Bill C-69

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations by
(a) denying income tax deductions for expenses incurred with respect to non-compliant short-term rentals;
(b) exempting from taxation the international shipping income of certain Canadian resident companies;
(c) exempting from taxation any income of the trusts established under the First Nations Child and Family Services, Jordan’s Principle, and Trout Class Settlement Agreement;
(d) doubling the volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers tax credits;
(e) extending the eligibility for the Canada child benefit in respect of a child for six months after the child’s death;
(f) increasing the cap on labour expenditures per eligible newsroom employee from $55,000 to $85,000 and increasing, for four years, the Canadian journalism labour tax credit rate from 25% to 35%;
(g) extending eligibility for the mineral exploration tax credit by one year;
(h) providing a refundable tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses in designated provinces by returning a portion of fuel charge proceeds from the province;
(i) providing a refundable investment tax credit to qualifying businesses for investments in certain clean hydrogen projects;
(j) providing a refundable investment tax credit to qualifying businesses for certain investments in clean technology manufacturing property;
(k) amending the definition “government assistance” to exclude bona fide concessional loans with reasonable repayment terms from public authorities;
(l) implementing a number of amendments to the alternative minimum tax;
(m) increasing the home buyers’ plan withdrawal limit from $35,000 to $60,000 and deferring the repayment period by three additional years;
(n) excluding the failure to report under the mandatory disclosure rules from the application of the section 238 penalty;
(o) introducing a $10-million capital gains exemption on the sale of a business to an employee ownership trust; and
(p) implementing a number of technical amendments to correct inconsistencies and to better align the law with its intended policy objectives.
Part 2 enacts the Global Minimum Tax Act , a regime based on the rules of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The global minimum tax regime will ensure that large multinational corporations are subject to a minimum effective tax rate of 15% on their profits wherever they do business. 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 amends the Excise Tax Act , the Excise Act , the Excise Act, 2001 , the Underused Housing Tax Act , the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and other related texts in order to implement certain measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Excise Tax Act by repealing the temporary relief for supplies of certain face masks or respirators and certain face shields from the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Excise Act , the Excise Act, 2001 and other related texts in order to implement changes to
(a) the federal excise duty framework for tobacco products by
(i) increasing the excise duty rates for tobacco products, including imposing a tax on inventories of cigarettes held by retailers and wholesalers,
(ii) changing the process by which brands of tobacco products for export are exempted from special excise duty and marking requirements,
(iii) allowing certain information to be shared for the administration or enforcement of the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act , and
(iv) requiring the filing of information returns in respect of tobacco excise stamps;
(b) the federal excise duty framework for vaping products by increasing the excise duty rates for vaping products; and
(c) the federal excise duty framework for alcohol by
(i) extending by two years the two per cent cap on the inflation adjustment on beer, spirits and wine excise duties, and
(ii) cutting by half for two years the excise duty rate on the first 15,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Underused Housing Tax Act and the Underused Housing Tax Regulations by, among other things,
(a) eliminating filing requirements for certain owners;
(b) reducing minimum penalties for failing to file a return; and
(c) introducing a new exemption for residential properties held as a place of residence or lodging for employees.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act by providing authority, in certain circumstances, for the sharing of certain information amongst federal officials and for the public disclosure of certain information by the Minister of National Revenue.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1 to delay the repeal of the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act for two years.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the National Housing Act to increase the in-force limits for guarantees issued by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) in respect of mortgage-backed securities and Canada Mortgage Bonds and for mortgage default insurance provided by CMHC from the temporary $750 billion to the permanent $800 billion. It also amends the Borrowing Authority Act to avoid the double counting of liabilities related to Canada Mortgage Bonds that are guaranteed by the CMHC and have been purchased by the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the Government of Canada, in the calculation of the maximum amount of certain borrowings under that Act.
Division 3 of Part 4 authorizes the making of payments to the provinces for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2024 respecting a national program for providing food in schools.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Canada Student Loans Act and the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to expand eligibility for student loan forgiveness to early childhood educators, dentists, dental hygienists, pharmacists, midwives, teachers, social workers, psychologists, personal support workers and physiotherapists.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Canada Education Savings Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Minister responsible for that Act to open a registered education savings plan in respect of a child born after 2023 who is eligible for the payment of the Canada Learning Bond and is not the beneficiary under such a plan, so that the Minister may pay a Canada Learning Bond in respect of the child; and
(b) increase, from 20 to 30 years, the maximum age of a beneficiary under a registered education savings plan in respect of whom a Canada Learning Bond may be paid on application.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act .
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to increase the maximum financial assistance that may be provided in respect of foreign states.
Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to increase the amount of the payment that the Minister of Finance may provide to the International Monetary Fund in respect of Canada’s subscriptions. It also amends the International Development (Financial Institutions) Assistance Act and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Agreement Act to provide for new financial instruments that the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of Finance, as the case may be, may use to provide financial assistance to the institutions referred to in those Acts.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the International Financial Assistance Act to, among other things, provide that foreign exchange losses in relation to programs referred to in that Act must be charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and provide for the making of payments to Development Finance Institute Canada (DFIC) Inc. in relation to programs referred to in that Act out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Export Development Act to lower the limit for total liabilities and obligations referred to in subsection 24(1) of that Act from $115 billion to $100 billion.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Financial Administration Act to broaden the application of subsection 85(2) of that Act to other Crown corporations.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Financial Administration Act to require certain banks and other financial institutions to disclose prescribed information for federal payments accepted for deposit.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to enhance the Canada Health Transfer for qualifying provinces and territories.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to require that the Superintendent of Financial Institutions publish certain information relating to pension plan investments. It also amends the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act to require that plan administrators provide specified information by written notice to certain persons when they become members of a pooled registered pension plan.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Canada Pension Plan to, among other things,
(a) provide for a death benefit of $5,000 in cases where no other Canada Pension Plan benefit, with the exception of the orphan’s benefit, has been paid in respect of the deceased contributor’s contributions;
(b) create a new child’s benefit for dependent children aged 18 to 24 who are in part-time attendance at school;
(c) maintain eligibility for the disabled contributor’s child’s benefit if the disabled contributor reaches the age of 65;
(d) allow for the deeming of an application for a disabled contributor’s child’s benefit on behalf of a child to have been made at an earlier date under the Canada Pension Plan ’s incapacity provisions;
(e) preclude entitlement to a survivor’s pension if an individual has received a division of unadjusted pensionable earnings in respect of their deceased separated spouse; and
(f) clarify the determination of the payee of the disabled contributor’s child’s benefit.
It also makes a consequential amendment to the Canada Pension Plan Regulations .
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to provide for the payment of certain amounts into the Consolidated Revenue Fund by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board.
Division 16 of Part 4 enacts the Consumer-Driven Banking Act , which establishes a consumer-driven framework for individuals and small businesses to safely and securely share their data with the participating entities of their choice.
It also makes related amendments to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to establish the position of Senior Deputy Commissioner for Consumer-Driven Banking who is responsible for consumer-driven banking matters and to provide for, among other things, the supervision of participating entities.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act to, among other things, clarify the definitions “deposit-type instrument” and “principal-protected note”.
Division 18 of Part 4 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to increase to $100,000,000 the maximum amount that expenditures made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to defray the expenses arising out of the operations of the Office may exceed the Office’s total assessments and revenues.
Division 19 of Part 4 amends the Bank of Canada Act to clarify that the Bank of Canada may enter into repurchase, reverse repurchase and buy-sellback agreements.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to
(a) harmonize fines for a corporation guilty of an offence related to the collection or sending of information regarding individuals with significant control; and
(b) set separate fines and imprisonment terms on the basis of a summary conviction or a conviction on indictment for a director, officer or shareholder of a corporation guilty of an offence related to individuals with significant control.
Division 21 of Part 4 amends Parts I to III of the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) provide that a person who is paid remuneration by an employer is presumed to be their employee unless the contrary is proved by the employer;
(b) provide that if, in any proceeding other than a prosecution, an employer alleges that a person is not their employee, the burden of proof is on the employer; and
(c) prohibit an employer from treating an employee as if they were not their employee.
Finally, it also includes transitional provisions.
Division 22 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things, set out certain employer obligations relating to policies respecting work-related communication and clarify certain employee rights and employer obligations relating to terminations of employment. It also includes transitional provisions.
Division 23 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend, until October 24, 2026, the duration of the measure that increases the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers.
Division 24 of Part 4 amends section 61 of An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages in order to add a reference to subsections 18(1.1) and (1.2) of the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act in subsection 19(1) of that Act, which An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages enacts.
Division 25 of Part 4 authorizes a corporation that is to be incorporated as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation to provide loan guarantees as part of an Indigenous loan guarantee program and authorizes the payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund by the Minister of Finance of amounts that are required in respect of those guarantees.
Division 26 of Part 4 authorizes the payment of up to $1.3 million to entities or individuals involved in the government’s engagement in a pilot project for the creation of a Red Dress Alert.
Division 27 of Part 4 provides that the subsidiary of VIA Rail Canada Inc. incorporated with the corporate name VIA HFR - VIA TGF Inc. is, as of the date of its incorporation, an agent of His Majesty in right of Canada and may enter into contracts, agreements and other arrangements with His Majesty as though it were not such an agent.
Division 28 of Part 4 amends the Impact Assessment Act , in response to the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of that Act, to, among other things,
(a) align the preamble and purpose provision with the primary objective of that Act, which is to prevent or mitigate significant adverse effects within federal jurisdiction — and significant direct or incidental adverse effects — that may be caused by the carrying out of physical activities;
(b) replace the definition “effects within federal jurisdiction” with “adverse effects within federal jurisdiction” and, in doing so,
(i) restrict the definition to non-negligible adverse changes,
(ii) limit transboundary changes to those involving the pollution of transboundary waters and the marine environment, and
(iii) include, in respect of federal works or undertakings and activities carried out on federal lands, non-negligible adverse changes to the environment or to health, social and economic conditions;
(c) ensure that the impact assessment process applies only to those physical activities that may cause adverse effects within federal jurisdiction or direct or incidental adverse effects;
(d) ensure that, in deciding if an impact assessment of a designated project is required, one factor that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada must take into account is whether another means exists that would permit a jurisdiction to address those effects;
(e) amend the final decision-making provisions to provide for an initial determination as to whether the adverse effects within federal jurisdiction and the direct or incidental adverse effects are likely to be, to some extent, significant, and then, if so, provide for a determination as to whether those effects are justified in the public interest; and
(f) improve cooperation tools to better harmonize the impact assessment process with the processes for assessing effects that are followed by provincial and Indigenous jurisdictions.
Finally, it also includes transitional provisions.
Division 29 of Part 4 amends the Judges Act to increase the number of salaries authorized for judges of superior courts other than appeal courts. It also reduces in a corresponding manner the number of salaries authorized for judges of provincial unified family courts.
Division 30 of Part 4 amends the Tax Court of Canada Act to provide that, if a party to a proceeding under the general procedure of the Tax Court of Canada is not an individual, that party must be represented by counsel, except under special circumstances.
Division 31 of Part 4 amends the Food and Drugs Act to, among other things, authorize the Minister of Health to
(a) establish rules for the purpose of preventing, managing or controlling the risk of injury to health from the use of therapeutic products, other than the intended use, or the risk of adverse effects on human beings, animals or the environment from the use of a drug intended for an animal;
(b) exempt any food, therapeutic product, person or activity from the application of certain provisions of that Act or its regulations; and
(c) deem, on the basis of decisions of, information or documents produced by, a foreign regulatory authority, that certain requirements of that Act or its regulations are met in respect of a therapeutic product or food.
Finally, it also includes a transitional provision.
Division 32 of Part 4 amends the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act to authorize the provision of customs information to the Minister responsible for that Act for the purpose of the administration and enforcement of that Act and to authorize that Minister to disclose information to other federal ministers for certain purposes.
Division 33 of Part 4 amends the Criminal Code to broaden the criminal interest rate offence to prohibit a person from offering to enter into an agreement or arrangement to receive interest at a criminal rate and from advertising an offer to enter into an agreement or arrangement that provides for the receipt of interest at a criminal rate. It also repeals the provision that requires the consent of the Attorney General prior to commencing proceedings related to the offence.
Division 34 of Part 4 contains measures that are related to money laundering, terrorist financing and sanctions evasion and other measures.
Subdivision A of Division 34 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) permit information sharing between reporting entities for the purpose of detecting and deterring money laundering, terrorist financing and sanctions evasion;
(b) authorize, subject to certain conditions, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) to disclose certain information to provincial and territorial civil forfeiture offices and to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration;
(c) authorize FINTRAC to publicize additional information pertaining to violations of that Act; and
(d) extend the application of that Act to cheque cashing businesses.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Cross-border Currency and Monetary Instruments Reporting Regulations .
Subdivision B of Division 34 amends the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act to allow provincial or superior court judges, a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge as defined in section 552 of the Criminal Code to grant on application by a Canada Revenue Agency official the authorization to use device or investigative technique, or procedure or otherwise do any thing provided in a warrant, for purposes of tax investigations.
Subdivision C of Division 34 amends the Criminal Code to provide for an order to keep an account open or active and for a production order to require the production of documents or data that are in a person’s possession or control on dates specified in an order that fall within the 60-day period after the day on which it is made.
Division 35 of Part 4 amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create new offences in respect of motor vehicle theft, including an offence concerning the possession or the distribution of an electronic device suitable for committing theft of a motor vehicle, and in respect of criminal organizations; and
(b) add, as an aggravating factor, evidence that an offender involved a person under the age of 18 years in the commission of an offence.
It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 36 of Part 4 amends the Radiocommunication Act to, among other things, prohibit the manufacture, import, distribution, lease, offer for sale, sale or possession of certain devices specified by the Minister of Industry. It also amends that Act to establish as an offence or a violation the contravention of that prohibition.
Division 37 of Part 4 amends the Telecommunications Act to, among other things, require telecommunications service providers to provide their subscribers with a self-service mechanism that allows them to cancel their contract for telecommunications services or modify their telecommunications service plan and to inform those subscribers before the expiry of their fixed-term contract, as well as in other specified circumstances, of other service plans that those providers offer. It also amends that Act to prohibit the charging of certain fees.
Division 38 of Part 4 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the Correctional Service of Canada is responsible for implementing any arrangement — approved by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness — entered into by the Commissioner of Corrections and the Canada Border Services Agency with respect to the support that the Service may provide to the Agency to assist in the exercise of certain powers or the performance of certain duties and functions;
(b) control the access of the inmates of a penitentiary to a designated immigrant station adjacent to the penitentiary and the access of the immigration detainees of a designated immigrant station to a penitentiary adjacent to the station; and
(c) provide that, in exigent circumstances, staff members of the Service may provide additional support to detention enforcement officers of the Agency to assist them in the exercise of certain powers or the performance of certain duties and functions.
It also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to define the term “immigrant station”, to provide that an area of a penitentiary may be an immigrant station only if it is designated under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to set out the circumstances under which a person detained under that Act may be detained in a designated immigrant station.
Finally, it provides for the repeal of those amendments on a specified date and includes a transitional provision.
Division 39 of Part 4 contains measures related to public debt and the borrowing of money.
Subdivision A of Division 39 amends the Financial Administration Act to clarify that certain regulations and directions do not apply to contracts related to the borrowing of money entered into by the Minister of Finance.
Subdivision B of Division 39 amends the Borrowing Authority Act to increase the maximum amount of certain borrowings.
Division 40 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to require certain financial institutions to make available information respecting diversity among directors and members of senior management.
Division 41 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to extend the period during which federal financial institutions governed by those Acts may carry on business.
Division 42 of Part 4 amends the Federal Courts Act to provide that the Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear applications for judicial review of decisions of the Social Security Tribunal on the extension of time to make a request for review or reconsideration under the Canada Disability Benefit Act . It also amends the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to, among other things, provide the Tribunal with jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions made under the Canada Disability Benefit Act and require that matters related to income raised in those appeals be referred to the Tax Court of Canada.
Division 43 of Part 4 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to repeal provisions related to the ministerial power to exempt supervised consumption sites from the application of that Act. It also amends that Act to allow for the making of regulations respecting authorizations for supervised consumption and drug checking services and includes transitional provisions.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

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

There are 161 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-69. Motions Nos. 1 to 161 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 161 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 81.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 82.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 83.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 84.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 85.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 86.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 87.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 88.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 89.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 90.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 91.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 92.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 93.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 94.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 95.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 96.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 97.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 98.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 99.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 100.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 101.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 102.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 103.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 104.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 105.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 106.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 107.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 108.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 109.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 110.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 111.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 147.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 151.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 152.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 153.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 154.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 173.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 174.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 175.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 176.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 177.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 180.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 181.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 184.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 185.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 186.

