, enhancing protections for consumers, workers and the environment, including improving the focus on worker impacts in competition analysis and empowering the commissioner of competition to review and crack down on a wide selection of anti-competitive collaborations. Finally, it includes 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. These truly generational changes would drive lower prices and innovation, while fuelling economic growth, helping to further counteract inflationary pressures.

Today, I outlined just a few examples of how Bill C-59 makes targeted, responsible investments to improve affordability, build more homes and build an economy that works for everyone, all while taking care not to feed inflation. These are real solutions that, when combined with new measures announced in our recent budget and Canada's housing plan, will help us tackle Canada's housing challenge while improving affordability across the board. That is why I urge my fellow parliamentarians to continue to support this important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about the Infrastructure Bank and using that for housing. I will make some allowances for the member, because I do not think he was here when the Liberals took $35 billion away from municipalities, money that was supposed to build infrastructure there, and put it into the bank. The idea was supposed to be that it was going to attract private investment and build large projects, but in five years, it built no projects. It also did not attract any private investment.

After all the Liberal insiders who were in there and after no projects were built, how should Canadians have any confidence that the Infrastructure Bank can build houses?

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I talked about Infrastructure Canada and housing. I spoke a lot about housing with regard to the importance of eliminating the GST on rental apartments and student housing to build more rentals across Canada. We have also included $15 billion for apartment construction loans. This low-cost financing is essential to build more housing across the country. Colleagues can ask builders and developers in their communities who use these programs how essential that low-cost financing is to make sure rental housing gets built.

When the member from Carleton was the housing minister, I think only six apartments were built after a decade in government—

[An hon. member]

Six units.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

Order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member from London—Fanshawe.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things about this economic update that I am particularly happy with, of course, is something that I have been pushing for for a long time. It is the removal of the GST on psychotherapy and counselling services.

While I was frustrated that the current government and previous governments did not do anything about it and that it took a long time to do it, this is something that makes a lot of sense. If the member could talk about the importance of this measure within Bill C-59, that would be great.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, psychotherapy and counselling services are extremely important to the mental health of Canadians. My wife is a counselling psychologist, and I know how important the work she does is, as well as the work of many other folks across the country who help provide the support that Canadians need. The elimination of the GST will help reduce the cost for so many Canadians who need these essential supports. I think it is so important, and I am so grateful that the member across and other members of her party have supported this initiative.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I know we hear, every day, the misleading statements of Conservatives when it comes to climate change. They do not acknowledge that climate change is real. They do not want to fight climate change. They do not believe in the economic prosperity that comes with it. The fall economic statement bill offers investment tax credits for carbon capture, utilization and storage, as well as clean technology. It also doubles the rural top-up for the Canada carbon rebate, which puts more money in Canadians' pockets. I wonder if my colleague could speak to the importance of those measures for his region of the country.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my constituency was hit with a large storm a number of years ago, and $1.5 billion of damage was done by a hailstorm. Our city was faced with a flood that devastated our downtown core. This year, we are faced with another wildfire season and also drought throughout our province. While our government has brought forward ITCs for important initiatives and CCUS and clean tech, we have seen Premier Danielle Smith and her Conservative counterparts prevent renewable energy in the province of Alberta, preventing $33 billion of investment and thousands of jobs.

It is so unfortunate. We have a great opportunity to work together. That is why our government has doubled the rural Canada carbon rebate. In my riding, I know that the $1,800 that we get for constituents is a tremendous amount over the year to help support constituents in my community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say it seems a bit surreal to be here tonight debating Bill C-59.

In a way, it reminds me of the movie Back to the Future, because we are going back to the Liberals' fall mini-budget of last year with the hindsight of knowing what we know today because of the Liberals' recently introduced and massively failed budget 2024 document.

What did they call that budget again? Was it “Fairness for Every Generation”? I am still floored by that. Imagine leaving future generations of Canadians massive amounts of debt with zero plan whatsoever on how that debt will ever get paid. Only to the Liberals could this concept of leaving behind your bills for someone else to pay be considered some sort of generational fairness. Fortunately, everyday Canadians see the budget document for what it truly is, and they know that it is anything but fair to leave today's bills behind for our kids and grandkids to try to pay.

I realize we are here tonight to debate last fall's mini-budget and not the spring's latest budget failure, so I will focus my comments on the so-called mini-budget, also known as the fall economic statement.

There is one very fascinating thing about that mini-budget that caught my attention. Prior to it, the Liberals had forecast total debt would be $35 billion for the 2024-25 fiscal year and $26.8 billion for the 2025-26 fiscal year. This was comical. They actually forecast that the debt would go down in 2025-26. The sheer fallacy that this always-be-spending Liberal-speNDP partnership would ever spend less borrowed money is completely nonsensical, yet that is exactly what they tried to pass off to Canadians.

In this mini-budget, of course, the debt forecasts were revised and to the surprise of absolutely no one, except for possibly a certain CBC analyst, the debt forecast increased. The revised debt forecasts were now increased for 2024-25 and 2025-26 to $38.4 billion and $38.3 billion, respectively. However, it is all pointless, because we know the total debt proposed for this year is now up to $40 billion. Next year is an election year, so we can only speculate how much more debt will again increase as the desperate Prime Minister once again attempts to shovel as much money as he can out the door, hoping to buy Canadians' votes.

We are now in a position where we spend more money servicing debt than we are spending on the Canadian health care transfer. Keep in mind that this is just servicing the debt, not actually paying any off, because that is what “fairness” means to the Liberal-speNDP partnership: Leave today's bills behind for someone else to pay.

Going on nine years now, the Prime Minister has never honoured any such fiscal guardrail he has promised. The Prime Minister has never once tried to live within the fiscal framework he has established for his own government. Every year, the Liberal-speNDP partnership can pick a number they say the total debt will be, and every year, no matter how large that total debt number is, they still totally blow it off and come in higher. It is like they do not even try to live within their own means, let alone what is affordable for taxpayers.

Here is one really wacko thing about that mini-budget. The budget update mentions more housing multiple times, but the most significant parts of those housing promises, even though they were announced in the fall update, in reality are for programs that are still years away.

A few examples of this include $15 billion in new loan funding for an apartment construction program, mentioned by the member for Calgary Skyview. However, that program will not be available until fiscal year 2025-26. Similarly, there is an additional commitment to allocate $1 billion over three years for what the Liberals call an affordable housing fund for non-profit, co-op and public housing. However, this funding would not begin until the fiscal year of 2025-26.

Of course, we have an election that will occur no later than October of 2025. So devoid are the Liberals of ideas that they are now actually making promises today, or I should say last fall, on behalf of a future government that is yet to be decided on by voters. No matter how I look at it, the fall fiscal update was yet another very expensive failure in a long line of expensive Liberal failures.

Now, remember, despite all this massive Liberal deficit spending, things are so bad that even the Prime Minister himself now openly admits that young people feel like they cannot get ahead in the same way as their parents or grandparents could.

Another point, which I raised recently in my budget speech and I will make here again tonight, is that when it comes to total spending and debt, the Prime Minister has failed in every single budget to do what he promised he would do in the previous year. Let us ask this question: If the Prime Minister, who, if we ask him, thinks he is pretty awesome, in nine years has massively and completely failed to come even close to balancing a budget, what is he expecting future generations of Canadians to do that he has never done himself, because they are the ones who will be inheriting all of this?

Of course, on that side of the House, the question is never asked, is it? Why is that? Every member on that side of the House knows that bills need to be paid, and this is why so many Canadians are struggling right now. At the end of the month, when they pay their bills, for a growing number of Canadians, there is no longer enough left to live on. For some, each month, the line of credit or credit card debt only grows larger. Many tell me that they realize their financial situation is just not sustainable, and that is why there is such a growing disconnect. They see a Prime Minister, propped up by the NDP, who will literally spend any amount of borrowed money. It is not helping the average family in the least, and they are frustrated.

I am certain there are members on the other side of the House who absolutely understand and know this. I am also certain that there are a few members on the other side who are probably frustrated, because we all know that much of this mess is made behind closed doors from that inner circle inside the Prime Minister's Office without much input from them. I have been reliably informed that, at least in one caucus, some matters are even decided upon without a vote.