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

moved:

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 198.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 199.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 200.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 201.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 202.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 203.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 204.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 205.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 206.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 207.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 208.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 209.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 210.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 211.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 212.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 213.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 214.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 215.

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 216.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 217.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 218.

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 219.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 220.

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 221.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 222.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 223.

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 225.

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 225.

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 226.

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 227.

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

moved:

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 269.

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 270.

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 271.

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 272.

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 273.

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 274.

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 275.

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 276.

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 277.

Motion No.88

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 278.

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 279.

Motion No. 90

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 280.

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 281.

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 282.

Motion No. 93

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 283.

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 284.

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 285.

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 286.

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 287.

Motion No. 98

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 288.

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 289.

Motion No. 100

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 290.

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 291.

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 292.

Motion No. 103

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 293.

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 294.

Motion No. 105

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 295.

Motion No. 106

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 296.

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 297.

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 298.

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 299.

Motion No. 110

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 300.

Motion No. 111

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 301.

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 302.

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 303.

Motion No. 114

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 304.

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 305.

Motion No. 116

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 306.

Motion No. 117

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 307.

Motion No. 118

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 308.

Motion No. 119

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 309.

Motion No. 120

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 310.

Motion No. 121

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 311.

Motion No. 122

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 312.

Motion No. 123

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 313.

Motion No. 124

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 314.

Motion No. 125

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 315.

Motion No. 126

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 316.

Motion No. 127

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 317.

Motion No. 128

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 318.

Motion No. 129

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 319.

Motion No. 130

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 322.

Motion No. 131

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 323.

Motion No. 132

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 324.

Motion No. 133

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 325.

Motion No. 134

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 326.

Motion No. 135

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 327.

Motion No. 136

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 328.

Motion No. 137

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 329.

Motion No. 138

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 330.

Motion No. 139

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 331.

Motion No. 140

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 332.

Motion No. 141

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 333.

Motion No. 142

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 336.

Motion No. 143

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 337.

Motion No. 144

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 338.

Motion No. 145

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 339.

Motion No. 146

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 442.

Motion No. 147

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 443.

Motion No. 148

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 445.

Motion No. 149

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 446.

Motion No. 150

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 447.

Motion No. 151

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 448.

Motion No. 152

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 449.

Motion No. 153

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 450.

Motion No. 154

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 461.

Motion No. 155

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 462.

Motion No. 156

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 463.

Motion No. 157

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 464.

Motion No. 158

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 465.

Motion No. 159

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 466.

Motion No. 160

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 467.

Motion No. 161

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 468.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again I am privileged to rise in the House on behalf of the people I proudly represent in Lévis—Lotbinière. Right from the outset I would just say that back home, when it comes to the word “budget”, we do not have the same definition, nor do we have the same approach to budgeting as this Prime Minister, who does not even know what the words “balance” or “economy” mean.

Once again, in my 18th year here in the House, I was in attendance when the budget was delivered. Since 2015, it has been truly ridiculous to see the Finance Minister and this Prime Minister stand firm in their conviction that they are introducing a budget that is good for Canadians. We are witnessing a spendthrift government prove for the ninth year in a row that the Liberals are incompetent and irresponsible. This government's particular talent is keeping us in the financial hole we have fallen into, in spite of ourselves.

We are seeing sky-high interest rates on a debt we will never be free of for as long as we live. The Prime Minister is proud to wear the same rose-coloured glasses as the Finance Minister and the extended Liberal family. They are out of touch with our reality in this country, when the facts and statistics speak for themselves. We are far from being the envy of the G7, the way we once were. The unholy and catastrophic alliance between the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc has plunged thousands of persons and families into misery and poverty.

Many of this Prime Minister's words ring false, starting with the words “budget” and “economy”. These investments on credit bring no value added to our GDP. We now have interest to pay down, in amounts that I cannot even visualize; I can only imagine stacks and stacks of cash in giant warehouses. Every one of my grandchildren born in the last seven years will bear this debt for as long as they live. They may never be able to buy a house. That is the case today for thousands of Canadians for whom home ownership is a distant dream.

As the ultimate spendthrift, our Prime Minister is a prime example of someone who never wanted for money as a child. He never had to earn a single dollar to put in his piggy bank or bank account. This same Prime Minister will be spending $40 billion in new money on his new spending spree, with the unconditional support of the NDP and now the Bloc Québécois.

The former Liberal governor of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge, said that he thought this budget was the worst since 1982. This year, Canada will spend $54.1 billion to service the debt, in other words, to pay the interest. That is more money than the government sends to the provinces for health care. It is a real scandal. The Bank of Canada and former Liberal finance minister John Manley both told the Prime Minister that he was increasing inflation with his spending, which was driving up interest rates. Obviously this spendthrift Prime Minister did not listen.

As a result, the Bank of Canada embarked upon the most aggressive campaign to raise interest rates in its history. Millions of Canadians are now realizing this more than ever as they renew their mortgages. This Prime Minister is not going to help them. The Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition is undermining people’s confidence in Canadian democracy and our institutions. Canadians did not vote for this kind of hypocrisy in the last election. It is not the first time in Canada’s history that a party that will never rise to power resorts to scheming with the Liberals to achieve its goals.

How many people can no longer make ends meet, even when they tighten their belts, even when they get higher wages? The inflation rate continues to increase the cost of mortgages, the price of housing, the cost of groceries and all basic necessities. Before this Liberal government, it took only 39% of an average salary to cover the monthly payment on the average home. Today this figure has increased to 62%.

Just last weekend I took part in the Relay for Life in Lotbinière/Lévis, a walk to raise money for cancer. I was worried when people told me they no longer recognized the country we live in and no longer feel safe with the direction the country is headed in. Life is getting dire for millions of Canadians who have exhausted their savings and their credit. They are at the end of their financial resources. Many skip a meal a day, and more and more people have to rely on food banks every week. When is this going to end? It is just so sad.

Canada has the fewest housing units per 1,000 inhabitants of any G7 country. The number of housing units per 1,000 Canadians has been decreasing since 2016 because of the strong population growth.

We need more housing units to keep the ratio of housing units to population stable. According to the CMHC, we need 3.5 million more units than planned to restore accessibility. In 2024, this figure will climb to 5.8 million.

The Prime Minister has stated yet again that he will bring in foreign workers to address the labour shortage when we already have a hard time providing decent housing for the homeless, Canadian families and seniors. No one can tell us when the promised units will be built. Since the Liberals came to power, mortgage and housing costs have almost doubled. Stress and anxiety have become facts of life for millions of Canadians. They are worried parents, children and grandchildren who know opportunities are getting harder to come by in Canada. Not so long ago, many believed they would never find themselves in a precarious situation. They are caught in a nightmare from which they cannot wake. In nine years, the Liberals have brought us to a point from which there may be no return.

Legalization of marijuana has not helped. Written briefs to the House and the work of committees can attest to that. Countries that legalized marijuana saw an increase in crime. Not surprisingly, Canada is also now experiencing this, with an ever-increasing crime rate. They also reported an increase in mental health problems. We too are seeing an increase in the number of people who are facing mental health challenges. We are also seeing rising addiction and deaths from hard drugs, which the Liberals pushed to legalize at all costs. It is a disgrace. Our big cities now look like places where zombies come to die. There are even neighbourhoods where no one dares go anymore. What can we say about schools and day cares with injection sites as neighbours, keeping parents awake at night?

As they say in Quebec, you have to be tough to live in this reality. For many, that refers to the chaos and decline they are experiencing under this Prime Minister. Not so long ago, it could be said that any problem could be dealt with through policy. That was before the Liberal–NDP-Bloc Québécois coalition.

We are powerless to stop these irresponsible budgets, which are populist in the worst sense of the word. They do not correspond to the reality that all responsible, well trained economists recognize. No one in their right mind would deny that Canadians of every social class are paying far too much in taxes because this Liberal government is wasting too much money. Any right-minded individual suffering day after day is looking forward to the upcoming elections to get the country back on track and show this government the door.

The Liberals think they have a license to print money. Good times or bad, they never stop. Taxpayers pick up the tab in the form of a higher cost of living. They do not even benefit from higher-quality services. On the contrary, these services have greatly deteriorated since 2015.

The 2024 budget is a continuation of the Liberals' horrendous record. This is a government addicted to tax increases and inflationary deficits. That is why I will vote against this budget, in honour of those who work hard for their money and who know how to count.

I would like to reassure voters that there is hope. Only one year, at the very most, remains of this Liberal-NDP-Bloc Québécois nightmare. Common-sense Conservatives will axe the carbon tax and lower prices on the staples Canadians need. This is not the sort of budget Canadians need in these difficult times. What they need is elections as soon as possible to axe the taxes, build the 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]

Madam Speaker, I always am amazed at the passion the member puts into his oration in the House. Daily in the House, the Conservatives cite food bank lineups as being an issue they care about. However, when it comes to supporting children, when it comes to feeding hungry children, and I note Breakfast Club of Canada is very popular in Quebec and does a great deal of work supporting breakfast programs in that province, could the member opposite speak to why the Conservatives have said they would vote against a budget that would feed 400,000 more kids per year and would commit to $1 billion over five years to lift up kids and ensure they get a healthy start every day? Could he speak to why he would stand in the House and vote against that?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, look at what nine years of Liberal policies have brought us: We are at the point where we have to feed kids breakfast at school. Before 2015, when the Conservatives formed the government, we were helping third-world countries feed their children. Now we have to do the same thing in Canada. It is time for an election.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

He is laying it on a bit thick, Madam Speaker. I do not have enough time to go over and correct my colleague's remarks. Everyone is to blame but them. Basically, he is promoting single-party rule, a return to totalitarianism. His conception of democracy is that Canada would be better off if all 338 seats went to the Conservatives.

I would like to know why my colleague always votes against the Bloc Québécois's proposals aimed at doing away with tax havens. He said that Canadians of every social class are paying too much in taxes. Canada's big banks have tax shelters and make billions in profits each quarter. Why does he vote against that?

Why does he vote in favour of oil companies continuing to receive tax subsidies despite making billions of dollars a year? Is that his vision of equity across social classes?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will address the first premise of the question posed by my colleague, whom I thank. Yes, the greater the number of Conservative members, the better off Canada will be.

I in turn have a question for my colleague: why did the Bloc Québécois vote in favour of $500 billion in budget appropriations to prop up this government and its reckless spending over nine years?

The Bloc Québécois is part of the problem.

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

Madam Speaker, I do like my colleague, but we lived through the Harper regime. More Conservative members means more hardship for all Canadians.

We have seen the Conservatives block dental care, despite the fact that hundreds of people in Lévis-Lotbinière are already benefiting from the NDP program. The Conservatives also wanted to block pharmacare. Today we have these foolish amendments moved by the Conservatives, who are blocking measures to ensure affordable housing, food for children, student loan forgiveness and the tax credit for volunteer firefighters.

I have a very simple question: Why are the Conservative members constantly blocking everything that could help Canadians?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me get back to the question posed by my colleague, who has my thanks. I will talk about real hardship, hardship in which the NDP is complicit because it is supporting the Liberals.

Thousands of Canadian families are struggling to put food on the table because their mortgage payments are too high. They are paying far too much for everything, including their mortgage, gas and food. We have come to this point because the NDP always supports the government.

I hope that the NDP will stop supporting this government as soon as possible so that Canadians can have a real choice, that being a new Conservative government.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, we know the results are in. After nine years of the Liberal government, it is clear that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost for any generation.

Food Banks Canada's recent report card said that nearly 50% of Canadians feel financially worse off compared to last year and that 25% of Canadians are currently facing food insecurity, a reality that should be unthinkable in a country like Canada, but, instead, is a growing problem.

The news from the Salvation Army is equally alarming. Nearly 75% of Canadians feel they are having difficulty managing their limited financial resources and 25% of Canadians continue to be extremely concerned about having enough income to cover their basic needs. That is the Prime Minister's record.

However, those are more than just figures. It is everyday Canadians who are working hard, doing everything they are supposed to be doing, stretching a dollar where they can and cutting costs where they can. They are struggling just to afford basic necessities. That is because groceries are at record highs and the costs are going up year after year. Families will be paying, on average, $700 more on groceries just this year alone, and it keeps going. Rents have doubled, mortgages have doubled, fuel costs are up, home heating is up, taxes are up, everything is up.

Canadians who are already struggling to keep their heads above water cannot afford higher taxes and more inflationary spending that drives up the cost of everything and keeps interest rates high. Canadians are desperate for some relief, but the NDP-Liberal government is just not listening. Instead, what Canadians got in the budget was more of the same mismanagement and inflationary spending, which has resulted in this pain and misery that Canadians are feeling. It is a kick in the gut to Canadian families that are desperate for some relief.