I realize that there is an expectation that the official opposition will oppose the government's fall fiscal update. It is, after all, the opposition's job to oppose and to hold the government to account. That was for the NDP. However, in this case, it is not like the Liberal government even tries to live within the fiscal limits it proposes for itself. That is why I mentioned in my opening comments that it is somewhat surreal to be here debating this.

We all know that the recently released budget, much of it, is just a sham, much as budget 2024 will also go down as a sham. Next fall, there will be another fall fiscal update, which will have an even bigger debt than what was proposed here today, and record spending deficits will once again be through the roof. Is there any person in this room who does not doubt that? What will they call the next budget? Would it be the “even more fairness budget”, as it will leave more unpaid debt? It is obviously pointless to speculate on whatever ridiculous title the Liberals will try to use to sell their next budget.

Getting back to the fall economic statement, we could summarize it as Liberals saying, “Yes, we spent even more than we promised, but don't worry, our expensive new programs are coming soon.” That is really, to me, what the update says. It is pretty much what happens with every single Liberal budget and budget update. The bottom line is that I will oppose this latest debt-and-deficit bill from the Liberals, brought to us by their speNDP partners.

I would like to thank all members of this place for hearing my comments at what is a very late hour, and to the Canadians who are at home, particularly those in Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, I thank them for sticking it through this far.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, just last week, the Governor of the Bank of Canada appeared before committee. He gave very compelling testimony, answering questions from the Conservative Party, and said that the government, compared to the fall economic statement in this year's budget, has stuck to its fiscal guardrails and that there would be no impact on inflation. We also had the International Monetary Fund, which recently rated Canada number one in the world in terms of budget balance.

What I want to know from the member opposite is this. His party leader has said that he would fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Is that because he does not like the truth?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada put this out yesterday: “Higher debt-servicing costs reduce a household’s financial flexibility, making them more financially vulnerable if their income declines or they face an unexpected material expense.”

I have talked about all the billions of dollars that the government does not have and that it has been borrowing and spending. Could the member opposite please explain how what the Bank of Canada is warning for personal households and their inability to handle that much mortgage is any different for a Prime Minister who has doubled the debt and has spent more than all prime ministers combined?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, before 2013, there was a food mail program that was to help alleviate the prices of groceries.

During the former Conservative government, the food mail program that was going directly to consumers was changed to nutrition north. Nutrition north was changed so that the price of groceries was supposed to be reduced, but instead it has become a subsidy to protect corporate greed. For example, the North West Company had $200 million in profits, $67 million of that was subsidies from the federal government through the nutrition north program.

I wonder if the member could explain to the House what the Conservatives would do to make food more affordable, rather than protecting corporate greed. How would they help alleviate poverty in the communities?

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly commend that member for continually getting up on the issue of affordability.

In fact, when I was on the finance committee, we had a former premier of Nunavut come and discuss concerns around the carbon tax, specifically how, in Nunavut, the Nunavut government was essentially subsidizing much of the diesel that supplied power for people to keep themselves warm during the winter, 90%.

The question I asked the premier at the time was how it worked, if they were subsidizing the fuel that people use, when the federal government put on a carbon tax. He said it just means they have to subsidize more, and they will use less to support people on low incomes with new housing and other supports. Since then, the Liberal government has said it will triple the carbon tax. No region in the country will feel it as acutely as Nunavut. If there are things that we can do to make food more accessible, I will certainly be looking to support those things.

Let us start with the most basic of fundamental things. Let us stop the federal government from making life impossible in northern Canada.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about young people. Young people do not just feel lied to or let down by the Prime Minister; they are actually despondent now. They feel like they do not have any hope. Many of them cannot afford a home. Many of them are living in their parents' homes, and these are kids who are 35 years old.

What would the hon. member say to them?

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's contribution tonight. Barrie—Innisfil is very lucky to have him.

What I would say is that we had the member from Calgary Skyview specifically talk about two areas. Number one was the tax-free savings program for young people. When I speak to young people, they have no savings. They do not have $8,000 to tuck away for a home some day. When they hear this particular member start talking about $15 billion in new loan funding for an apartment construction program, that program would not be available until fiscal year 2025-26.

Those young people need help and support, not a sham of a fiscal update and not the heckles of a member who should probably give it a break.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here tonight to discuss Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, for which we have been waiting for some time. Unfortunately, Conservatives have blocked debate on it and therefore its passage, but they came along tonight, and that is a great thing to see.

Hopefully we will see less obstruction on key legislation going forward, and the bill before us is key legislation. It includes within it items that are fundamental to this country's future, items that my constituents and constituents throughout the country really care about, like mental health, for example.

Through the years, and especially during the pandemic, I have talked to many mental health practitioners in my community of London, and I know I speak for many colleagues on this side of the House and on the other side of the House as well who made the case that the GST and HST should be removed from the cost of psychotherapy and counselling services. I think that is absolutely critical. We have seen that the government has moved on that. That is a testament to the government's commitment on mental health. Of course there are other things we have done to advance mental health, but this was something that previous governments had not recognized. I want to thank constituents again for raising the issue, because without their advocacy in the first place, I do not think we would have seen that change.

With respect to the environment, I am not going to talk about carbon emissions. I could, because there is a lot in the economic statement that addresses the issue of carbon emissions. However, our fresh water is a source of pride for Canadians. Canada has 20% of the world's total freshwater resources. What the economic statement opens the door to is the establishment of the Canada water agency that would be headquartered in Winnipeg. Here, all orders of government, indigenous peoples and researchers would collaborate on ensuring the management of this country's freshwater resources.

Again, that speaks to a fundamental concern that Canadians have. They want clean air and clean water. They want to ensure that we have sustainable resources going forward for current and future generations. I have a two-year-old little girl. I want her to grow up in a country that values all of these things. When we talk about the future, we cannot talk about Canada without talking about—

[The Acting Speaker, Tony Baldinelli]

The member for Barrie—Innisfil is rising on a point of order.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will just call for relevance.

[The Acting Speaker, Tony Baldinelli]

That is not a point of order.

The parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is an experienced member, and his comment just shows he has not read the bill, which contains within it the establishment of the Canada water agency through an act. He should read the bill. My advice to all my colleagues across the way is to just read the bill. If they are going to raise a point of order on relevance, they should make sure that they know what they are talking about. As I was saying, the collaboration that we would see in Winnipeg at the agency is something that we should all be very proud of and look forward to.

Housing is a fundamental concern. I have the honour of working as the parliamentary secretary responsible for housing. We have seen, through the economic statement, GST lifted from the construction of co-operative housing. There are 250,000 Canadians who live in co-ops across the country. We would see many more living in co-ops as a result of this measure, which would lead to many more co-ops being built.

In this fiscal environment, with high interest rates, we have to provide incentives to the private sector to respond, and this measure would be exactly that: an incentive on the table for the private sector. I am glad that we have seen collaboration on this in working with agencies, with advocates and with members of the opposition, but not with the Conservatives.

In fact I was stunned a few months ago when, let us not forget, the Leader of the Opposition said that co-op housing amounts to Soviet-style housing. What an absurd statement. This is from someone who aspires to be Prime Minister of this country. What would he tell the 250,000 Canadians who live in co-op housing? Would he say they live in Soviet-style housing? That is not serious. If we want to have a serious debate on the issues of the day, and housing is really at the top of that agenda in terms of the challenges the country faces, let us be serious about what we are facing and let us have a constructive debate to that end.

On that note, earlier tonight, I will not say I was surprised, but I was disappointed to hear the member for Oshawa equate the government's policies with Marxism and to Leninism. That is not how we advance a genuine dialogue in Canada. Yes, the country's problems are significant. We are living through very challenging times. We have just come through a once-in-a-hundred-years pandemic that has impacted this country's social, political and economic fabric in ways that we are only beginning to fathom.

Let us not forget comments such as the one by the member for Oshawa, who just a little while back, about a year ago, sat down, with other Conservative colleagues, with far right politicians from Europe. It is no surprise that the Leader of the Opposition recently sat down with, met with and talked with adherents, those who espouse the message of far right groups like Diagolon. That is the absurdity of the moment we are in.