This budget would add nearly $40 billion in new inflationary spending, and it will cost the average Canadian family an extra $3,687. More of the same of what got us into this mess does not help Canadians or address the affordability crisis. The Conservatives had clear demands in advance of this budget, one of which was to get spending under control, that for every new dollar spent, the government should find a dollar in savings. This is a simple, common-sense budgeting concept that Canadians apply to their own budgets on a daily basis.

Deficit spending is pouring fuel on this inflationary fire, driving up the cost of interest rates, and it is not just the Conservatives saying this. We know that the Governor of the Bank of Canada has been clear that the government's deficit spending is not helpful in bringing inflation down and lowering interest rates. We know that the Prime Minister has admitted that he does not like to think about monetary policy, but Canadians cannot ignore the repercussion of that negligence.

The Prime Minister's reckless spending and taxes forced the Bank of Canada to slam on the brakes, with the fastest increase in interest rates in Canadian history. Millions of Canadians renewing their mortgages are facing massive hikes in their mortgage payments to come. That is a very real repercussion to millions of Canadians.

Let us not forget that while the Prime Minister spends and spends, it is taxpayers who are footing the Prime Minister's bill. They are paying for it today, but they will also be paying it for years and years to come. This year alone, Canadian taxpayers will spend $54.1 billion to service the Prime Minister's debt. That is more money than the federal government is sending to the provinces for health care. It is money that could be better spent, but Canadians are on the hook for it.

The NDP-Liberal government's tax-and-spend agenda is hitting Canadians from all sides. The carbon tax scheme is adding to the cost of food, fuel, shelter and just about everything they buy. The PBO has already proven that the vast majority of Canadians are worse off under this carbon tax scheme.

Certainly, in rural communities like mine, the negative impact of the carbon tax is even greater. Rural Canadians are punished for having to drive a couple of hours for a medical appointment, to get to work or even just to go the extra distance that is required for them to get groceries. There are no alternatives. However, the Liberals stand in this place, day after day, and try to spin a different narrative. They try to tell Canadians that they are better off. Canadians are just not buying what they are selling.

Now we know that the Liberals are knowingly promoting deceptive marketing practices. Their own economic analysis has proven that the carbon tax is hurting Canadians, but their solution is to hide the results. We know the PBO is under a gag order: “we've been told explicitly not to disclose it and reference it.” Those are the words of the PBO at committee, when he was asked about the government's economic analysis. He was clear that his office had seen the Liberal government's own analysis, which confirms the report the PBO had already published. The results do not fit the NDP-Liberal government's narrative, so instead of acknowledging the misery it has caused Canadians, it has simply hidden the results.

However, Canadians do not actually need to see the analysis; they know the results. They live the results every single day. They feel the carbon tax impact every time they pump fuel at the gas station, open up their energy bill or pick up groceries for dinner. The NDP coalition does not care. Even in the midst of growing poverty and food insecurity, it hiked the carbon tax anyway and is hell-bent on quadrupling it even further. It has proven time and again that it does not care if families are struggling to put food on the table.

Even though the Liberals have failed to meet every single environmental target they have set for themselves, they are obsessed with checking the carbon tax box. We see that activist-driven agenda with the obsession they have to punish our farmers. The Prime Minister is fighting tooth and nail to keep the carbon tax on farm operations. The carbon tax is increasing the cost of food production and is a huge hit to the bottom line of our farmers. Farmers are paying astronomical carbon tax bills, not to mention the GST that is charged on top of the tax: a tax on a tax. These bills are jeopardizing the viability of their farm operations and food security in our country and also abroad.

The carbon tax scheme also fails to recognize the valuable contributions that farmers already make to protect the environment. Environmental stewardship is the cornerstone of farming practices. Not only does the carbon tax scheme fail to recognize that, but it limits the ability of our farmers to innovate. Bigger and bigger hits to the bottom line of farm businesses means there is less and less money to reinvest in new technology. Filling up government coffers on the backs of our farmers does nothing to safeguard the environment. It is counterproductive, and it certainly does not help make food affordable. When food is taxed at every point in the supply chain, consumers will pay for it at the checkout, and they are. Only common-sense Conservatives will axe the carbon tax for everyone for good.

This budget proves that the NDP-Liberal coalition is not taking the affordability crisis in this country seriously. Every time the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance stands up in this place and tells Canadians how they are better off than they truly are demonstrates how out of touch they truly are with Canadians. Canadians are desperate for some relief. Only common-sense Conservatives will bring down interest rates for good by axing inflationary taxes and placing a cap on government spending.

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

Madam Speaker, I would note that there were many statements strung together in the member's speech that seem to be false. I am not sure who constructed that speech, but there are a lot of different things that I could take issue with. We know that Conservatives do not care about climate change. They voted hundreds of times in this House against any action on climate change whatsoever.

The member's party seems to be against investments in dental care, investments in pharmacare, investments in child care spaces, investments in health care and investments in mental health care. I do not know if members notice a trend here, but basically anything with the word “care” in it, the member's party seems to stand against.

Our government is investing in services and supports that Canadians need to lift them up, a stronger social safety net. Could the member opposite speak to why and how she can pretend to care about Canadians but not be willing to lift them up in their time of need?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member suggests that the things I have spoken about are false. These are things that I have heard from the constituents I represent in a rural riding in Saskatchewan, where the government has been hell-bent on not respecting provincial jurisdiction and what the premier sees best for his province.

The member talks about investing. The government is great at increasing taxes; that is what the government does. The Liberals are increasing taxes for every single generation to fund their agenda of spend, spend, spend, under the guise of “We're helping Canadians. We're caring for Canadians”, when the reality is that it goes to pay for high-priced consultants and to cover up their crime and corruption.

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

Madam Speaker, I am always a little in awe when I hear the Conservatives speak. Aside from slogans, I do not hear any solutions or any plan. How would a Conservative government address our current problems?

My colleague spoke briefly about housing. According to the CIBC, all we have to do is build 5.8 million housing units in Canada by 2031. We have never gotten near that number. In fact, we would have to build three times more per year than we have ever built before.

Apart from chewing out the mayors of major Quebec cities like Montreal and Quebec City, what is the Conservatives' plan for building housing units and getting the country out of this housing crisis?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, what we do know with the NDP-Liberal government is that photo ops and announcements do nothing. We know that. At the committee I am on, we have heard quite regularly how taxes on development—

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

There is a phone near the mic, and the vibration was being picked up by the mic.

The honourable member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, we are hearing at the HUMA committee right now, in a study of housing, that the taxes and the regulatory red tape burden that developers are facing are in the way of getting housing built. At the end of the day, we know that after nine years, the Liberals, propped up by the NDP, have not gotten the job done.

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

Madam Speaker, it was a reasonable question that came from my Bloc colleague. He just wanted to hear any ideas to come out of the Conservative bench on policy. However, in fact, the Conservative member did not provide any sort of possible solutions when it comes to housing.

We know that the Conservatives are trying to block everything: block support for a school lunch program, dental care and pharmacare. Another thing they are blocking is a tax credit for firefighters and search and rescue volunteers, which is absolutely critical for the retention of those volunteers in our country. Maybe my colleague can explain to those volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers why the Conservatives are using every single tool in the tool box to delay help to Canadians.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, it has been proven, after nine years, that the Liberal policies are doing nothing but creating more red tape.

I put forward a PMB, Bill C-318. Where is it? The Liberals stole it.

If the Liberals are so great with policies, maybe they should put some policies forward that do not create red tape, do not tax the taxpayer to death and actually have homes built. They are failing to do all of the above.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad I caught your eye, and I am glad you also caught the fact that I had mistakenly put my phone a little bit too close to the microphones. It is now far away.

I want to start by thanking the residents and constituents of my riding for again allowing me the opportunity to represent them in the House. We are now several years into this particular Parliament, but we all know that it is a great honour to be sent here to represent them. We speak on their behalf. We do not just speak for ourselves.

In preparation for speaking today, I did go through the many emails and phone notes I have written to myself from calls with constituents, people who have told me about the misery they are suffering through with the NDP-Liberal government's policies and Bill C-69 specifically, which is basically an encapsulation of many years of policy-making by the government that has led to the doubling of mortgage down payments and the doubling of rent.

I speak as a renter. My rent has gone up significantly, and I do not fault my landlord. He has no choice, because interest rates have much more than doubled. When an interest rate goes from 25 basis points or 50 basis points to 4.75%, that is a multifold increase. That is not a doubling; it is not a 4.5% increase. We are talking about a manyfold increase, like an 800% increase in some cases, on the interest people are paying on the total amount of their loan. I do not fault them.

We have seen the price of homes double since the Liberal government took over. We have seen the price of many goods go up significantly. It is the number one issue in my riding, the cost of living. It hits people in the grocery stores when they see it. It hits them at the pump when they go to refill their trucks or vehicles that they use to get their families around my riding. My riding is one of the bigger ones in Canada. Thankfully, the electoral boundaries commission is drastically shrinking it, by 40%. That will make it much easier for me to get back to everybody on time, those who make phone calls and send emails and those few who still send letters.

I often get asked the question, “What would Conservatives do?” I have taken the time to summarize a few things that, for me, are the highlights of what Conservatives would do. We have our main points that we make, and all parties do this. I often hear the NDP-Liberals accuse Conservatives throughout Canada of sloganeering. We are just making it simple for people to understand. There are vast amounts of information online, on YouTube, on social media. I trust Canadians to go through those things. If they are interested and curious about what Conservatives are proposing, there is an entire docuseries that, for example, the member for Carleton, the leader of His Majesty's opposition, has made, “Debtonation.” I highly recommend it. Those who are interested should go check it out.

I will start with “pay as you go”. It is a very simple idea. It has been time-tested. It has worked. In the U.S. Congress, between 1998 and 2002, when it was introduced, it basically said that for every new dollar of government spending, the current government had to find a dollar of cuts in current government programs or propose one dollar of new taxation to cover this cost. In the span of those four years, they were able to balance the budget of the United States government. That is a government that runs trillion-dollar deficits at this point.

Our national debt is in the trillions, but we do not run trillion-dollar deficits yet. I do not want to suggest anything. I am sure the Liberal government, if given half the opportunity, would reach that level. After all, as I remember it, there was a certain Prime Minister who promised to run small deficits, less than $10 billion for three years, and that never happened. The Prime Minister has run multi-billion dollar deficits ever since he was elected to office, and it has never stopped. In fact, none of the budgets that the Liberals have tabled since then have shown a balanced budget.

“Pay as you go” is a proposal from the Conservatives to adopt that would ensure that we could fix the federal budget. Fixing the federal budget would lead to lower interest rates. Lower interest rates would lead to lower housing costs and lower rents and, at the very minimum, stop this massive inflationary increase in the costs of everything.

It would make it easier for small businesses, like those of fishermen, giving them an opportunity to actually be able to afford new equipment. It would give them an opportunity to plan for their retirement and have the certainty that the equipment, goods, boats and everything else they use to run their business would have the same value at the end of the day, so they could retire with dignity.

The second thing is the building homes not bureaucracy act, which this House voted on. I find it interesting that one of the NDP members who spoke was trying to give a hard time to one of our members, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, saying that we had not proposed anything on housing. We proposed legislation on housing, legislation that they voted against, in fact. The NDP members voted with their coalition partners in the Liberal Party.

There is a proposal, the building homes not bureaucracy act. It went very specifically to the heart of what is going on in our country, which is that we have people at the very local level, in the planning departments of different cities, who are making it more difficult to increase density and, as is is in my community, to build more greenfield housing of single-family detached housing and low-rises. Calgary has generally done a really good job of building housing that is necessary, but so has the city of Edmonton.

As Calgarians, we do not often praise the city of Edmonton, but I used to live in Edmonton, and if I look at its housing costs over the last nine years, it probably has the smallest increases of any major metropolitan region. That is because, locally, they have decided to prioritize pricing and make sure that pricing stays low and affordable, so people can afford the homes that they want to live in, and there are different types of housing for different people to make sure they have the choices they need at different stages in their lives.

However, the building homes not bureaucracy act had provisions in it to ensure that we divested ourselves from federal government properties that are no longer necessary, to ensure that we can pass them over to developers to encourage them to build more housing and more development around TUCs, and also to cut CMHC's bonuses. This is the housing agency that is supposed to ensure we build sufficient amounts of housing. I have long been a critic of the CMHC. It does not matter which CEO has been there. It has completely failed in its mandate, so at minimum we should be cutting these bonuses, the performance base or whatever euphemism we want to use for the bonuses and the extra pay they are giving themselves when they are failing. We should not reward failure.

The government needs to cancel the carbon tax. It is very simple: Axe the tax. The carbon tax is adding on to the misery of all Canadians. We can see it in our grocery stores with the prices, but if we tax the farmer who makes the food, and we tax the shipper who takes the food to the producer who adds second-level value, and then they take it to the grocery store, all of those costs are being passed on through the entire system, and we have higher costs at the end of the day. That is simply how math works, and axing the tax is the solution.

What would we do to replace the tax? We are Conservatives. Generally, we do not like taxes. We would not replace it with any other tax. There are a lot of technological changes that we could do. There are a lot of things that we could do on the grid side in Canada to make sure we have a national grid, or something closer to a national grid, where there would be a better flow of electrical power between the provinces. We can do that through encouragement. We do not need to mandate things.

I watched the Minister of Environment mandate things, such as forcing Calgary Co-op, the grocery store of my choice, with 400,000 members in Calgary, almost a third of the city, to abandon its completely compostable bags. They are completely compostable in the city-owned compostable system, and the government is saying that they have single-use plastic in them. It is a compostable bag. Not even the ink is made of plastic. It is also compostable, but an insistence that Ottawa knows best is why we see so much division in this country and so few Liberal provincial governments left. There are so few of them left in existence.

I know many members wait for this, but I always have a Yiddish proverb. I have a great love for that language, and when a wise man and a fool are debating or arguing, there are two fools debating. That is what I feel while watching the Liberal cabinet when it has these disagreements about whose fault it is that there is a massive increase in mortgages and massive increase in housing prices and rentals. They seem to always point their fingers at somebody else. It is never their fault when things go wrong. It is always someone else's. It is as if they've not been in power for nine years.

The government members often, during question period especially, say that they will find the person who is responsible for this. They love labelling small business owners as too rich, with too much for their retirements, while the Liberals basically have golden-plated defined benefit plans that are afforded to them by the taxpayer. They should stop accusing those who create richness in our country and who contribute to the hiring in all of our communities. It is often that the government members are always looking for someone else to blame. It is the cabinet. It is just that person. I have not found a wise man among them yet, but I have found those fools who continuously blame Canadians for every single one of their mistakes.