If the Conservatives think that they are going to win the day on social media by advancing these kinds of populist tactics, they might get some clicks, and they certainly do, and they might fundraise off these things, but democracy matters. That is no way to advance an agenda that is constructive and that is going to help rebuild this country. That is what I would say to my colleagues on the other side.

I know that my colleague from Oshawa apparently wants to equate our policies with communism; however, they are anything but. Let us look at what Moody's, not a communist organization at all, said. It is a very important organization because it, among others, helps set the ratings for this country. The fundamental fact that we have an AAA credit rating is the result of ratings agencies like Moody's that have recognized that. Its recent report states that the Canadian government's history and continued focus on maintaining a prudent fiscal stance stands out, as does the high rate of competitiveness in the Canadian economy.

Things like that stand out. An AAA credit rating is something this country has. We will continue to have it, along with the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio and one of the highest rates of foreign direct investment.

The country is going through a tough time. That is true, but we have a lot to look forward to. I will end on that note, and I look forward to questions from friends across the way.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way is my constituency neighbour in London. I also have to admit that his daughter is ridiculously adorable.

We were at an event a few months ago, and the hon. member was talking about some of the different innovations within housing. He was talking about mobile units potentially being built. I think he was in Alberta to visit a plant there. I had conversations about those mobile units with members of a firefighters union when they were here in Ottawa, and a concern was raised. We spoke about the construction of the units and how the firefighters are maybe not being consulted with respect to codes and so on.

Could the member talk about that? Innovation in housing is very important, but so is safety.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I am certain that all members can agree that his daughter is indeed adorable.

The hon. member for London North Centre.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

She gets all her looks from her mother, actually, Mr. Speaker, but I appreciate those kind remarks.

I have talked about the importance of modular home construction. I think it is fundamental to dealing with the housing crisis that is at hand. I have said that. The minister has said that. Advocates across the country have said that. I applaud the member for meeting with advocates, along with firefighters, in the work they are doing in union advocacy. Certainly, the Conservatives would not sit down with unions, or maybe they would but it would not be serious.

Regardless, there is a national building code that ensures certain standards of safety are maintained. On my end, I will continue to work with those advocates who want to ensure that. There are many provisions in our national building code, which, of course, is interpreted at the provincial level by governments as well, to ensure safety in the way that the member advocates. I think that she and I are on the same page in that regard.

Let us move forward on these things together.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting conversation about modular homes. They are being built in a way right now that far exceeds any normal building standards. They are an option for the housing crisis in this country. The challenge with modular home builders right now is that, although they could scale up and actually build two or three times more than what they are building right now, they have a problem with cash flow. Oftentimes, they are required to pay out the development, which causes problems in terms of their ability to put these modular homes on developed spaces.

I just visited a modular home builder and cash flow is critical, so finding some way of advancing or eliminating the cash flow crisis that exists can actually help build these homes and scale them up in a much greater capacity. However, this budget does not address that.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for my hon. colleague, because I know he cares about his community. We may have certain fundamental disagreements on matters of policy, but I know he cares about his community. I have heard how passionately over the years he has raised the issues facing his community.

While modular homes are not the focus of the fall economic statement, they certainly have been given attention in the recent budget of 2024. If the member wants to see businesses, perhaps in his community, receive loan support, which is in budget 2024, among other supports, I would advise him to get behind budget 2024, read it and support it, along with the housing accelerator fund, which the Conservative Party has voted against.

The member talked about lifting certain restrictions at local levels. I think it is fundamental that Conservatives get onside with a better way of doing things.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, every day, Conservatives stand up in the House and cite food bank lineups, as if they care. They are also clear that they are going to vote against the national school food program. One of the other measures that we have taken, of course, in Bill C-59 is competition reform.

I wonder if my colleague could speak to the importance of having more competition.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we do need more competition. In fact, I was very encouraged to hear the Minister of Industry confirm that he is looking at making sure that we have more competition in the grocery sector. It is something I have advocated for, for a very long time locally in London. This is something that we need to see across the country.

Whether it is the measures my colleague talked about specifically in terms of the Competition Act, or looking beyond our borders to bring in more competition, this would be a great thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise, as always, to speak in the House. Tonight, we are talking about the fall economic statement. Yes, members heard me right. We are talking about the economic statement from fall 2023.

It is worth pointing out that the Liberals have an arrangement with the NDP to support them, so they actually have a majority. How badly does one have to mismanage the House schedule to not have finished passing the fall economic statement by the time one actually has introduced a new budget in 2024?

It is what it is. The reality is that it does not matter which budget or economic statement the Liberals bring forward, because their elements are all the same. The first thing that one will see in every budget or economic statement that comes from the Liberals is huge government overspending, a huge deficit.

The fall economic statement did not disappoint in that respect. We see, again, that they continue to pour deficit spending on the inflationary fire. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has said that this makes it very difficult for him to lower interest rates, something that is hurting Canadians. We know that affordability is an issue, and this large deficit spending is just not helpful.

The second feature and benefit that one can always see in an economic statement or a budget from the Liberals is increased taxes. Once again, we see that they are increasing taxes in the bill.

The other thing one can count on is that there will be all kinds of programs, but the execution of the programs will not actually benefit anybody in the country. Those are really the main elements in the fall economic statement.

Interestingly, I have a new intern in my office. She is 20. She is very interested in getting involved in the political process. I gave her an exercise to go and write a speech about the budget. Without any of the usual talking points or anything, this is what she wrote, and I think it applies, to illustrate my point, equally well to the fall economic statement.

She wrote, “After nine years of this Prime Minister and this Liberal-NDP government, Canadians are worse off than ever. Housing costs have doubled, interest rates have skyrocketed, and food banks can't keep up with the demand. Instead of helping Canadians, this new budget proposes billions of dollars in inflationary spending...which will only increase the cost of living and make life harder for Canadians!

“To briefly outline some of the main aspects of the budget, this coalition government promises to create economic prosperity within Canada, as well as building more homes and making them affordable. However, these promises are not new. Rather, they are almost identical to the promises made over the past nine years, promises that the Liberals failed to deliver time and time again. It seems this Liberal government believes that if they try the same thing over and over, it will lead to different results. That's the definition of insanity.”

That is what a 20-year-old thinks about the budgets and the economic statements that the Liberals are bringing forward. It is no wonder, because, in 2015, when I got elected, the Liberals promised to make housing more affordable. They have promised it and promised it; here we are, nine years up the road, and they are still promising to make housing more affordable.

The reality is that housing costs, mortgages, rents and down payments have doubled; the average Canadian is now spending 61% of their disposable income on housing. The Liberals have not made housing more affordable, and I do not see anything in the economic statement that is going to do the trick.

In fact, what I would say is that some of the ideas in here are unbelievable. They talk about leveraging the Infrastructure Bank to build housing. The Infrastructure Bank took $35 billion from municipalities, money that was supposed to build infrastructure in those municipalities, and put it into this bank with the idea that they would be able to attract private investment and leverage money to build projects. They loaded up with all the Liberal insider friends to run the thing and never built any projects.

Here we are, five years up the road, and now they think they are going to use that bank, which attracted no private investment, to build houses. It is ludicrous. It is not going to happen.

What I would say is that the Liberals have taken some of our Conservative leader's good ideas and they have put them in here. Taking the GST off new houses is one, which is a great idea, and there are a couple of other ideas that our Conservative colleagues had. I see a number of ideas from private members' bills that talked about maternity benefits and adoptive parent benefits, things like that, which were adopted in here, so it is good that the Liberals could learn from the good ideas that Conservatives have. Using federal lands and freeing up federal lands to build housing on is another great idea from the Conservatives.

Those are the highlights of the economic update, but one of the titles in the economic update is “Making Life More Affordable”. I already talked about the housing part of it. Let us talk about the rest of it. The Liberals have jacked up the carbon tax, and the carbon tax has driven the cost of everything up. It has added 17¢ a litre to gasoline. It is a multiplier on the increased cost of food. If I think about the Parliamentary Budget Officer, he was saying that every year food prices have increased. The average person is paying $1,400 more for food than they used to pay. I add that to the carbon tax, which, depending on the province one is in could be $1,800 a year, and then I will talk about some of the other things.