As such, of course, I am going to be voting against Bill C-69. I have moved several amendments to it as well. It is also a matter of confidence, so I will also remind my constituents back home that on these types of matters, I have zero confidence in the NDP-Liberal government and this coalition, and we must vote this legislation down.

We have to have a carbon tax election, so let us axe the tax, build the 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, I note that, when asked for solutions, the member offered a couple of gimmicky slogans. I cannot think of any term for them other than “slogan”. “Pay as you go”, was what the member said. It is interesting that this concept is a way of looking at our fiscal environment and saying that it is what the government needs to do, but the member opposite has not ever pronounced, as is the same for all of his party members, whether the Conservatives are going to support our government's plan to increase the capital gains inclusion rate for people making over $250,000 in capital gains.

I would note that, when the Governor of the Bank of Canada came to the finance committee, only a couple of weeks ago, he said that our government is sticking to the fiscal guardrails and that this is helpful in fighting inflation. The only way that is possible is that, on the one hand, we have the investments we are making and, on the other hand, we have some additional revenue from the capital gains. The Governor of the Bank of Canada says that is helpful. What is the member opposite's position on the capital gains issue?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have sad news for the member. If he carefully reads the piece of legislation, Bill C-69, he will see that the capital gains tax is not in it. In fact, the Minister of Finance said that she would table a separate piece of legislation. It is as if the Liberals were completely unprepared to table a single piece of budgetary legislation that included all of their taxing schemes because they were either too incompetent, too foolish or did not know what they were doing, or this is just a political ploy and a political game, just as so many pundits are now attacking the Liberals over. They even have the Canadian Medical Association disagreeing with them.

Capital gains tax is not in the legislation. I invite the member to read it.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the Conservatives' so-called housing plan. The Conservatives' plan is to sell off public land to rich developers. They want to make their corporate landlord donors even wealthier. When the Leader of the Opposition was housing minister, he built all of six homes. He let half of the country go, with zero dollars to build more rentals. He lost 800,000 units of affordable housing. He sold them off to corporate landlords. This is the Conservatives' plan: cut and privatize. Canadians are worse off.

Does the member not think that we should use public land and public money to build more non-market housing, more co-operative housing and more social housing, which would be more housing for people that people can actually afford?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we were carefully listening, the group of us here, to the member's comments on what I had said and proposed, including the fact that we have legislation that we had proposed before the House. That member voted it down. The NDP-Liberal coalition voted down a piece of legislation that would have addressed the housing crisis created by the massive spending by the Liberal-NDP government. We really spent our way to prosperity, have we not? The massive spending by the government has led to higher interest rates and higher inflation. This has been tried before, and it has failed every single time.

My message to residents back home in Calgary and in Calgary Shepard, my corner of the city, is to remind residents and ask them if they are better off today than they were nine years ago. That is a very simple thing. Every single one of my residents, I am convinced, will say, no, they are worse off because of the NDP-Liberal government and MPs' decisions on spending.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Conservatives are against the budget. However, in this budget, the Liberals are giving tens of billions of dollars to oil companies and the fossil fuel industry in Canada.

I know that the Conservative Party finds it difficult to acknowledge the existence of climate change and that it is always extolling the virtues of Canada's oil industry. I would think they would be happy to see that in the budget.

Why are they then voting against it?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, tens of thousands of families in my riding depend on jobs in these energy companies. These are companies that were founded in Alberta. Many of them started as small businesses.

Thanks to the Government of Alberta, and thanks to the quality of the workers in my riding, we have built companies and wealth worth billions of dollars. The jobs they create pay for the houses, vacations and education of every family in my riding.

I am proud of these big Albertan companies.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on the budget implementation act, also known as Bill C-69. I will declare from the outset that I will oppose the reckless and incompetent Liberal government and its disastrous economic policy, which is contained in this legislation.

When the budget was introduced, the Liberal government told Canadians that it was adding another $57 billion in new inflationary spending, but guess what? The Parliamentary Budget Officer later confirmed that that enormous number was even higher, to the tune of $61.2 billion. That is a miscalculation of over $4 billion. This new inflationary spending only adds more financial fuel to the flames of inflation. Sadly for Canadians, as long as the NDP-Liberal government stays in power, it is only going to get worse. Already, it is costing Canadians more. In fact, the new spending in this budget would cost the average Canadian family an extra $3,687. I would ask the Canadians watching at home to pause and think about that for a moment. What could their family do if they had an extra $3,687 in their bank account?

As the shadow minister for tourism and the proud member of Parliament for the Niagara Falls riding, which includes the city of Niagara Falls and the towns of Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie, may I be the first to suggest a vacation in Niagara Falls, Canada's top leisure tourism destination? When common-sense Conservatives proposed to rescind the carbon tax and federal taxes for fuel for the summer to allow Canadians an opportunity to enjoy a vacation, the Liberal government instead criticized those same Canadians and then voted down our motion.

Really, that extra money could go toward anything, especially things that would help improve the quality of life for them and their children. Instead, the Liberal Prime Minister will continue to take their hard-earned money and then immediately throw it at the shocking interest charges that his enormous debt has racked up after nine years. This is simply unsustainable. This is not how we get to a balanced budget either, as the finance minister said she would during her fall fiscal update in 2022.

According to the Fraser Institute, last year the Liberal government was spending more on paying off its debt than it was spending on child care benefits and employment insurance benefits, but it gets worse. This year, the NDP-Liberal government will spend more taxpayer money on servicing its debt than on health care. I will let that sink in for a moment.

After nine years of the Liberal Prime Minister, it feels like we are back in the dying days of the Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne Liberal government at Queen's Park, where rampant, wasteful and reckless Liberal spending on green energy programs made Ontario's debt the highest of any sub-sovereign state in the world. What is both troubling and astounding is the fact that some members on the Liberal side are from the very same cast and government of that Ontario period. Have they learned nothing?

After nine years of the Liberal government, Canadians know prices are up, rent is up, debt is up, taxes are up, and they are fed up. Rent has doubled. Mortgage payments are 150% higher than they were before the current Prime Minister took power. Tent cities exist in almost every major city. Over 50% of Canadians are $200 or less away from going broke. The Liberal government's tax-and-spend inflation is non-discriminatory. It costs Canadians their hard-earned money and savings, and it impacts Canadians of all walks of life, of every demographic and in every region of our great country. Young Canadians have had to put their dreams of buying a home on hold, while hard-working Canadians are working overtime, or two or more jobs, just to get by. Retirees, who have worked hard their whole lives to build our country, are now struggling to hold on to their savings as high inflation and new Liberal taxes drain their bank accounts.

Demand at local food banks is at an all-time high. In Niagara Falls, Project Share's food bank served more than 13,000 people last year, a total of one in seven residents. Across Ontario, a report from Feed Ontario revealed that more than 800,000 Ontarians used a food bank between April 2022 and March 2023, an increase of 38% province-wide.

These miserable results are the legacy of nine years of the Liberals' rule, and their disastrous spending and budgetary plans, which have failed at every turn. If Canadians were not already enduring enough financial pain and suffering caused by their federal government, they will take no solace in knowing that the Liberal government is committed to quadrupling the carbon tax, driving up the cost on everything from food, to groceries, to shelter and energy to heat and cool their homes.

The government's most recent tax increase was a 23% hike on the carbon tax on April 1, but there is hope. There is a solution. In the next federal election, which will be a carbon tax election, Canadians can elect a common-sense Conservative government. Only common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax to bring lower prices for Canadians. We will build the homes Canadians need. We will fix the budgetary finances of this country and we will address the issues of crime, which the government policies have made only worse, not better, in Canada.

The carbon tax is just one of a series of new tax measures being schemed up by the tax-hungry Liberal government that needs to continuously feed and fund its spending addiction. In the first quarter of this year alone, businesses across Canada saw taxes go up in areas such as CPP and EI premiums, as well as the added burden of the carbon tax. Some also had an alcohol escalator tax hike to worry about, such as the wineries and craft breweries in my riding, and every business is concerned about general costs continuing to go up.

Canadians in need of a home, desiring to rent or trying to save to buy their first home face stiff headwinds. After nine years of the Liberal government, housing costs have doubled and mortgage costs have doubled. Required down payments have doubled and rent has also doubled. More houses were built in 1972 than were built in Canada in 2022. Because of the government's habitual overspending ways, Canadians are struggling with increased mortgages and interest rates, which threatens their very future.

Just this morning, Global News reported on an Ipsos poll indicating 63% of respondents would continue to remain on the sidelines of the housing market due to higher interest rates. The poll was conducted between June 7 and June 10. Some 45% of respondents maintained that they would not be able to afford a home no matter how much interest rates declined, and, sadly, six in 10 respondents said they had given up on ever owning a home.

After nine years of the Liberal government, Canadians are poor while Liberal insiders and friends of the Liberal cabinet get rich. The government has screwed up the housing file so badly that in the 2023 fall economic statement, it trumpeted the creation of a new Canadian mortgage charter to save Canadians from the problems the NDP-Liberal government had created itself. The government should be ashamed.

Only common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime so Canadians can focus on getting ahead in their daily life. After nine years, it is clearer than ever that the Liberal Prime Minister is not worth the cost, and budget 2024 would make life worse across the country for Canadians. Prices are up and rent is up. Debt is up; taxes are up, and Canadians are fed up. The Liberal government's time is up.

I encourage members of all opposition parties to take a stand with Conservatives, vote against the reckless, inflationary federal budget and vote non-confidence in the disastrous Liberal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to give the Conservatives some credit finally. I know it is taken me a long time to reach this conclusion, but they are exceptional at stringing together misleading and false statements into speeches.

The member opposite talked about quality of life. He used that phrase in his speech. Our government's budget and the BIA invest in helping Canadians be able to save or to buy their first home; in ensuring that families can save for their children's education more easily; in ensuring that over 400,000 more kids can get food in school; in life-saving medication, which obviously would cost families if it were not offered through a national pharmacare program; in student loan forgiveness; in research funding to ensure that students and researchers can do their work at a competitive rate; in helping seniors get their teeth fixed; and in more child care spaces. The list goes on.

Does the member opposite oppose every single one of those investments designed to improve the quality of life of countless Canadians?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about investments. It is spending. The government is spending enormous amounts, billions of dollars in fact, to fix the problems it in fact has created itself. These programs would not have been needed had the government taken actions earlier on to fix the problems that we now face.

On the housing file, the government has spent $89 billion on its national housing strategy. Never has so much been spent to accomplish so little. I mentioned in my speech that the government, in 2022, built fewer homes than the former government did in 1972. That is a failure on the part of the current government.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me reassure my colleague that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this budget.

One of the reasons we will be voting against this budget has to do with the government's commitments toward the oil and gas industry. The budget commits up to $83 billion by 2035 to an industry that is raking in record-breaking profits while contributing to global warming.

I would simply like to know if this is one of the reasons my colleague will be voting no too: the fact that this government is handing billions of dollars to an industry that does not need the money and that is helping exacerbate climate change.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, we are voting against the government, and the budget in particular, because of the government's failures over nine years of being in power. Its actions have caused the affordability crisis we are facing today.

Our hope is that a non-confidence vote will be held in our favour and that a carbon tax election will be held so a common-sense Conservative is elected to try to fix the problems the government has created.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing the member and I can agree on is that the Liberals have failed to ensure that Canadians across the country have housing. However, I have not heard a single concrete, sound solution being put forward by the Conservatives.

One such thing that is vital, which we are talking about today, is the rental protection fund. We know that for every one house built, 11 affordable homes are being lost, yet the Conservatives continue to prop up the same corporations that are swooping in and buying up affordable homes, leaving people unable to access the homes they need. Housing is a basic human right.

Why does the member continue to participate in delay tactics that are keeping Canadians from being able to access the affordable housing they need and deserve?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, why did the opposition party that works in tandem with the government vote against our building homes and not bureaucracy act? We put forward a piece of legislation that would address the housing crisis in Canada, and the New Democrats voted to support their Liberal friends.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-69 is an omnibus budget implementation bill that creates or amends 67 different acts. It enacts the consumer-driven banking act, which makes the federal government exclusively responsible for regulating this sector, with the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada serving as the regulator.

Today we are calling on the government to take this division out and fix its flaws over the summer. We want the government to come back in the fall with a framework that does not give Bay Street an undue advantage over other financial institutions, that respects Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction and that delegates the administration of the framework to an appropriate agency.

Since financial technology or fintech companies are not federally regulated, Ottawa has opted to regulate them indirectly by controlling the manner in which the banks can transact with them. Specifically, Bill C‑69 provides that banks and other federally regulated financial institutions will be covered by the new act. They will be required to co-operate with fintech companies, but they may do so only in accordance with federal rules and standards.

As for institutions that are not federally regulated, they are ignored. They can opt in voluntarily if they get the approval of their province, which would then have to waive the right to apply its own laws to the portion of their activities that comes under the open banking system. For now, Bill C‑69 does not affect insurers, due to the sensitive nature of the medical data they hold, or to intermediaries like brokers, but the framework is likely to expand to cover them in the future.

The specific rules and standards that will apply to the sector, particularly in terms of consumer protection and financial liability, will be set out in another bill that is due out in the fall, but the decision to make it exclusively federal is being made now, in Bill C‑69. We urge the government to take out this division, improve it over the summer and present us with a better law this fall. Taking out this division will not delay the bill's coming into force.

In practical terms, under this section of Bill C-69, the Quebec Consumer Protection Act and the Quebec Act Respecting the Protection of Personal Information could cease to apply to financial institutions for any activities related to open financial services. The impact of an exclusively federal open banking system on the prudential obligations of Quebec financial institutions, as set out by the Autorité des marchés financiers, is unclear at this point.

In addition to forcing Quebec to transfer legislative power to Ottawa, Bill C-69 puts Quebec's institutions at a disadvantage with respect to federal institutions. While banks will have only one set of regulations to follow, an institution like Desjardins would be caught between two governments: the Government of Quebec, for its general operations, and the federal government, for its technological interactions with customers.

Being subject to two uncoordinated regulatory bodies could be downright dysfunctional and give banks an egregious advantage over co-ops and trust companies. Bill C-69 gives Bay Street an advantage over other institutions like co-ops and credit unions. As a result—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The member for Lac-Saint-Jean is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are people talking. If people want to talk, they should do so in the lobbies.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

That is a good suggestion. Anyone who wants to have a conversation should take it out into the lobbies. That is what they are there for.

The hon. member for Joliette.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you. I also thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean.