I have a staffer who just got her insurance premium update, and it went up $1,000 a year. They said the reason that it was going up was inflation and car theft. Again, it is these Liberal policies that are driving inflation and not addressing the catch and release of criminals who are stealing vehicles. It is unbelievable.

Before the pandemic, 50% of Canadians were within $200 of not being able to pay their bills. With all the things I just quoted, if I add those up, it is an extra $500 a month. Everybody is in the red. The Liberals have taken the middle class and they have turned it into the poor hoping to join back to the middle class. It is unacceptable.

We see that the Liberals, at the same time, have piled on with increased CPP and EI premium taxes, tax increases at a time when Canadians can least afford it, and they intend to quadruple the carbon tax. They also have increased the tax on alcohol and beer. This is something that is an every-year measure without any parliamentary oversight. It was put in a budget a few years ago, and Canadians are feeling the pinch.

Another title in the budget is “Making Groceries More Affordable”. Have the Liberals been to the grocery store and seen how expensive it is? It is ridiculous. They offer support for Canadians in their energy bills. In addition to the carbon tax, we have brought forward some great ideas like Bill C-234 to take the carbon tax off farmers to make food more affordable, but the government is keeping that from going forward. It has done nothing to help keep food more affordable.

What about supporting small businesses? The government would not let them extend their CEBA loan repayments, even with the hard-pressed small business environment from the pandemic, and now they are getting squeezed with a capital gains tax, even though these small business owners were told that this is how they would accumulate money for their retirement because they do not have pensions as they are entrepreneurs. Now the government has changed the rules, and it has changed them retroactively. Instead of saying going forward it is going to change them, now it is punishing small business owners.

There are all these programs, and I do not have enough time to go into all of them, but the school food program has no food in it. It is provincial jurisdiction, so that is a waste of time. The dental program has no dentists signed up in most of the provinces. In P.E.I., Northwest Territories and Yukon there are none there. If I look, it is 25% or less in some of the other provinces, and people are left with the impression it is going to be free. It is not free. The government only covers 70%. People who cannot afford dental care cannot pay that other 30%, so it failed. That is my conclusion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly got a lot out of that—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I know it is late at night. People are tired, and perhaps they do not have as much restraint as they normally do. I will ask all members to let us take it on in. There are only about 28 minutes left in this debate, so let us try to keep it together.

The hon. member from Kingston and the Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would be lying if I said that I do not have a bit of FOMO for not being invited to the party in the back room.

In any event, I found it very interesting when the member said that the Liberals took all the Conservatives' great ideas and put them into the fall economic statement, yet she still will not vote for it. What is going on here? Does she not like the initiatives that she claims the Liberals took from the Conservatives?

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

Mr. Speaker, the problem is not the great ideas the Liberals took from the Conservatives, but the huge, overspending deficits and the ballooning taxes that are going to hurt and punish Canadians, and are going to increase the misery that the Liberals have already caused.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker I will say, right off the bat, that it is troubling to hear the dismissal of the dental care program, the importance of the school food program and the infrastructure investments that we have seen, and much of that is the result of the push by the NDP.

My question to the member is this. Her party claims to defend working people and to want fairness for working people. We know that working people are paying more than their fair share when it comes to taxes, but who is not paying their fair share are the rich. I am wonder why the Conservatives are not coming out in support of the increase in the capital gains tax, recognizing it is a way of getting the richest in our country to pay more than what they are paying now, which is not quite their fair share. That would be revenue that could be reinvested in the needs that Canadians have across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say if the member really cares about the working class, she would quit propping up the Liberal government to increase the carbon tax on people, increase their CPP and EI premiums, increase the cost of groceries and all the things that are being propped up by the NDP's support of the Liberal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague. Did she ever think that Canada would pay more in debt-servicing than it does in health care transfers to the provinces? That is something I never thought I would see, $54.1 billion in debt repayment, which is more than what we are going to give to the provinces for health care. What do you have to say about that, and what do you think your constituents would say about that?

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I am certain that question was through the Chair to the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

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

Mr. Speaker, health care is super important to Canadians. Our health care system is ailing. We do not have enough doctors as it is. What drives me crazy is not just that we are going to pay $56 billion of interest on the debt, but also the fact that we have turned down $59 billion for LNG from Germany, $59 billion of revenue from Japan for LNG, another $60 billion from the Netherlands for LNG. Those are all things the Liberal government has turned down. That money could help pay off the debt and help our health care system.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask this. The member opposite was blaming the insurance premium going up on, I believe, her staffer or somebody at her house. I wonder if it was from a car accident or repairs or if it was from a flood to a house or whatnot. How can the government be responsible for insurance premiums? I would really like to know how the budget was responsible for the insurance premium hike of $1,000.

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I can be very concise, because the insurance company told my staffer that the reason for the $1,000 increase in premiums was inflation and car theft. The Liberal government, with Bill C-75, made car theft go up 100% across the country, and it is driving inflation by pouring deficits on the inflationary fire.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, last November, the government introduced Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act of 2023. Among other measures, Bill C-59 proposed significant amendments to our Competition Act. I am proud to share that the Standing Committee on Finance has recently completed its review of the bill and has made several amendments to further strengthen existing proposals.

For many years, Canada's markets have been described as overly concentrated and not competitive enough. In fact, the landmark Competition Bureau study last year, based on Statistics Canada data and analysis from a University of Toronto professor, made critical findings in this respect, showing that competitive intensity has been on the decline over the past two decades, which is reflected in a number of important indicators. These trends have been exacerbated by the inflationary pressures our country is facing following a global pandemic and increasing geopolitical uncertainty.

Bill C-59 was introduced to help build a stronger domestic economy through more competition and contestable markets to bring lower prices, more choice and better product quality for consumers across all sectors. The proposed amendments to the Competition Act in Bill C-59 arose out of a comprehensive public consultation conducted from November 2022 to March 2023.

Having heard from stakeholders, the government introduced Bill C-56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, which was ultimately passed by this Parliament in December 2023.

Completing its response to the consultation, the government then presented a more extensive set of reforms by way of Bill C-59. The measures in this bill include strengthening provisions with respect to merger review, enhancing protections for consumers, workers and the environment, and broadening opportunities for private enforcement.

We should not underestimate just how critical these reforms are for modernizing our laws and promoting competitive markets. The commissioner of competition has stated on multiple occasions that the amendments in Bill C-56 and Bill C-59 are “generational.” I would therefore like to highlight some important reforms that have been proposed.

To begin with, anti-competitive collaborations between competitors would be under increased scrutiny as the bureau would be able to examine and, if necessary, seek penalties against coordinated conduct that lessens competition. Up until now, at worst the participants would be told to stop what they are doing. The expansion of private enforcement and the ability of the Competition Tribunal to issue monetary payment orders in cases initiated by private parties are also significant changes to our existing enforcement approach. By relaxing the requirements to bring a case and providing an incentive to bring matters directly to the Competition Tribunal, there would be greater accountability throughout the marketplace and more action on cases that the Competition Bureau may not be able to take.

More competition is always beneficial to consumers, but the bill also takes some direct approaches to protect consumers. These include strengthening provisions on deceptive marketing, such as applying requirements more broadly so vendors must present the full cost of a product or service up front without holding back mandatory fees, known as “drip pricing.” The law is further being refined to make it easier to ensure that advertised rebates are authentic when compared to a vendor's past prices. Businesses making environmental claims about their products would be required to have undertaken adequate and proper testing before advertising their benefits. Together, these changes would ensure that consumers have accurate and complete information about products and services in order to make informed purchasing decisions.

I would also like to highlight barriers to repair, which have been an issue of great importance in recent years. Where manufacturers refuse to provide the means of diagnosis or repair in a way that harms competition, remedial orders would be available to require them to furnish what is necessary. This could help a wider variety of service providers offer more options to consumers when choosing where to repair their products.

On top of everything I have mentioned so far, anti-reprisal provisions would also ensure that the system can function. These are included to ensure that workers and small businesses are protected from potential retaliation when they work with the authorities to address anti-competitive behaviour and violations of the act by other parties.