Bill C-69 places Quebec in a dilemma in which there are no good options.

If we refuse to join the federal framework, our institutions will stay trapped in the 20th century while their federal competitors step into the technological 21st century. Maybe we could let our financial institutions opt in to the federal framework, but then Quebec would have to waive the right to apply its own laws to their activities that come under the open banking system.

Then there is the worst-case scenario. In order to survive against its federal competitors, an institution like Desjardins could choose to stop being a Quebec institution within the meaning of Quebec's Cooperatives Act and become a federal institution under Canadian co-operative bank legislation. Trust companies would face the same choice. Since the open banking system could eventually be expanded to cover insurance, all of our insurance companies could switch over to federal regulation.

If this worst-case scenario comes to pass, the entire financial sector and all of its activities will be completely outside Quebec's jurisdiction. That is a serious threat to Montreal's status as a financial hub. In short, by using its power over banks to regulate all companies that interact with them, Ottawa is trying to force Quebec and the provinces out of the financial sector, which it failed to do when it was trying to regulate securities.

Rather than taking the unilateral, centralist route, Ottawa should have chosen co-operation. It could have called a federal-provincial finance ministers' working meeting on open banking. It could have encouraged them to release a joint statement at the end of this meeting in which the governments announce their intention of developing a common regulatory approach with a clear deadline, such as 2025, and possibly setting up a federal-provincial office.

It could have sent a clear message to all financial institutions, not just banks, telling them to agree on a common technology, such as a secure data transfer protocol, because open banking is coming. Lastly, it could have worked on common technical regulations on accreditation rules for fintech companies, security standards, clarification of financial liability, consumer and data protection, and other such matters.

This is what we are asking the government to do today. We are asking it to take out the division on open banking that centralizes the sector exclusively at the federal level. We are asking it to take a few months to coordinate with the various players and the provinces and then to come back in the fall with a framework that respects jurisdictions and does not put provincially regulated institutions at a disadvantage.

The government could have chosen another model for the open banking system. There is the Interac approach based on self-regulation, as well as the securities approach. Securities fall mainly under provincial jurisdiction, but Ottawa has laws governing federally incorporated companies. The Supreme Court has also recognized federal jurisdiction over systemic risk in the financial sector. In Quebec, the Autorité des marchés financiers is the regulator.

To ensure that businesses could raise capital across Canada and that registrations in one province would be recognized everywhere, governments decided to coordinate. That is why Quebec's Business Corporations Act is very similar to the Canada Business Corporations Act and to the corporation laws of all the other provinces. The same is true for all legislation governing the various aspects of securities.

Quebec retains its legislative powers. The Quebec act may be stricter in some respects. For example, Quebec is the only province that requires a French version for all corporations registered with the Autorité des marchés financiers. However, this version must comply with the common standard adopted by all governments. This is the approach I prefer. This is the approach preferred by the Bloc Québécois.

There is another concern. In Bill C‑69, the government delegates the administration of the framework to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, an agency that mainly promotes financial literacy and that does not have any of the required expertise. In committee, FCAC representatives acknowledged that they did not have expertise in sharing financial data in a way that minimizes the obvious cybersecurity risks. They also told us they do not currently have a plan for developing the expertise needed to oversee the security aspect of open banking.

We also asked several questions that the FCAC representatives said they were unable to answer. For example, since fintech companies are not banks, they are not federally regulated. We asked if the government had obtained the consent of the provinces, particularly Quebec, which has its own civil laws, before tabling this bill. They were unable to answer. The answer is no.

During the briefing on the notice of ways and means preceding Bill C-69, it was my understanding that provincially regulated financial institutions could join the federal framework if they so chose, provided that the province consents and declines to regulate on its own those activities involving the open banking system. Is this in fact the case? I am unable to get an answer.

Which provincial laws will have to take a back seat to the federal laws? There is no answer.

Who will be tasked with certifying the technology companies, Ottawa or the Autorité des marchés financiers? I am unable to get an answer.

Will Quebec's Consumer Protection Act apply to the activities of the open banking system? There is no answer.

In the case of fraud or damages, will it be possible to launch a class action suit under the Civil Code or the Consumer Protection Act against a fintech company? Again, I am unable to get an answer.

Will the sharing of financial responsibilities between the financial institution and the technology company necessitate changes to the financial institutions' prudential standards? Will the Autorité des marchés financiers need to change its rules to comply with the federal framework? Here again, I cannot get an answer.

None of this is surprising. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada is not well positioned to manage this framework. It learned it would be receiving this role just before the budget was tabled. This is ridiculous.

To avoid a disaster or some risky back-pedalling, let us act today. Let us take this division out of Bill C-69, do our job better and come back with a good bill this fall.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work at the finance committee. I have enjoyed working with him. I understand that there are interjurisdictional issues that the member has rightfully pointed out in the debate today in relation to the consumer-driven banking framework. He and I have had some good discussions about that, and I look forward to more.

There are a lot of other things in the budget implementation act. I understand that the Bloc will not be supporting the BIA for the reasons that members on that side have given, but could the member speak to the merits of the BIA in relation to, for example, the Canada carbon rebate for small businesses, the investment tax credits for clean-tech manufacturing and clean hydrogen, the new research infrastructure funding, funding for grads and postgrads, or a national school food program? I believe that the Bloc is in support of all of those things.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his remarks. I really like working with him too.

Bill C-69 seeks to amend 67 different statutes. It contains some good things and some that are not so good.

For example, it contains the global minimum tax aimed at countering tax havens, and that is good. My colleague was talking about credits for what the government calls “clean” hydrogen. In fact, this is an $11-billion subsidy for the oil companies and the hydrocarbon industry to help gas companies with that. We do not support this. However, we do support the measure that earmarks $1 billion for the school food program. This was one of our asks.

And so it goes. There are things we support and things we do not support. Overall, the cons outweigh the pros, so we will not be voting for this bill.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's remarks.

I want to pick up on what he said at the end of his speech, when he called this budget ridiculous. Can my colleague elaborate on the ridiculousness of the current government?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question and for all his interventions in the House.

In my speech, I focused on division 16, the open banking system. Clearly, the government did not consult Quebec, the other provinces or any market players. The sector, in other words the business community, has been asking the government to legislate since about 2016. The government finally presented a rough sketch of a bill, but there are major problems with what it is proposing. It really seems like the government does not listen and is slow to act. It does not do much. When it finally does do something, it creates serious problems, as it did in this case. Everything will be decided next fall in a future bill. What is being decided here in this bill is that the federal government is taking control of all jurisdictions that should normally be shared.

I therefore urge my colleague to talk to his Conservative Party colleagues about voting with us to have this division taken out of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the items brought up by my colleague is a national school food program, and I want to touch on that.

We all know of and see the great programs that Quebec put into place for child care and school food programs. I am wondering if the member could speak to the difference those programs have made in the lives of children and students and how important it is that children across Canada have access to school food programs, in contrast to what we are seeing right now, which is the Conservatives blocking, delaying and voting against essential programs that Canadians across the country rely on.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her thoughtful comment.

I would say to her that, after the Quiet Revolution, Quebec started developing a social model, Quebec's social-democratic model. This model continued to develop while the governments of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin slashed transfers to the provinces, particularly for social services, in order to balance their budgets.

We saw poverty shoot up and the wealth gap widen significantly in the other provinces. Meanwhile, Quebec used the means at hand to implement various measures with the help of community and social groups, people who believe in the redistribution of wealth and equal opportunity for all. Everyone tightened their belts to implement these measures. That is when the family policy, including child care centres, was rolled out, allowing more women to join the workforce. That is also when we adopted a pharmacare plan that covers people without prior coverage. That is all very limited, but while the federal government was slashing transfers by 40%, we put this in place to preserve the social fabric.

As expert studies show, at that time, the level of inequality in the other provinces began to look similar to that of the United States, while the conditions in Quebec began to look more like what is found in Scandinavian countries. There are a great many elements, and we always get community groups involved.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are poor, a theme that is all too common after nine years under the Liberal-NDP government. Canadians know that they could do all the right things: They could go to school, have a part-time job while they are going to school, make ends meet, get a job, and work and put in as much as they can to save up. However, at the end of the day, the government will do everything in its power to work against all that hard work.

The Canadian experience, or the Canadian dream, that we used to have in this country used to include things that would seem very basic for any country. If people put in hard work, they could own a home, own a business and send their kids to a good playground or a school where they would not find such things as needles and crack pipes. They would be able to just walk down the street without fear of being mugged or fear of going through tent cities such as those we are seeing across this country. However, after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, that experience is gone. Nine out of 10 young people say that they have lost the dream of home ownership. They see a Liberal-NDP government with a carbon tax scam, which has been increased once again. Because of this, single moms have to make decisions about skipping meals now.

There is a woke, ideologically extremist government that will do everything in its power to make sure Canadians will never be successful. This is because we have an out-of-touch Prime Minister who has probably never had to fill his own car with gas or go grocery shopping on his own. I am not even sure if he knows how to open doors anymore. He probably needs to be retrained after next year, when he is not going to be prime minister anymore. The sad part is that the incoming Liberal leader is no different. It is Mark “carbon tax” Carney who is going to be crowned. The pain that the Liberal-NDP government is inflicting on Canadians does nothing to these trust-fund babies or these elitists, but it does everything to harm the middle class and workers.

We do not have to look very far to see the pain the government has caused after nine years, with nothing but blind support from the NDP. On top of the tent cities, there are food banks with larger and larger lineups at them and with different demographics than there were nine years ago. In fact, people can have a well-paying job and still have to line up at a food bank. They could be a teacher or a nurse but still end up sleeping in their car because, after nine years, the Liberal-NDP government has doubled housing costs. The government spent $89 billion on housing. Rents and mortgages have doubled; in fact, rents are at the highest rate they have ever been in Canadian history.

However, this is no surprise, because we have an out-of-touch Liberal-NDP government that has no clue. According to them, Canadians have never had it so good. However, none of the Liberal or NDP MPs or the Prime Minister actually talk to Canadians. They would rather rub elbows, as Mark “carbon tax” Carney does, with the elites of the world. They would rather do that than sit at a dinner table with everyday Canadians and workers, such as the ones who cannot afford groceries anymore, who are deciding whether they should get that extra grocery item or who are thinking about whether they can actually afford heat or rent this month. Kids are starving because of the cost of food. That is nine years of the Liberal-NDP government.

The problem is that productivity in this country has declined once again, for the seventh consecutive quarter. GDP per capita tells us how productive the country is. I spoke on Bill C-69 just weeks ago; at that time, GDP per capita was at the lowest rate since 2016. The week before that, GDP per capita was at the worst rate since 2017. Today GDP per capita is worse than it was in 2014.

Canadians have been hit with 40-year highs in inflation because of the Liberal-NDP government's out-of-control spending. They got the most rapid interest rate hikes seen in Canadian history. They got slammed by a carbon tax scam that only went up, did nothing for the environment and only made the cost of gas, groceries and home heating even more expensive. Not only did the government do that, but it also made sure that investment in this country fled. More than $200 billion of investment has already fled since 2016. That is the record of the current government; however, again, Canadians have never had it so good according to the Liberals.

In fact, Canadians have had it so good that they want to leave. More Canadians are leaving each year now because of the high cost of living. The Canadian dream that everyone thought of or came here for, just as my family did, is gone, and the proof is in the numbers: the food bank usage, the people fleeing from here or thinking about leaving here, the number of bankruptcies and the insolvencies.

I will give an example of a small business owner. Small business owners are the ones the government considers to be tax cheats. I have a friend in the GTA, who left everything back at home and took the big risk of coming to this country. He came at a good time, when taxes were low and rent was half of what it is today. That was under a Stephen Harper government. It was a time when people knew that they could put in hard work and get something back.

He started his first job as a janitor in this country; now he is a very successful transport owner. What happened in that time, and what has happened to him now? He was able to save up. He was able to send his kids to a good school, and now they are a part of that business as well.

Now he is being taxed more than ever before by the ideology-driven government. In this country, after nine years, success is vilified. If people make money, the Liberals are going to take it. Now my friend has been hit with higher carbon tax costs; he cannot find workers, because the government has broken the immigration system; and, on top of all that, extortion has happened to him. After nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, he is getting hit with every single bad policy: He is paying higher taxes, he is not getting the labour he needs so he can grow his business, and his success is not only vilified by the government, but now extortion is happening to him because the soft-on-crime policies of the current government have done that to him and his business.

Now, this person's family lives in fear every single day. The family members live in separate hotel rooms. They have bulletproof windows on their house and cars. On top of that, they are now thinking about leaving. This is a story that is all too common in this country after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government. By every measure, productivity has gone down; that always affects the most vulnerable people and the middle class, the ones whom the Liberal-NDP government is supposedly always standing up for.

However, hope is on the horizon; it cannot come soon enough. Under a common-sense Conservative government, we would turn this country around. That Canadian dream would be revered once again around the world.

Under the leadership of the member for Carleton, we would axe the tax. We would get rid of the carbon tax for all and bring down the cost of gas, groceries and home heating. We would make sure business owners can keep that money, so they could invest more in themselves and in workers.

\We would fix the budget. We would bring in a dollar-for-dollar law, so that a dollar spent needs to have a dollar of savings somewhere, and this would help lower inflation and interest rates. The current government does not understand this, because the Liberals think that budgets balance themselves.

We would build the homes, not more of the bureaucracy that we have seen under the government, which has doubled the cost of housing in all respects.

We would stop the crime by bringing back mandatory minimum sentences so that we can have safe streets and safe communities once again.

Under a common-sense Conservative government led by the member for Carleton, we would bring home that Canadian dream once again. This is something that, after nine years, the out-of-touch Liberal-NDP government has destroyed.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was a bunch of slogans strung together with a lot of falsehoods scattered throughout.

The main one I would take issue with right now is that the member blames the federal government for global inflation. Members in the Conservative Party do this on a daily basis. This is interesting because every country in the world, postpandemic, has been dealing with an inflationary environment. The member opposite does not acknowledge that and is trying to pin that on the federal government.

In relation to this, though, we have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio, the lowest deficit and the strongest projected GDP growth in the G7. We are rated number one for budget balance by the International Monetary Fund. We have 141% postpandemic job recovery, which is higher than that of the United States, and we have maintained our AAA credit rating. We are the first country in the G7 to have experienced a rate cut by our central bank. How does that square with the member opposite's claims?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a little rich, coming from the specific member, to be talking about falsehoods.

If the Liberals want to talk about falsehoods, they should remember how they sold the carbon tax scam. They said it would be revenue-neutral. Well, that was false. They said it would somehow fix the forest fires and the environment. That was false. In fact, their own environmental department says they do not even track how much this carbon tax scam brings down emissions, and emissions went up. The Liberals know it is just like the Prime Minister: not worth the cost.