These reforms, along with various administrative changes, aimed at facilitating efficient enforcement of the act, are crucial to ensuring that Canadian markets remain competitive and in line with international practices.

It has been acknowledged by all members of the House that our competition framework requires reform. My colleagues have engaged in thoughtful discussion on ways to modernize the existing marketplace framework. Nothing exemplifies this better than the enthusiasm shown by members of all parties to strengthen these provisions of Bill C-59 once it reaches the Standing Committee on Finance, especially in light of recommendations made by the commissioner of competition.

The amendments adopted in committee notably relate to merger review, deceptive marketing, and refusal to repair. The committee members were quite interested in enhancing protections for consumers and the environment, and these are the ones that I would like to draw attention to now.

First, clarifications were made to ensure that in the Competition Act's various provisions on drip pricing, the only amounts that could be excluded from the upfront price are those imposed by law directly on the purchaser of the product, such as sales tax. Next, with the committee's amendment, sellers advertising reduced prices would now be required to be able to prove that regular price is authentic in order to publicize their discounts.

On the topic of doubtful environmental claims, or so-called greenwashing, the law would also require that those who make environmental claims about their businesses or business activities, not only specific products, must have adequate and proper substantiation in hand to support such claims. On refusal to repair, the committee added some helpful clarifications to ensure that the scope of provision was broad enough.

In sum, amidst the period of inflation and growing affordability concerns, it is crucial that our markets remain resilient and open to competition. Bill C-59 would reform Canada's competitive landscape, encourage greater innovation, and improve affordability for Canadians.

Therefore, I would like to urge my colleagues from all sides of the House to work together to expeditiously pass this crucial piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about the importance of increasing competition, and I do agree with that.

However, it does not seem consistent with the actions of the government that approved the Shaw merger with Rogers and the acquisition of the HSBC bank by RBC. These things are definitely not increasing competition.

Could the member explain how that is consistent with the Liberal government's direction?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.

Whenever any banks or any major telecoms merge, the scrutiny is very strict. There is always a review under the Competition Act. Banking regulators and public opinions are even brought into the question. It is only after thorough commitments and signs from such parties do they actually agree in these cases. Many have been rejected or have been pushed back before. In this case, they are being cautious.

Currently, in the competition world, our grocery sector is the one that everyone is monitoring very strongly and carefully. In that case, I think we will see the addition of more competition rather than any mergers or reductions.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, there are parts of the fall economic statement that I did appreciate, but other parts did not go far enough, including addressing corporate greed.

Just yesterday, I summoned to the indigenous and northern affairs committee, the CEO of The North West Company and asked him about his salary. His annual salary is $3.91 million. I asked him what the salary of a cashier in his stores are. The salary of the cashiers, in Iqaluit, where the cost of living is much higher, is $37,000 a year.

I wonder if the member could tell the House what the Conservatives are claiming causes inflation, which are things like carbon tax. Could the member maybe correct the record about what is causing the price increases in Canada?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, no more is it a testament than in places like Nunavut and Iqaluit, where one is seeing this discrepancy between the person actually selling the groceries and feeding a family, and the elite at the top. That is why we put measures, including the capital gains changes, where a lot of corporate executives were able to discount some of the tax rates that would normally be applicable if they paid that in a salary format as opposed to stock options. These are some of the ways that the playing field becomes level.

However, there is more work to do. That is absolutely right. The right to organize is something we have guaranteed in the House as well. The Liberals have committed to that. This government has committed to that. We have reversed measures the Conservative government had imposed prior, and that will strengthen the right to organize and get better wages for those members.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question. I find the last intervention about grocery prices to be very fascinating because the reality is that in Canada, 42% of the retail grocery sector is controlled by Loblaw, whereas the largest sector in the United States is Walmart, with 11%.

However, the Conservatives will never be heard talking about the massive profits that are being made by oil giants or by the grocery retailers. I am wondering what the member's comments on that would be.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be very difficult for them to say because the chief adviser in their Conservative caucus was considered, currently, before or after, by a side company, a sister company, I do not know exactly, but she is paid as a formal lobbyist for that very dominating grocer in the House. It becomes difficult for them to challenge when they are paid and supported by that particular organization.

I will leave it at that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see that, even at this late hour, we still have people here intending and trying to learn from the incompetence that the present government is showing.

With the holiday season upon us once again, oh, we need to hang on a sec; I wrote this speech back in December, and the holiday season was upon us at that point in time. However, it shows the incompetence we see from the government that it has taken six months to get to this stage. It is interesting that when we look at things where things are being tabled, I guess we consider the holidays. In some ways, I am not being wrong when I say the holidays, because we do have Victoria Day coming up within a week, or as they say here in Ontario, May Two-Four day. It is a holiday that is coming, so I guess I am not being incorrect in that statement.

Now, Canadians all across the country are feeling the financial pinch, and many of them are trying to save money in any way they can. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Liberal government, which continues to increase spending and taxes on the backs of middle-class people, as outlined in the fall economic statement. After nine years under the Prime Minister, Canadians are struggling while the government just keeps getting richer. We see this struggle in many different areas. Food bank usage is up across the country, with a record two million visits occurring in a single month, and that is projected to be increasing by another million.

First of all, I would like to thank the Salvation Army, which does a tremendous job in helping our Canadians with raising food for the food banks, helping to feed Canadians and stepping forward and stepping up. I know the Salvation Army was here this past week. I would also like to thank all Canadians who step up and contribute to these food drives and assist Canadians, because what we need is showing where Canadians are working for Canadians.

Unfortunately, as I said, we cannot say where the government can continue to increase spending and taxes on the backs of these middle-class people, and this is outlined in the Liberals' fall economic statement. After nine years of the government, we have seen that the cost of groceries continues to go up, and over 50% of Canadians are $200 or less away from going broke. The situation is alarming, and one would expect that a responsible government would introduce measures to address this, but no. Instead, the Prime Minister has announced more than $20 billion in new inflationary spending in the fall economic statement, and this will continue to keep inflation and interest rates higher than Canadians can afford.

Sadly, this does not come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to the government's dismal history when it comes to managing the finances of this country. I will read from an article from The Globe and Mail, which says, “Every time the Liberals update the country on the state of its finances, it is accompanied by pages of prose [141 pages, to be exact, in this situation] trumpeting the government’s devotion to fiscal restraint. And yet, every time, spending somehow ratchets higher.” One need only glance at the projected deficits to see that this is true.

Let us go back in time to touch on budget 2023, where the finance minister said that the deficits for the next four years would be as follows: $35 billion, $26.9 billion, $15.7 billion and, finally, $14 billion in 2027-28. Let us keep in mind that those projections were made over a year ago, and not much has changed with respect to Canada's fiscal landscape since then. Now, let us take a look at the new deficit projections from the fall economic statement. It states that we will have a $38.4 billion deficit in 2024-25, then $38.3 billion, then $27.1 billion and, finally, $23.8 billion in 2027-28. This is an average of about $9 billion more per year. In what world is that considered fiscally responsible or showing restraint, as the Liberals would like us to believe? How is that possible?

In fact, with the BIA, which we are debating right now, we now have a better idea of what the national debt numbers will be. Remember that the national debt, back in 2015, when the Liberal government came into power, was just over $600 billion. In 2023, the government showed it to be $1.1 trillion. That 0.1 is $100 billion. When we put it in that perspective and look at this, people need to finally wake up to what those costs are. According to the statement in the fall economic statement, it will be $1.2 trillion.

As for this budget that came forward just now, the 2024 budget, which was supposed to be there to help generation Z and the millennials, when one looks at what that projects the national debt will be for 2025-26, is projecting it to be $1.5 trillion. That is a $200-billion to $300-billion increase. How is that helping generation Z and millennials? That is adding $300 billion-plus onto the debt, which they are going to have to pay at some time. How is it going to happen?

As for what this government is doing, it is upping the credit limit, and it is increasing it to $2 trillion, more than we have, and continuing. How is that teaching gen Z and millennials, or even anybody, how to save money? How can they afford to survive? We are not teaching them a thing, and this from a government that campaigned back in 2015 on having just two $10-billion deficits. That is simple math. It is not hard to figure out, but when it was $600 billion, assuming that they had two $10-billion deficits, our deficit should only be $620 billion. Those numbers do not seem to add up.