On top of that, the member wants to talk about inflation. The carbon tax scam added to inflation. It is a big chunk of today's overall CPI number that we see. In fact, if the Liberals were to take away the carbon tax scam, as Conservatives would do, it would dramatically bring down inflation, which means we could bring down interest rates.

This carbon tax scam is nothing but a Ponzi scheme under the Liberal government, supported by the NDP, because all they want to do is protect their leaders' pensions.

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

Mr. Speaker, we heard my colleague talk about small business. As the former small business critic for the federal NDP, I know that the Conservatives were literally invisible during COVID-19.

They did not bring any new ideas to help protect workers or to help small businesses survive. The NDP brought ideas to work with the government and to make sure that we protected jobs. In addition, when it came to credit card merchant fees, we saw the big credit card companies raking over small businesses, but the Conservatives sat silent. It took years of the federal NDP putting pressure on the Liberal government to actually cap merchant fees so that we were in line with Australia and the European Union.

We are bringing forward ideas to deal with the labour market crisis, such as child care, dental care and pharmacare. We heard from small business that child care is critical to unlocking workers that need to participate in the workforce.

Why are the Conservatives blocking supports, such as child care, dental care and pharmacare, for small businesses?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if he had been an effective small business critic, he would still be in that role.

I will tell Canadians why he is not. It is because the NDP has propped up this corrupt, inept, incompetent government. In fact, the member talks about small businesses, but it is because of them that more small businesses are going insolvent and that there are more bankruptcies. The NDP helped jack up the carbon tax scam. That is not just for businesses; it is the workers of those small businesses—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. I know the hon. House leader for the NDP is way down at the end, but I am having trouble hearing the member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that they might be a little farther away after the next election, but that is okay. They can heckle me all they want.

Canadians know that workers were hurt the most by the Liberal-NDP government's woke, extremist, ideological thinking, which drove them into food banks more than ever before. However, they take pride in saying that they are somehow the saviours of this country. In fact, we just have to look at their record. Ever since the NDP has been propping the Liberals up, there has been more food bank usage, more bankruptcies and more insolvencies. Moreover, the workers they supposedly stand up for are impacted the most by their failed policies.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere pleasure to stand before the House in support of the budget implementation act, 2024, No. 1, which would implement many of our government's key priorities in budget 2024, entitled “Fairness For Every Generation.”

All children deserve a fair start in life, and I think we can all agree on that, yet nearly one in four kids in Canada lives in a household with too little income to buy enough to eat, impacting their health and their opportunities to learn and grow. That is just not right. Therefore, in budget 2024, we proposed a new national school food program that would help ensure children across Canada get the food they need to thrive, regardless of their family background.

The children of today are tomorrow's doctors, nurses, electricians, teachers, scientists and small business owners. By supporting them, we lay the groundwork for a brighter tomorrow. Therefore, I urge my hon. colleagues to pass Bill C-69 swiftly so we can get this program up and running and do right by Canada's kids.

We are proposing to invest $1 billion over five years into the national school food program, which will provide 400,000 more kids across the country every year with food in school. That is 400,000 more kids beyond those currently served by the patchwork of provincial, local and charitable programs that currently exist across Canada. By working together with provincial, territorial and indigenous partners, we will expand access to school food programs across the country as early as the 2024-25 school year, which is incredible.

For kids, this investment will mean not being hungry at school or missing crucial nutrients from their diet. That is important because studies show that students who consistently consumed a nutritious breakfast and lunch achieved higher grades in reading, math and science compared to their peers.

Meanwhile, for moms and dads, and caregivers across Canada, this investment will mean peace of mind knowing that their kids are eating healthy meals and are well looked after in school. Healthy and nutritious food for all our kids is an investment into the future. Parents will no longer have to decide on whether they purchase healthy and often more expensive alternatives or pay their rent on time.

Even with inflation easing significantly over the last year, specifically over the last four months, which has led to Canada to be the first country in the G7 to have its central bank cut rates, affordability pressures are still causing many more Canadian families to face food insecurity, which, frankly, should worry all of us. After all, food insecurity is strongly linked to poorer health outcomes, including higher rates of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure, but also higher rates of mental health issues like depression and anxiety. All of this puts a large burden on our already stressed health care system.

The national school food program will be a safety net for the parents who need this support the most, including first nations, Inuit and Métis families, many of which have some of the highest historic rates of food insecurity in Canada. Once up and running, it will save an average participating family with two children as much as $800 per year in grocery costs. That is extra money families can direct toward clothing, toys and books for their kids, as well as groceries and other essential goods.

Further to that point, evidence shows us that school meal programs do not just reduce health inequities for kids. They also promote sustainable food systems and practices, and create more jobs in both the food service and agriculture sectors, especially for women. This is feminist social policy in action, and it is smart economic policy too.

Speaking of that, something that should always be mentioned when we are talking about vulnerable kids and youth is that we have done a lot. That is why we have made generational investments into the Canada child benefit, which has helped lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty since its launch in 2016. About $91 million comes into my riding of Whitby on a yearly basis to support 14,000 families just in my riding alone.

This program provides families with up to nearly $8,000 per child per year to provide the essentials that kids need. That is why we are continuing to deliver an early learning and child care system across all provinces and territories, which has already cut fees for regulated child care to an average of $10 a day or less in eight provinces and territories, and by 50% or more in all others.

We are also improving access to dental health care for children under the age of 12 through the Canada dental benefit, and soon for children under 18 with the Canadian dental care plan, so that parents do not have to choose between taking care of their kids' teeth and putting food on the table.

To help younger Canadians get the mental health and addiction support right when and where they need it most, we are also launching a new $500-million youth mental health fund. My youth council was a group of young people who identified this issue a number of years ago and has advocated for more supports for youth mental health. Therefore, it is great to see this in the budget. This new fund will help community mental health organizations across the country provide more access to mental health care for younger Canadians right in their communities, so we can help more kids and youth live healthy, happy, supported and fulfilled lives. Canada's success depends on the success of younger generations.

The national school food program is at the top of our list. It is a generational investment to help families and make life more affordable across the country. Thanks to this crucial investment, we will be helping families by ensuring that kids do not spend the day at school hungry, and at the same time bringing peace of mind and relief to parents and caregivers. However, we cannot do it alone.

I hope my honourable colleagues will support Bill C-69 and join us in our vision of a Canada where every child and youth has enough food to eat to focus in school and reach their full potential.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way spoke about a lot of the government's programs and the big spending announcements that it has brought forward over the last few years, including in this budget. Unfortunately, it is the government's policies, its spending and programs that have led to the cost-of-living crisis we are seeing after nine years. Instead, could the member speak to when his party will finally listen to common-sense Conservatives and Canadians who are struggling, and listen to our plan to axe the tax and stop inflationary spending so we can help address this cost-of-living crisis that Canadian households are facing right across the country?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that the Conservatives have only slogans. They produce no solutions or offer any solutions of any kind for any of the issues that Canadians are facing today. Our government is busy putting forward solutions and implementation plans and making investments in Canadians. We know that we have to invest in people to create the kind of prosperity and country that we want.

Obviously, our country is going through the same inflationary crisis that the entire globe has been going through postpandemic, but we have fared much better than many other countries, and that is clear based on the statistics. We are the first country whose central bank has cut interest rates. We should all be very proud of that.

We can invest in Canadians and make life more affordable at the same time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are accusing the Conservatives of not having a plan, but the Liberals' plan is to spend money in jurisdictions that are not its own, that they are not responsible for and that are the sole purview of Quebec and the provinces, by imposing conditions. Quebec has established social programs, child care, dental care, health insurance and housing solutions. The federal government is investing billions of dollars in our areas of jurisdiction. At the same time, it is not spending money on strengthening its own social programs, such as old age security, employment insurance and its immigration policies.

Does my colleague not think that his government's priority should be to invest in its own areas of jurisdiction?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Bloc Québécois regularly brings up interjurisdictional issues when it comes to the federal government making key investments to support Canadians. Whether they live in Quebec or any other province, all Canadians deserve investments in the kinds of supports they need to solve the affordable housing crisis, to create a stronger social safety net, to increase research and productivity and innovation in our economy. Why would Quebec not want to benefit from those key investments?

We, as a federal government, would not be carrying out our duties if we were not trying to work with Quebec and ensuring it gets the investments it needs as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are all hearing from constituents across Canada about the tremendous toll that the cost of living is taking as it continues to skyrocket.

One group, in particular, I am hearing from in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith are those living with disabilities. It is not enough for people living with disabilities to receive $200 a month. There was a glimmer of hope that people living with disabilities would finally be lifted out of poverty, that they would be consulted by the government in the way they deserve to be.

When will the Liberals finally consult with those living with disabilities? When will they ensure that people living with disabilities are no longer legislated into poverty?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since being elected in 2019, I have been an advocate for individuals with disabilities and have advocated for the Canada disability benefit from day one. I have been in touch with my constituents living with disabilities and I feel strongly about the $200 more per month, notwithstanding that provinces and territories have neglected to provide the supports necessary to individuals living with a disability. It is within their jurisdiction to do so, but, we, as a federal government, are stepping up yet again to supplement where provinces and territories happen to be failing Canadians. We are making the investments.

I do agree with the member that $200 is not going to lift all people living with disabilities out of poverty, but it is certainly a good start and it will bring provinces to the table, when we we can tell them that they should not be cutting back on any of the supports for individuals with disabilities, so in the future we can raise that amount and ensure we lift all people living with a disability out of poverty.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the Conservatives do not believe it is a good idea to invest in children. We are talking about a budget that would help feed young people who need food, fix teeth, invest in mental health and the most very basic form of child care, which is essential for strong families.

Why does the parliamentary secretary believe that investing in children is one of the best things this government can do?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, children are our future. I have young children. All of us with children certainly understand that they are the future of our country. We could make no better investment in the future generation than investing in children, whether it be food, dental care, pharmacare, child care, all the things that our government is doing to support families, so they can achieve and have a fair chance at success.

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

Mr. Speaker, in talking about the last 18 years, it has been the best of times and the worst of times. It is the best of times, as one is well aware, for the billionaires and for profitable corporations in Canada. We saw this under the Harper tax haven treaties, the infamous treaties that cost Canada $30 billion each and every year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It is the best of times for the oil and gas CEOs, who have received massive subsidies over the last 18 years, nine years of the dismal Harper regime and nine years continuing under the Liberal government.

It has been the best of times for the banks, with $116 billion in liquidity supports under the Harper regime and with $750 billion in liquidity supports under the Liberal government. We have seen that it has been the best of times for the billionaires and the wealthiest among us.

It has been the worst of times for everyone else. We saw, under the Harper regime, how food bank lineups doubled and how the cost of housing doubled. Since many of those policies were continued under the new Liberal government, of course, because they are bad policies, we saw food bank lineups double and housing prices double. Conservatives, unfortunately, just seem to have amnesia about how dismal the nine years of the Harper regime were. It created the conditions for the situation we see today.

However, this speech is not about the Conservatives and their lamentable record, with the most appalling government we have ever had in our history. It is not about the Liberal government not stepping up for Canadians. It is about, really, the hope that the NDP engenders because, being the adults in the room, under the leadership of the member for Burnaby South, the NDP got to work in that situation to ensure that Canadians actually had the wherewithal to put food on their tables and to keep roofs over their heads.

We have talked, in the past months, about many of the NDP initiatives. There was the anti-scab legislation that protects workers, for the first time in the federal regime. It is about workers being protected from replacement workers taking their jobs during strikes or lockouts. We talked about the dental care program. It is important to note that 150,000 seniors, just in the first few weeks of the NDP dental care program, have benefited from getting services. Those are seniors who, many for the first time in their lives or the first time in decades, have access to dental care. That relieves the pressure on our acute health care system because those seniors will no longer have to go to the emergency wards of our hospitals across the country to get emergency dental treatment.

The pharmacare program that the NDP has brought in, which has passed in the House and which hopefully will pass in the other place shortly, will make a difference for six million Canadians with diabetes, who often pay $1,000 or $1,500 a month for their diabetes medications and devices, and for nine million Canadian women who have to look for contraception. Finally, women's reproductive health freedom will be maintained because it will no longer be a question of whether they can afford access to contraception. There will be nine million Canadians benefiting from those measures, as well, from the NDP.

I could go on and on about other pieces of legislation the NDP has brought forward. We are ensuring a transition to clean energy to fight back against the climate crisis, and ensuring protection from food price gouging and gas price gouging by the enhancements that the member for Burnaby South offered to the Competition Bureau. All of those things are going to make a difference in people's lives. There is no doubt about that. The budget is part of this drive by the NDP to actually address what were systemic failures of the Harper regime, sadly continued by the Liberal government rather than putting into place the kind of fair tax system that Canadians do want to see and the structured services that actually benefit Canadians.

Under the Harper regime, we saw how those services were slashed, badly, to allow billionaires to take their money offshore. That was the priority of the dismal, horrible nine years under the Harper regime. It was the worst government in Canadian history and the most unbelievably cruel government in Canadian history.

The former Harper government forced veterans to travel long distances to access whatever services they deigned to allow veterans to continue to access, forced seniors to work years longer before they could even access a pension and slashed services, including health care services, left and right, indiscriminately, so that Mr. Harper and the group around him could give massive handouts to the banks, the billionaires and offshore tax havens. Unfortunately, Liberals continued those practices until the NDP stepped up in a minority parliament, first under COVID, forcing the government to actually put into place measures that would benefit Canadians in getting through the pandemic and now, over the last year or two, ensuring services that actually benefit Canadians. This budget bill is one of those examples.

I will note that Conservatives have had absolutely nothing to offer except nuisance amendments, and they will keep us voting for a number of hours just to basically delete portions of the bill, not in any methodical way, not in any thoughtful way and not to benefit any Canadian, but just to delay House time because that is what Conservatives seem to do. They seem to obstruct and to block. Never has a single Conservative MP stepped up for their constituents in order to make sure that there were better services in place. We saw that under the dental care debate, in the pharmacare debate, and we saw that numerous times. We are seeing that today, with respect to the affordable housing provisions that the NDP has forced the government to add.

In this budget bill, there is funding that includes universal single-payer pharmacare for diabetes, which would help six million Canadians. Just to be clear, we are talking about 18,000 Canadians in each and every Conservative, Liberal, Bloc and NDP riding in the country. Eighteen thousand of our constituents, on average, in each riding in the country, would benefit from the provisions of what the NDP has forced into the budget implementation act. How could a member of Parliament vote against 18,000 of their own constituents? That is something they will have to reconcile with their constituents when they go back home.

There are also NDP provisions around building more affordable housing. Forty years ago, members will recall that the former Liberal government ended the national housing program. Since then, we have seen a steady deterioration in affordable housing. The cost of housing doubled under the dismal, terrible Harper regime, and it has doubled again under the current government. The NDP has forced provisions to ensure that we are actually building more affordable homes and preserving affordable housing. Affordable housing generally is 30% of income. It is not in assuming that Canadians can pay whatever cost the market gives them.

This budget bill also would establish a national school food program for children who are going to school hungry. It would reverse cuts in a number of areas, including the cuts to health care that the Harper regime put in place and the cuts to indigenous services that the Liberal government was proposing. It would establish a dedicated youth mental health fund and would double the volunteer firefighters tax credit. I wanted to praise the member for Courtenay—Alberni, just for a moment, for his good work in bringing that to reality. This would make a big difference for volunteer firefighters right across the country, and search and rescue volunteers, who have not benefited from the tax credits that are in place.

This is not an NDP budget. An NDP budget would actually ensure fair taxation. It would ensure that the billionaires and the wealthy corporations pay their fair share. It does make a number of steps that would make a difference.

I do want to address one critical issue that I know the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam has raised repeatedly in the House of Commons, as has the entire NDP caucus, and that is about a disability benefit that only provides a very small measure of support for people with disabilities. Earlier, I mentioned the massive amounts that have been poured into billionaires and offshore tax havens, banks, and oil and gas CEOs. Both Conservatives and Liberals, over the years, have poured hundreds of billions of dollars into the wealthiest and most privileged among us. It is a terrible legacy that the government has refused to put in place an adequate income for people with disabilities. That must change. The NDP will continue to fight for people with disabilities and will continue to fight to put in place an adequate income for people with disabilities.

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

Mr. Speaker, one way I like to compare the contrast between the Conservative Party and the progressive budgets that we have brought forward is to look at it from the perspective that the government understands the needs Canadians have. That is why we have been able to develop a budget that deals with issues such as disability benefits, a pharmacare program and a dental care program. The member made reference to anti-scab legislation.

I am thinking that, when progressive minds come together, in fact, it can make a difference. That is in contrast to what we hear from the Conservatives, where their attitude seems to be to cut, and they spread misinformation through social media. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on that aspect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Winnipeg North and I would agree that the Harper regime was absolutely the most ruthless, cruel, terribly incompetent government we have ever seen. It was appalling.

I was in the House during that time. It is unbelievable how cruel Conservatives were to Canadians and how incompetent they were. In terms of financial management, Conservative financial management is an oxymoron. They are terrible when it comes to managing money, terrible at treating Canadians. It was an absolutely abysmal regime. It was nine years of cruelty and nine years of incompetence. It was an appallingly bad government, and it was thrown out because of all those things.

I know Canadians will remember that the next time they go to the polls. The reality is that anything good the Liberals have done has been because of the NDP forcing them to do it, whether it is dental care, anti-scab legislation, pharmacare or affordable housing. It is all thanks to the NDP.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this member has been here as long as I have been, and I cannot believe that he can actually come up with this fiction. What he is saying is absolute fiction. The only people who could run the economy worse than the Liberal government would be an NDP government. I can assure Canadians right now that if he is so caught up in the polls and if he believes that people will see what is going on, I would ask him to withdraw their support today from the Liberal government. Let us go to the polls to find out what people really think and see who can actually grow this economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, we will be going to the polls. We will have millions of Canadian seniors who would have benefited from the NDP dental care program and hundreds of thousands of Canadians who would have benefited from pharmacare. Conservatives would have to justify, in their ridings, why it is that they want to slash all those programs. They were a terrible government.

I would caution my colleague, who I have a lot of respect for, that all he has to do is consult the fiscal period returns published by the Ministry of Finance. It is not a hotbed of democratic socialism or social democracy. It has shown, over the last 40 years, that the best governments at managing money in Canada have been NDP governments.

We are better than Conservatives and better than Liberals. We make sure the priorities are providing supports, providing education, providing health care and providing services to Canadians. We do not give money away. We do not blow the wad on billionaires and banks. That is what Conservatives do, and that is why they were thrown out in 2015.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was fascinating to listen to my colleague actually bring a little bit of truth to this troubled place.

What we have seen from the Conservatives is this endless gaslighting, where they get up and talk about children not being able to eat and talk about how children have to go to food banks. Their leader, who lives in a 19-room mansion paid for by the taxpayers, with his own private chef, ordered all the sock puppets to vote against a program to get food to children.

We asked the Conservatives why they voted against food for children. They want children suffering so that they can blame our weak Prime Minister for it. It is the same as when Conservatives talked about the mental health crisis, yet they had the gall to vote against a suicide prevention hotline.

Meanwhile, New Democrats showed up. We got the national suicide prevention action plan because we actually care. We got dental care for seniors because we care. We got diabetes medications for seniors and for people because we care.

The member for Carleton, who has never had a job and who lives in a 19-room mansion in Stornoway, would get all his sock puppets to cut all those important investments, while they are saying that people are suffering.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he thinks it is about the Conservatives' constant gaslighting of the Canadian people, when they really do not give a damn about those who are suffering.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay does care. That is why he was voted by all parliamentarians just a few years ago the best constituency politician in the country, because he cares about his constituents in Timmins—James Bay. It is true—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The statement that the member for Timmins—James Bay was supported by all parliamentarians is not true. I would ask the member to correct the record and withdraw that remark.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the member was here when the time came to vote, but that is okay. I do not need his vote to still be recognized as a strong, hard-working member—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I think we are descending into the weeds.

The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Timmins—James Bay is breaking his own rules in his own private member's bill when he excessively uses the term “gaslighting”. What is he going to use—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I think we are just descending into debate.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, voila, Conservatives are gaslighting us, so I would ask the member to withdraw—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has a whole 20 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Timmins—James Bay, although I think his reference to Conservatives does a disservice to socks. The reality is that Conservatives have not contributed anything to the debates in this House for years, and that is a tragedy. They will have to reckon with their constituents when they go back with their record of not doing anything for them and wanting to cut every benefit that they have.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Export Promotion]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak about our Liberal government's plan, through budget 2024, to support Canadians both now and for future generations. It is a budget that I know will help grow our economy, help young Canadians and bring meaningful investments to support so many families in my riding of Brampton East.

Through budget 2024, our government is taking swift and bold action to ensure that when young Canadians are ready to rent or buy their own homes, they have affordable housing options to choose from. With investments such as the new loan funding program for apartment constructions, we can help to ensure that they get the keys into young Canadians' hands faster.

By 2031, budget 2024 will help unlock close to four million new homes and alleviate the pressures. Our government is also providing a $400-million top-up to the $4-billion housing accelerator fund, which is fast-tracking the construction of over 750,000 homes across provinces and territories. As well, we have taken the necessary action with programs that support housing infrastructure through the Canada housing infrastructure fund, investing $6 billion over 10 years. This will help communities to have the critical infrastructure necessary to bring more houses online and into housing markets faster than ever before.

Through budget 2024, our government is delivering on our promise to Canadians of fairness for all generations. First-time homebuyers can turn their dreams of home ownership into reality because we have enhanced the homebuyers plan so that they can use the tax benefits of an RRSP to save up to $25,000 more towards their down payment. We are also increasing the amortization period on mortgages from 25 to 30 years for first-time homebuyers purchasing new builds. With these initiatives, we are sending a strong message that our government is not only taking meaningful strides, but also empowering young Canadians who want to enter the housing market for the first time. Our government is listening, and the proof of that comes through budget 2024. We developed a real plan to help Canadians of every generation with a fair opportunity for a good, middle-class life.

Increasing the housing supply will alleviate the added pressures buyers and renters are currently facing. Fairness for every generation means unlocking 3.87 million homes by 2031. It means bringing down the cost of homebuilding. It also means helping cities by making it easier to build homes at a faster pace. It means ensuring that we have the workforce and skilled professionals to get the job done. It means building homes that suit the needs of every Canadian, whether that be a student, senior, person with disabilities or a young family.

In order to reach our housing goals, we will use every tool in our tool box to ensure that we build as efficiently and sustainably as possible. Building homes on vacant and or underutilized public lands is one of these tools, and our federal government will lead a team Canada effort federally, provincially and municipally to unlock public land for housing.

Over the next three years, budget 2024 is proposing to provide over $5 million, starting in 2024-25, to expand our capacity to build more homes on public lands. This portfolio will include considering Canada Post properties and National Defence lands, and converting underused federal offices into homes for Canadians.

We also want to make sure that municipalities have the resources to participate in our team Canada housing strategy, which is why, in March 2023, our federal government launched the $4-billion housing accelerator fund. This means that municipalities like Brampton receive a portion of that funding to help fast-track the construction of over 750,000 new homes across Canada. I am proud to note that other Brampton MPs and I advocated for close to $114 million in funding through this new fund to support the building of over 24,000 homes. To keep this momentum going among Canada's fastest-growing cities, budget 2024 has proposed to provide a top-up of an additional $400 million over four years to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which will help unlock an additional 12,000 new homes.

With exponential growth, our government recognizes there needs to be the necessary infrastructure that supports our housing goals. This means delivering support to municipalities through the proposed new Canada housing infrastructure fund. This fund would provide $6 billion over 10 years to help accelerate the installation of water and waste infrastructure. Our government not only is acting by building housing, but also is ensuring that our growing communities are built with purpose and created in such a way that promotes active living and more vibrant neighbourhoods.

I have spoken at length about housing, because Canadians should know that this federal government plans to tackle the housing crisis, and it is a very big priority to us. We are making housing affordable for all Canadians of every generation, because they deserve to have a safe and secure place to call home; a home where they can raise their families, enjoy the company of friends or be able to relax after a hard day's work.

Housing options allow for Canadians to choose the space and location that are right for them. In a world where the possibilities are endless, there are certain choices Canadians should never have to face, choices such as paying rent, buying food or paying for child care versus putting their career on hold.

To ensure Canadians are never forced into making a difficult choice because of the cost of living, budget 2024 would deliver initiatives to support young Canadians and families of all sizes. Affordable access to nutritious foods is a vital part of our overall health and well-being. This is especially true for young children who are at critical growth and development stages in life. Paying attention in school is even more difficult on an empty stomach that gets in the way of learning. Almost one in four children do not get enough food, and studies have proven there is a correlation between students who do not receive enough nutritious food and graduation rates.

That is why, through budget 2024, our government is proposing to launch a new national school food program, which is a necessary step toward eliminating food insecurity among young Canadians. As we work with our provincial and and territorial partners, this new program would provide $1 billion over the next five years and is expected to provide meals for over 400,000 children. Our government is fuelling the next generation of innovators because this is a team Canada approach to giving our kids the best start in life.

Our government wants Canadians and their families to start and end their day with affordable, nutritious food. We know global factors and the lack of competition among Canada's major grocery chains have contributed to pricing fluctuations. Competition within markets is a good thing, which is why this government has already made it easier for more grocers to launch their businesses to help lower costs for Canadians.

We are doing this, and so much more, through the grocery task force. Investigations regarding price inflation and stabilization will occur to help monitor best practices in the grocery sector. Additional measures such as maintaining a data hub for food prices, tackling shrinkflation and enhancing competition are all included in our government's plan to fight for fair and affordable food prices.

Our government has launched the very first national affordable child care program. This is yet another way our government is making the choice easier for younger parents with children seeking to pursue or continue their careers. Our $10-a-day child care initiative is saving families in Brampton and across Canada thousands of dollars. In fact, in my riding alone, there is close to $8,000 in savings for families per year. Residents in my riding are very excited for this program. We also need to create more space for parents who want to enrol their children, and so we are unlocking more space by investing in our budget to create more spaces.

The cost of child care is no longer the equivalent of a mortgage payment thanks to our federal government's initial $1-billion investment in the child care expansion loan program, with an additional $180 million proposed through budget 2024 to help build more child care spaces. I am also proud to say the labour participation rate of working-age women reached a record high of 85.75%, which proves our feminist economic policy benefits all Canadians.

We understand raising children can get expensive, which is why our government introduced the Canada child benefit, which has cut child poverty by more than half. Not only did we cut child poverty in Canada by more than half, we also gave seniors the support they needed by strengthening the Canada pension plan and increasing old age security for seniors aged 75 and up.

During a time when the cost in services has increased, our government is doing more than ever to help Canadians while growing our economy. Growing our economy and investing in programs that work for every generation requires a fiscally responsible approach. The good news is our government has a plan in place to do exactly that.

With Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio the best in the G7, declining deficits and AAA credit rating, we are providing real results for Canadians and the economy. We are delivering on our fiscal goals, which we set out in our fall economic statement, setting the deficits and federal debt on a downward track.

We also factored into our government's plan new investments in sustainable green energy solutions and additional relief measures for new business owners and entrepreneurs. Building Canada's middle class requires a united approach and is fundamental to our focus on helping younger Canadians like millennials and gen Z have the same level of opportunities as their parents and grandparents did.

Fairness for every generation and these initiatives solidify our government's approach to Canadians and prove we are listening. Budget 2024 is the plan that builds our middle class, builds more homes and builds more support for small businesses and entrepreneurs while building a strong economy.

All in all, our government is building on its promises, is delivering actual results and has created a good plan where no Canadian is left behind. A team Canada approach lifts everyone up and takes bold action to alleviate the rising cost of living and social pressures Canadians feel. I know the constituents of Brampton East look forward to initiatives like increased child care spaces, more homes and more initiatives to attract industry and job growth. This is a budget that gives every Canadian a fair chance at success.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned affordable food prices in his speech. As we know, the government is constantly deciding to introduce bad policy that is hurting our farmers and will increase the cost of food. The carbon tax is an example. Another example is the P2 plastics ban on plastic packaging for fresh fruits and vegetables. We have heard that this policy alone will increase the price of fresh fruits and vegetables by up to 34%, create 50% more greenhouse gases and create 50% more food waste, resulting in less availability of products as other countries may not ship their products to this country.

Therefore I am wondering whether the member opposite can comment on whether the Liberals will abandon their plan of the P2 plastics ban for fresh produce or at least delay it to have a proper consultation with industry where we can look at science-backed solutions to the issue.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. Of course we want to continue supporting our farmers. The Indo-Pacific strategy is a $2.3–billion investment, and part of that investment includes a new agriculture office that has now been opened in Manila, Philippines, to give farmers access to new and growing markets around the world. The Canada brand is very strong around the world, and farmers are now shipping to new markets around the world because of our government's policies and our Indo-Pacific strategy.