Furthermore, while the annual government revenue projections are to be $6 billion higher because of their inability to control Canada's debt, interest costs have skyrocketed and will have doubled in the last two years. Here are the budget projections for interest charges on the federal debt of budget 2023: $46 billion for 2024-25, $46.6 billion for 2025-26, $48.3 billion for 2026-27 and $50.3 billion in 2027-28.

Let us compare those interest figures with the new updated projections from the fall economic statement, where we have $52.4 billion in 2024-25, $53.3 billion and then $55.1 billion, ending with $58.4 billion in 2027-28. Interest costs are now the highest they have been in a decade, and the Liberals have no plan whatsoever to remedy this. This eats up and consumes the $6 billion in increased revenue I previously mentioned. That is net-zero increases.

To put this into perspective, the Prime Minister has allowed the interest costs for the federal government to run so high that the amount is now double what it spent on national defence, and it will be more than the federal government spends on health care next year, which is evident in our 2024 budget, where the interest rates that are being paid are higher than the total amount we would spend on health care.

This means that, instead of taxpayer money going toward our doctors and nurses, it will be spent on servicing a debt that should never have been this high in the first place. The government cannot be trusted to do what is in the best interests of Canadians, and it is time for a new Conservative government that truly understands what responsible fiscal management means.

The House resumed from May 9 consideration 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on 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. The bill would advance the government's economic plan to make life more affordable, build more homes faster and build an economy that works for everyone.

To build an economy that works for everyone, the bill delivers critical pieces of our fall economic statement. It would help make life more affordable. We are rolling out new measures to strengthen our economy, combat climate change and forge excellent career opportunities for Canadians, now and in the future.

The Liberals' plan is already yielding results and we continue to push forward. We are advancing Canada's clean economy with a clear timeline for deploying all investment tax credits by 2024. We are launching the Canada growth fund as the primary federal issuer of carbon contracts for difference. We are progressing the indigenous loan guarantee program.

Canada's economic prosperity increasingly depends on a focused strategy to boost growth, particularly in a globally competitive environment. The nation's future success relies on enhancing productivity, innovation and investments in pivotal sectors, such as technology, clean energy and advanced manufacturing. These fields are vital not only for generating high-quality jobs but also for maintaining Canada's competitive edge internationally.

Additionally, empowering small and medium-sized enterprises with supportive policies and tax benefits is crucial to foster entrepreneurship and economic expansion. Equally critical is attracting and retaining top talent. Policies that encourage skilled immigrants to settle in Canada, coupled with significant investments in the education and training of Canadians, are essential to develop a workforce capable of leading in a high-tech, competitive global market.

Canada stands out among G7 countries for maintaining the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratios, showcasing exceptional fiscal management. This indicates a more sustainable economic position compared to other G7 countries like the U.S., U.K., Germany, France, Italy and Japan, which generally face higher debts and deficits relative to their GDPs.

This fiscal prudence in Canada supports economic stability and investor confidence. Canada's strategic financial policies enable it to better manage economic fluctuations and invest in future growth.

Among G7 nations, Canada's credit rating is ranked near the top. Major credit rating agencies frequently cite Canada’s prudent fiscal policies, low debt-to-GDP ratio and robust institutional framework as key factors supporting its high rating. This strong credit status enhances Canada's ability to attract foreign investment and borrow at lower interest rates, significantly benefiting the economic environment relative to other G7 countries.

On advanced technologies like artificial intelligence, our approach in promoting reflects a robust and proactive strategy aimed at both fostering innovation and ensuring responsible development within the sector. Canada is globally recognized for its influential role in the artificial intelligence sector, distinguished by its significant contribution to AI research and development.

The nation's focus on AI underscores its dedication to technological progress and strategic economic integration. Leading the way in AI innovation are Canadian universities and research centres, which are vital in producing cutting-edge research and attracting international talent. AI's relevance to the Canadian economy is substantial, serving as a key economic engine.

This is supported by major governmental investments, including the $2-billion artificial intelligence compute access fund and the Canadian sovereign compute strategy, aimed at equipping Canada with the infrastructure and resources needed to sustain its competitive advantage in this critical field.

Artificial intelligence technologies in Canada find applications across diverse sectors, such as health care, environmental protection, agriculture, manufacturing and finance, promising to elevate productivity, competitiveness and job quality. For the companies in these sectors to adapt these AI technologies in their operations, we have provided $200 million. By proactively enhancing its AI ecosystem, Canada not only bolsters its global stature but also secures its economic future, positioning AI as a fundamental pillar of its national strategy for long-term growth and innovation.

Canada is strategically established as a significant contributor to the global supply chain for the critical minerals necessary for manufacturing advanced batteries in electric vehicles and energy storage systems. The country's abundant resources of lithium, cobalt, nickel and graphite make it a key player in the clean energy transition.

In response to the growing importance of these minerals for the global economy and environmental sustainability, we are actively expanding our mining and refining capabilities. This enhancement not only meets domestic demands for EV production but also serves international markets, especially those transitioning to greener technologies. We support this sector with favourable policies, substantial investment and collaborations with private companies and international partners. These initiatives aim to create a secure, sustainable and competitive supply chain that utilizes Canada’s natural resources responsibly.

Additionally, we prioritize partnerships with indigenous communities in mineral resource development, promoting inclusive growth and sustainable practices, thereby reinforcing Canada's reputation as a reliable and ethical source of critical minerals internationally. We are also promoting “one project, one environmental impact assessment” to speed up the implementation of projects.

Our strategic focus on economic growth ensures the sustainability of social programs and the continuation of high living standards amid an uncertain global landscape. After a contraction of 0.1% in the third quarter of 2023, Canada's GDP rebounded with 0.2% growth in the fourth quarter. In February, Canada's inflation rate was 2.8%, down from 2.9% in January. It rose slightly to 2.9% in March, roughly in line with the Bank of Canada's forecast.

Statistics Canada reported today that the economy added approximately 90,000 jobs, far exceeding the anticipated 20,000 positions. This marked the most robust month for job creation since January 2023. Nevertheless, the unemployment rate remained constant at 6.1%. These figures indicate that employers are ready and capable of hiring additional staff, despite the economic challenges posed by increased interest rates.

Bank of Canada governor Tiff Macklem has mentioned a possible rate reduction as soon as June. I have been saying for the last 12 months that we will see interest rate reversals starting mid-2024. Recent months have seen quicker-than-expected easing of price pressures, boosting the Bank of Canada’s confidence that inflation is returning to target levels.

The current high interest rates, which aim to curb borrowing and cool inflation by making debt more expensive, may not need to be maintained much longer. We are achieving a soft landing of the economy, though many had predicted we would fall into recession.

The House resumed consideration 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I do appreciate some of the member's stories that he shared with the health issues in his family. Unfortunately, with the debate on this issue lately, there has been one huge gaping gap when we are talking about health.

I wonder if the member can describe for us what the challenges are with the fall economic statement and what was announced in the budget, and what is happening to ensure that indigenous health issues are addressed. They did not seem to be present in the budget.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have been focusing on indigenous people's health, their economic security and their requirements since we came to power and over the last nine years. We have taken so many measures that we cannot explain it all, but in this recent budget we have brought in one particular program that I am really proud of, the indigenous loan guarantee program.

The economic empowerment of indigenous people leads not just to their economic prosperity but also the additional benefits of having good health and a good society.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from my colleague over there, but can he tell me how his government is getting control of the agenda? In the same week, we are addressing the fall economic statement, something that was delivered in the House six months ago, and we are also debating the budget implementation act for a budget that was delivered three weeks ago.

Canadians are a little confused about the legislation being put forward by the government. It suggests what it is going to do, and then it has been taking a long time to put it into actual legislation. This budget implementation act, which was tabled this week, had a whole bunch of legislation from the fall economic statement. This is all very opaque.

Can the member tell us when the government is going to get control of the agenda and actually start moving at a pace that Canadians can understand?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the legislative agenda sometimes moves at its own pace, but the key thing is that the measures we have taken since the last fall economic statement and the budget that we announced have already started yielding results. Today, Statistics Canada came out with a report that shows a gain of 60,000 jobs against an expected gain of just 20,000 jobs. The unemployment rate has actually remained steady at 6.1%.

As I have been saying for the last 11 to 12 months, the interest rate will start getting reversed about the middle of this year. The Bank of Canada has already indicated that inflation is coming down. I think it is around 2.9%. It is within the Bank of Canada's range.

With the economy showing progress, we have achieved a soft landing, which many predicted would not happen. Rather, many had predicted that we would go into a recession, which has not happened. It does not matter when it is getting implemented. The effects of our measures have already started yielding results.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, by the time the fall economic statement was presented in November, it was already well known that there was a major first nations, Inuit and Métis infrastructure gap. For first nations only, that gap was reported at $350 billion.

It is so unfortunate that the government continues to ignore the plight of indigenous peoples. I wonder if the member can share with the House how he will make sure that indigenous peoples' needs are being met through important announcements like the fall economic statement and the budgets that are later presented.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have made tremendous investments in infrastructure compared to any other government that was in power before we were elected. Obviously, the infrastructure requirements of first nations are important and they, too, are being addressed.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today in opposition to the Liberal budget. I am confounded by the fact that it has been called “building a strong economy that works for everyone” when the economy is neither strong nor working for everyone. That should be quite obvious to anyone paying attention.

In the spirit of my former colleague at the National Post, Rex Murphy, I would like to take some time to speak to the concerns of everyday hard-working Canadians to try to help make sense of how a government can call a budget, at this time and in this economy, strong and working for everyone.

I have been in Ottawa now for just over a month. I was sworn in as a member of the House in April. One of my key observations is that we have a Liberal government that is living in an alternate reality from the one I lived in before I was in politics and the one I cling desperately to every time I am here. It seems as though, in this economy, we have Liberal elites experiencing one thing and everybody else experiencing something else.

There are some things I would like to share with the Canadian people that I have observed since April when I was sworn in. For the last two weeks, I have heard the Liberal member of Parliament for Whitby defend high grocery bills and make excuses for the fact that it is very expensive for families to purchase the food they need, never mind the healthy food they need. Earlier today, he went on and on about that.

Last week, he said, “Mr. Speaker, I know that the member opposite feels that grocery prices are too high, and they have been, certainly. However, the CPI index has shown that food prices are stabilizing in our economy, which is good news for Canadians.” I would like to point out the obvious. Canadians listening to me right now might be asking if it is good that high grocery costs are stabilizing and if the objective of the government should not be to bring down the costs since they are so high. This is a good window into the kind of thinking going on. This is what I mean when I say we have an economy for Liberal elites and one for everybody else. Let us continue exploring this.

The day before the Liberal MP for Whitby made the comment that grocery prices are stabilizing, despite being obscenely high, a new food bank opened in Whitby. In his riding, the day before he said in Ottawa that things are going great and he has good news for Canadians, a new food bank opened up down the street from his constituency office. This is an alternate reality. The Liberals are creating some kind of bizarre picture of what is going on in this country, and people deserve to know that. They are saying how dare the Liberals produce a budget and call it “building a strong economy that works for everyone”.

Let me share some more observations from what I have seen since coming to Ottawa last month. Yesterday, across the street at the housing committee, Trudeau's housing minister, the member for Central Nova, said something that I had to ask him to repeat just so I could confirm it was even true because I was shocked. I thought I must have misheard him, but no, I heard him correctly. He said that the Liberal government's national housing strategy has exceeded its objectives. How is that possible? How is it possible that in this economy, they are running around Ottawa saying they have exceeded their objectives?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the member opposite is new, but I would remind him that he is not allowed to use the names of members in the chamber.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

The hon. member knows that members' names cannot be used. Rather, they must be referred to by their riding name or title.

The hon. member has a little over five minutes to finish his speech.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the Liberal government is very sensitive when people draw attention to its numerous failings.

The Prime Minister's housing minister, across the street, said that his national housing strategy has exceeded its objectives. Maybe the Liberal member opposite is confused as to how he could have said such a thing, but he did. It was on video. He said it to put a positive spin on policies that are obviously failing the people of Canada.

While the housing minister is sitting in Ottawa saying that his national housing strategy has exceeded its objectives, in my home community of Durham, the Clarington Municipal Council voted unanimously, calling for urgent action from the federal government and homelessness. In my home community of Durham, just like in many others across this country, there is a growing crisis of people without homes. Consequently, we have a growing crisis of homeless encampments being established so people have somewhere to sleep at night.

We are concerned in Clarington about this problem, but we are also concerned because we have seen in our neighbouring community of Oshawa a similar challenge. While the Prime Minister's housing minister is sitting in Ottawa trying to put a positive spin on the government's failed national housing strategy, there was a homeless encampment in Oshawa on fire. Smoke could be seen all across Durham region. In fact, one could see that smoke from Whitby. Maybe some of the Liberal members should be talking to each other about what is going on.

Why do we have a growing homelessness problem in Durham? Why are there a growing number of our brothers, sisters, friends and neighbours having a hard time finding an affordable place to live? It is obviously a complicated problem, but one of the contributing factors is that the cost of housing in Toronto, just to the west of us, is skyrocketing to an outrageous degree.

I know my friends in Toronto have had a hard time the last couple of weeks. We had to see the Leafs lose. We had to see Drake get trounced by Kendrick Lamar. Now we can go on to see ad listings for housing in Toronto. At the end April, I saw a bunk bed in Toronto for $600 a month. It is not even a full bed. One has somebody sleeping above them, for $600 a month. The listing said that eight or 10 people maximum could fit in that studio apartment in Toronto, and for $600 a month, one does not get hot water, heating, air conditioning, a smoke alarm or a carbon monoxide detector.

These ads show the desperate situation in Toronto that many young people are in. This is the disconnect. It is why I say that, in this economy, there are Liberal elites and everybody else. What the Liberals have produced is an obscene situation, where they can come here to Ottawa, put their high-deficit and high-tax budgets forward and claim to be doing good things for people, and meanwhile, every time we go home, we see the consequences of what they are doing here.

The last and probably most egregious example is one my buddy Rex Murphy, may he rest in peace, used to write about quite a bit. He used to write extensively about the carbon tax and how it is an exemplary policy of Liberal elitism and bizarre ideology in action.

I sit in this chair every day, and I hear Liberals telling us that the carbon tax is helping people, that people are getting more money back and that it is good for our economy, yet I go home to Durham and I hear and see the complete opposite. I knocked on many doors in the by-election campaign before I came here, and one of the recurring themes was the carbon tax.

I would go to a family farm and they would produce a tax bill, just like the one that I have in my hand right now, and I would see that family farms are paying thousands and thousands of dollars in carbon taxes and then being charged a tax on top of what they are paying for the carbon tax. That would then increase the cost of food for us in Oshawa, Curtis and Bowmanville. We could see within our own local community how the carbon tax is making it harder and harder for people to pay their bills.

When the Liberal government comes here to say that this carbon tax is good for us and good for our economy, that we should continue to pay more taxes and the cost of everything goes up to fill their coffers, it is just the latest example of Liberal elites and everybody else.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the carbon tax, I would like to hear what the member's thoughts are specifically as they relate to the over 400 Canadian economists who have signed an open letter stating that more people get back more than they pay, confirming what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said. They state that it is good environmental policy and, most importantly, good economic policy, which one would think the party that purports itself to be the champion of running an economy would agree with.

Is the member then suggesting that those 400 Canadian economists are just Liberal elites? Maybe he is, and that is fine, but can he confirm that?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is what I mean when I say Liberal elites and everybody else.

These guys want me to stand here and listen to them quote their buddies from the universities instead of listening to what people on the ground across this country, everyday hard-working families, are experiencing under their rulership. This is exactly what I am talking about. They disregard the evidence from everyday people, who are struggling today, and they want to say, “Well, my friend with a Ph.D. said everything's all right.” Well, I am not here to represent their buddies with a Ph.D. I am here to represent people who are lined up in grocery stores, people who are concerned about making mortgage payments and rental payments after these guys have doubled them.

It is also interesting that, earlier today in the debate, their friend, the Liberal MP from Whitby, was quoting Warren Buffett, as though he is an authority on whether we are having a good experience or not. I might need to go back and ask Warren what he thinks.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the commissioner of the environment appeared before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development yesterday. He has a different perspective with respect to homes and mortgages. Here is an excerpt from his presentation:

...a major lender recently announced that it would no longer accept new mortgages for homes in high-risk flood zones. The consequences of such decisions on the value of residential housing, which for many households is the main asset, could prove quite dire.

Although the Conservative Party is always focused on the carbon tax or on what is happening with the environment, it never comes up with any solutions for people who are dealing with floods, droughts and deteriorating health.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I think our colleague has conflated a couple of things. The carbon tax is not an environmental plan. The carbon tax is a tax plan. We have advocated for, and I am very proud to say this because the riding I represent, Durham, is home to a fantastic nuclear energy facility, is technology and not taxes to respond to environmental concerns across this country.

The idea that the carbon tax is somehow going to address the hon. member's concerns seems completely misguided to me, and the idea that middle-class families have to pay more for groceries at the grocery store to respond to these environmental concerns seems like a completely backwards connection between the decisions made in Ottawa and the consequences at home.

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

Mr. Speaker, we see that corporate landlords are increasing renovictions. Rents are being increased, and corporate landlords are swooping in and buying up affordable homes. However, I do not hear from the Conservatives often about the importance of having rent protections in place. Could the member please share the Conservative stance on making sure that people have an affordable place to live?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's concerns about big corporations buying up a bunch of residential properties, being able to control the cost of rents and whether middle-class families can afford a house in this country.

The thing I would draw her attention to is that the NDP's partner in the government, the Liberal Party, just approved a merger of Blackstone to purchase Tricon, which would allow an American company to control an insane amount of residential property in Canada.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in the House of Commons and speak to this motion, the fall economic statement.

I will note it is May 10 and we are debating the fall economic statement here in the House of Commons. Earlier this week, we debated the budget implementation act. Nothing shows the government's lack of control over an agenda more than debating the fall economic statement on May 10, three weeks after the budget address, which is the main financial statement made by the Government of Canada.

There is a problem here. There is a pace that has to happen in the House of Commons for legislation to get through and become law so that Canadians understand what their economics are going to be going forward. Today, once again, we are debating the fall economic statement, which is something that was delivered in the fall that we have not implemented into Canadian legislation. However, the government is acting as if that legislation has passed. Everything we see is the government pretending that there is no debate to be had here, that it has already been instituted into law and it expects this to be had going forward. Likewise, it put the budget on the table three weeks ago, and we debated the budget implementation act for the first time in the House in the last few days.

I am going to note for the sake of Canadians that the budget implementation act has very little to do with the budget that was delivered in the House of Commons three weeks ago. A number of measures in the budget implementation act, which was debated earlier this week, are from the fall economic statement. Somebody needs to explain to Canadians how these things do not match going forward. There is a litany of all kinds of virtue on paper but no plans to implement what is going forward here. The problem with understanding the budget implementation act is this: If the government is going to put the fall economic statement into the budget implementation act, people are going to have to understand what their budgets will look like. There is no detail or announcement of any of the government's tax increases in the budget implementation act; there are no details at all, so Canadians are still left guessing about the details it is putting forward here in the budget.

Budgets matter to Canadians and to businesses across Canada, but it is my job here in the House of Commons to try to bring some financial discussion about what is in these budgets, so let me talk about some of the issues the government talks about.

In Canada, real GDP is down. The government talks about an economy that is going well, but real GDP continues to decline. GDP per capita continues to go down. That means the amount of economic output per person in Canada is continuing to decline at a steady rate. The government uses a ratio here called the debt-to-GDP ratio. I know I have gone on about it previously, but I will go into some detail here because I hope that people will understand it a little better.

Canada's debt right now is approximately $1.3 trillion. That is the federal government's accumulated debt. Canada's GDP last year was approximately $2.1 trillion. If we take $2.1 trillion divided by $1.3 trillion, it gives us a debt-to-GDP ratio equal to 62%. That is our debt-to-GDP ratio, yet our government pretends it is in the 40% range, at 42%. Although 40% was the number it said it would not cross several budgets ago, it continues to cross that and let it grow.

How did the government get to this number of around 42%? It added back the pension fund assets of Canadians. That includes about $600 billion from the Canada pension plan, which is money that is deducted directly off the paycheques of Canadians. Those contributions by Canadians into the Canadian pension plan fund were raised again this year, so there is about $600 billion sitting in Canada's pension savings to distribute to Canadian pensioners when they retire.

The Quebec pension plan, similarly, has about $100 billion of savings in it for Quebeckers alone. In total, it is $700 billion, but this is not a $700 billion pool for the government.

The thing about pension accounting is that it is about assets and liabilities, as is all accounting. Although there is a balance on their financial statements, there is also the liability of paying that to the people who paid into it for years. Last year, Canada's chief actuary determined that, all things going well, the Canada pension plan system is sustainable to pay the pensions that Canadians expect for 75 years.

What that means is that it is okay; it is balanced. However, the assets and the liabilities are in balance; everything collected in there is going to be paid out to the people that put the money into it. Therefore, if I may say, it is not the government's financial asset. It belongs directly to Canadians, from money that was deducted from their paycheques, and it should not be used in their debt-to-GDP ratio.

I am also going to talk about where we are going with this, because pensions are a major part of Canada's sustainability going forward. Pensions matter in many respects. The government is moving in a direction to try to change that pension management system; it wants to oversee the system through its regulatory arm, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. That has to stop.

These are organizations that need to manage one thing, and that is the outcome for the people whose money they are saving. That is what they should be doing. Whenever anyone asks a regulator to go in and change what is happening at an organization, such as a pension, they are effectively saying, “Take your eye off the ball about what is supposed to be done here, and put your eye on something else.”

Let me tell the House what that leads to. That leads, as in the United States, to bank failures. There were bank failures at smaller banks, where they were not matching their assets and their liabilities. As a result, when interest rates changed, a whole bunch of smaller banks had a run on their capital and could not meet their liabilities. They went under.

That is an example of where people in the financial industry are distracted by other regulations being put on their plate by governments and regulators. This takes away from what they should be doing for their client base, which is managing their money effectively. Every pension manager, every money manager in the world has one mandate, which is to make sure that they are not losing money for their clients and are actually making money, hopefully at greater than the rate of inflation. We are not doing that in Canada right now. This is the reason we have falling GDP per capita. We have more Canadians coming into the country, and they are not keeping up in the economy.

Now let us look at and tear down what actual gross domestic product is. It includes the contribution of everybody. It also includes the contributions of governments. Government spending goes into GDP. I am going to suggest that, if the government's spending going into the GDP increase was not there, we would actually be in a very negative scenario. Pardon me, Madam Speaker, I should say overspending; again, the planned overspending is $40 billion this year.

The problem is that these things have to balance over time. We are a productive economy. We had a good economy before the current government monkeyed around with it and decided that it could replace private sector investment with direct public sector investment. It is wrong.

We continue to run deficits. There is a cliff we are going to hit at some point in time here, where we are no longer able to meet our needs going forward, because everything that we put into our savings is going to be whittled away into interest payments on our debt. This coming year, that interest payment is $54 billion. This is the government's number of what that is going to be. I suggest it might be higher, as the debt is going to be higher than it realizes.

That is $54 billion from Canadian taxpayers to pay bondholders, and it is going up. Even the government's documents say that ratio has doubled in the last few years. That is a significant increase, a significant weight on the pockets of Canadian taxpayers, who need to make sure that they are sustainable going forward here. It is madness.

I am telling the few people that I see actually taking notes on what I am telling them here that we have to get back to balance. This budget, every budget, should be about getting to balance. I request that they go back to the drawing board and look at what they can do here to get our economy back to balance and actually sustain this country going forward.

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

It being 12:54 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, May 4, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred to Tuesday, May 21, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you can find unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m., to start Private Members' Business.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from May 10 consideration 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

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

The House will now proceed to the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-59.

The question is on Motion No. 1.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #763

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

I declare the motion defeated.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

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

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #764

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

I declare the motion carried.

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, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, Mental Health and Addictions; the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, Carbon Pricing.