Coming back to the Canada carbon rebate, I know that families in Brampton and across Ontario really appreciate the $1,120 they are receiving per year to support them in the cost of living.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke at length about housing. It is indeed a major problem.

The housing crisis in Quebec and Canada is really two crises in one. There is the problem of availability, meaning the ability to find a home, and the problem of affordability, which is a very serious issue.

Let me give an example. Right now, most federal programs result in the construction of housing units at 80% of market cost. As a result, we are collectively paying taxes to build one-bedroom units in Longueuil that cost $1,300 to rent and two-bedroom units in Montreal that cost $2,000 to rent. That is absolutely unacceptable. We are paying too much for housing units that are too expensive. We do not know who can afford to live in them.

I recently spoke with the Minister of Housing. He is open to the idea of reviewing the concept of affordability in the federal programs to stop funding $1,300 or $2,000 units. What does my colleague think of that?

Does he not think that it is about time we really started funding social housing for the most disadvantaged Canadians, single mothers, victims of domestic violence, all of those people living in tent cities across the country?

We need to fund housing so that they can have somewhere to live.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope to reply in French one day; I am still learning French.

In response to the member's very important question, of course there have to be many different options for housing, including co-op housing. I am sure members have seen that we have recently announced more funding for co-op housing initiatives.

With respect to growing and giving more options to municipalities across Canada through our housing accelerator fund, which I spoke about in my speech, for Brampton alone there is $114 million to the housing accelerator fund to give municipalities the support they need to build more housing, build more infrastructure to build that housing, and reduce red tape.

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

Mr. Speaker, we just passed the 80th anniversary of the landings on D-Day. Having been in Normandy for the 75th anniversary, I know it is incredibly emotional remembering the struggle to free Europe.

We are very concerned with the rise of the extreme right in Europe and what that will mean for the defence of Ukraine against the aggressions of Putin. There have been multiple votes in the House where the Conservatives have voted against support for Ukraine. We know that this is a pattern of the rising right and feeding to extremist fringe groups. I want to ask my hon. colleague whether the government is willing to commit to being there for Ukraine militarily, culturally and in the rebuilding in the long run, to stop Putin's aggression.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. Of course Ukraine is a very important ally and partner, and Canada has committed to always being there for Ukraine through many different ways, including humanitarian support, military support, resources and, of course, trade support. The member spoke about a recent vote for the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, which the party opposite, the Conservatives, has voted against.

I am not sure why the Conservatives voted against it, when President Zelenskyy came to Canada and asked for it because it will help Ukraine rebuild. It will grow both of our economies because this is what businesses want. I have sat down with Ukrainian community leaders across Canada, from Kelowna to Calgary and Halifax, and they have all asked for this, so I am not sure why anybody would vote against this crucial support for Ukraine. I can assure members that Canada remains committed to Ukraine.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague comes from a riding in the GTA in Ontario, like I do. Can he possibly speak to how the investments in infrastructure in our communities are helping to support Canadians across this country, and in particular in his riding as well?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, infrastructure helps enable building communities, and infrastructure helps enable building transit capacity, so Brampton MPs have come together and advocated for many different projects, like the Riverwalk project in the downtown Brampton core that will help unlock flood lands that are prone to flooding, in order to enable the building of more housing on that land.

We have unlocked more infrastructure in transit spending as well. Brampton is one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada, so we want to make sure that our constituents have transit options available. Just Friday we made an announcement of $5 million for additional buses for our residents. We will continue advocating for our residents.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is repeating the same promise he made nine years ago, when he said he could spend uncontrollably and there would be a rich guy on a hill somewhere who would pay the bill. Such was his promise of a more prosperous life for the middle class. Before we debate this repeated promise, let us first take a look at how things are going. As the Prime Minister himself admitted in a video on taxes a few weeks ago, the gap between the rich and everyone else has only grown. According to a chart created by Statistics Canada, the rich have grown twice as rich since the promise was made in 2015.

How are things going for the middle class? Nine out of 10 are paying more taxes than they were before this Prime Minister took office. Middle-class young people can no longer own a home, and 76% of them believe they never will. In addition, more people are using food banks than ever before in our history. Canada has had the worst GDP growth of the G7 since 2015, and the decline continues even now. The OECD has calculated that Canada's economic growth will be the worst of nearly 40 advanced economies for this decade and for three decades to come, which means that the quality of life of Canadian youth will drop compared to youth in other countries. In addition, Canada has lost $460 billion in investments to the United States, or $11,500 per person.

The Prime Minister's solution is to keep repeating the same election promises he made nine years ago and has since broken. Now he is proposing a new tax that will apply to health care, housing, farmers, and small and medium-sized businesses. A tax on doctors means even fewer doctors when there is already a doctor shortage. A tax on farmers means more expensive food. A tax on small businesses means fewer jobs and fewer opportunities for our young people. A tax on our economy will send more money to the United States and elsewhere.

Billionaires will not pay the tax, because the Prime Minister gave them two months' notice so they could get their money out of the country before this tax comes into effect. Who will pay it, then? First, it will be people who are selling or transferring long-term assets on a one-time basis, like a grandmother trying to sell or gift part of her farm to her children so that they can have a home. Next, it will be the 300,000 businesses or, indirectly, their workers. It will simply lead to higher food costs and smaller paycheques, and it will make it harder to find a doctor. Raising taxes will not solve the problem. That is why the Conservatives will be voting against this tax on health care, food and housing.

In my first 60 days as prime minister, I will name a task force of entrepreneurs, inventors, farmers and workers, but no lobbyists. This task force will design a tax reform for lower taxes that would, one, bring home hiring and more powerful paycheques to Canada; two, bring home fairness by reducing the share of the tax burden paid by the poor and working class while cracking down on overseas tax havens and tackling government-funded corporate welfare; and, three, bring home 20% less paperwork by simplifying the tax rules. Lower, simpler, fairer.

We will make this a country where hard work is rewarded with a bigger paycheque and a bigger pension to buy affordable food, gas and homes in safe communities. That is just plain common sense.

Nine years ago, the Prime Minister promised that he would spend like a drunken sailor, but that there would be a rich guy on a hill somewhere who would pay the price and the middle class would prosper. How is that promise playing out? According to his own video two weeks ago, the rich are twice as rich. Their net worth has gone from $6 trillion to $11 trillion.

How is the famous middle class, which we do not hear so much about anymore? Well, 76% of people who do not own a home believe they never will. Young people who do not have help from their parents cannot own homes almost anywhere in the country today. One in five Canadians is skipping meals. In Toronto, one in 10 is going to a food bank, a city that now has 256 homeless encampments, 50 of them added in the last six weeks alone. This is the help for middle-class people and those working hard to join it. The rich have gotten richer nine years after the Prime Minister promised that higher taxes, spending and debt would make things fair. Let us look around the country today. The Prime Minister admits life sucks, in his own words. How is that fair?

Now his solution is to bring in a giant job-killing tax on health care, homes, farms and small businesses. He wants to tax away doctors when we have a doctor shortage. He wants to tax home builders when we have a housing shortage. He wants to tax farmers when we have a food price crisis, and he wants to tax small businesses when our economy is already shrinking. The results of this approach have already been shown.

Our economy is shrinking, and has been shrinking for two years. We have had the worst economic growth in the G7 per capita since the Prime Minister took office, and since 2019, our economy has shrunk 2% while the American economy has grown by 8%. Meanwhile, we have the worst housing price inflation in all of the G7, the second worst in the entire OECD, after the Prime Minister doubled housing costs. This is exactly the opposite of what the Prime Minister promised would happen if he brought in more taxes.

Who will pay this new tax? The good news is that billionaires will not pay it. The Prime Minister has given them two full months to sell their assets and get their money out of Canada to build a business south of the border or in some faraway place. Who will be left behind to pay the bills? It will be people selling long-term assets, such as the wonderful grandmother who tried to divide up her farmland so her kids could have a small property to live on and is getting hit with a $40,000 tax bill, or the 300,000 businesses, most of them small businesses, and, indirectly, all of their workers, that will see long-term pay cuts or stalled wages as a result of their owners' inability to invest. Those people, like taxi drivers and others, who have saved up in a company, will pay higher taxes on every single new dollar they invest in our economy.

Raising taxes and punishing our health care providers, home builders, small businesses and farmers will only drive wages down and the cost of living up. That is why common-sense Conservatives will do exactly the opposite. Within 60 days of becoming prime minister, my government would name a tax reform task force of entrepreneurs, inventors, farmers and workers, but no lobbyists, to design a bring-it-home tax cut that would, one, bring home production and paycheques with lower taxes on work, hiring and making stuff; two, bring home fairness by reducing the share of the tax burden paid by the poor and working class while cutting back on tax-funded corporate welfare and cracking down on overseas tax havens; and, three, bring home less paperwork by simplifying the tax rules.

Conservatives will make this a country where hard work is again rewarded, where those who spend sleepless nights mortgaging their homes and wondering how they will pay the bills will be richly rewarded for their sacrifice in building the economy. It will be a country based on meritocracy not aristocracy, where people get ahead by working hard, not through having a family trust fund, like the Prime Minister. It would be a country where, if one works hard, they would earn a powerful paycheque that would buy affordable food, gas and homes in safe neighbourhoods.

That future is for the common sense of the common people, united for our common home, their home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.

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

Mr. Speaker, we just found out moments ago that Conservatives have now decided that they will not be voting in favour of fairness for Canadians, but will, in fact, be voting today against the ways and means motion to set fairness for everybody.

Can the Leader of the Opposition take the opportunity now to explain his position because he has been absolutely mute on this for the last number of weeks?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member has a problem with his earpiece because I just finished explaining my position.

My position is that a job-killing tax on health care, homes, farms and small businesses is the last thing we need in this cost of living crisis, which the Prime Minister has caused. He wants to tax doctors away when we have a doctor shortage. He wants to tax farmers when we have a food price crisis. He wants to tax home builders when we do not have enough homes. He wants to tax small business when our economy is already falling off the cliff and having the worst growth in the G7. That is insanity.

Common-sense Conservatives would bring in taxes that are lower, fairer and simpler, so that hard work would pay off with a powerful paycheque that would buy affordable food, gas and homes in safe neighbourhoods.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two things I would like to point out about Bill C-69.

First, there is the much-touted open banking system provided for in division 16 of the bill, which my colleague from Joliette mentioned earlier in his speech. That is a real problem for Quebec. Should the Leader of the Opposition become prime minister, I would like to know whether he will repeal that division in order to give Quebec back its power over Caisses Desjardins and the other financial institutions currently regulated by Quebec.

Second, we have been hearing the leader of the Conservative Party talk about the carbon tax problem for months now. However, Derek Evans, the executive chair of Pathways Alliance and one of the financiers who contributed to his campaign, said that the best piece of advice he would give the Leader of the Opposition is that carbon policy is going to be absolutely critical to maintain Canada's standing on the world stage.

What does the leader of the Conservative Party think about Mr. Evans' advice?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he sounds like another useless lobbyist saying stupid things. I do not listen to big corporate lobbyists like him. If the Bloc Québécois wants to listen to lobbyists, they are free to do so.

I know that big corporations and sometimes even very big corporations have no problem forcing workers to pay more tax on their gas but, personally, I cannot do that. I work for workers and consumers. That is why we are going to axe the tax.

The question points to the useless lobbyists who support the government's high-tax agenda and who always wants to raise taxes on someone else and make others pay. That is why, if one is an entrepreneur, they should fire their lobbyists and talk to the people. That is what I have been saying for years.

Finally, people need to elect a Conservative government that would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member and I went to the same high school. In grade 10, the required reading was The Handmaid's Tale, which was hard to read.

I will tell members what else is difficult to read, and that is what is happening in the United States and the fact that it is looking at taking away a woman's right to choose. I think about the fact that the member has been courting incels for months at a time and that the last Conservative from Port Moody—Coquitlam was an anti-abortionist.

I want to know this for sure today, right now. Does the member support a woman's right to choose? Is he going to take away a woman's right to choose if Conservatives ever, and I hope it never happens, become government in this country?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no.

The House resumed from June 11 consideration of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed emotions that I rise to speak in the chamber today for the last time as the member for Halifax. I have informed the Prime Minister that when the House of Commons resumes in the fall, I will not be returning. I rise today to share some reflections as this chapter of my service to Halifax comes to a close. What a chapter it has been: three elections, nine years full of learning, hard work, new friendships, unexpected adventures, plenty of ups, a few downs and, according to the Library of Parliament, 2,414 votes. It is incredible. It is difficult to put into words just how much it has all meant.

After a 20-year career as a city planner, I arrived in Centre Block as the first city planner ever elected to Canada's House of Commons. That career instilled in me the value of thoughtful planning to the well-being of Canadians who call our communities home. I saw what poor planning, neglect and underfunding of our communities were doing to Canada, which ultimately was my call to run, that and a convincing conversation with my dear friend and mentor, Halifax's own Dale Godsoe, herself a member of former prime minister Paul Martin's advisory task force on cities and communities. Dale is just now celebrating her 80th birthday. I wish Dale a happy birthday.

I ran for office because I wanted to be a voice for Canadian communities like mine, to make the case that our cities and towns could propel Canada toward its best days if we just unlocked their potential. As I have pursued that goal here, I have so many people to thank who have supported me along the way, first and foremost, my incredible daughter, Daisy Isabella Fillmore.

We all know too well the immense burden that our lives in politics place on our family and loved ones. That burden is greatest on the teenagers who grow up with a parent in politics. When I was nominated in 2014, Daisy was seven years old. She was eight at my 2015 election. She is now a magnificent 17-year-old off to university in the fall. Through it all, she has been loving, wise beyond her years and mostly patient. She was my beautiful little shadow at constituency events as a preteen and not at all interested in me or my events as a teen. Now, as a brilliant young adult, she has come back to me and supports me in what comes next. I am so profoundly proud of her and forever grateful. She teaches me something new every time we sit down and have a talk. She has been and will always be my north star. I love her beyond my ability to express it.

I also want to thank my family. My big sisters, Jenny Hawes and Julia Doughty,, sat on our beloved Bayswater Beach, back in 2014, and told me to go for it, so I did. My mom and greatest champion, Anne Ellen Fillmore, did not live to see her son sit in this place, but she is with me every day that I am here. My father, Peter Fillmore, always demonstrated the importance of being guided by purpose.

Now to my political family, beginning with my remarkable staff team. In Halifax, that is the indefatigable Joanne Macrae, Alec MacKinnon, Mackenzie Lambert and Lew Rogers. Previously, it was Dakota Kochie, Jennifer Drillio, Sarah Dobson, Cameron Lusby and, most recently, Will Regan. Here in Ottawa, it is Breton Cousins and, earlier, Jared Valdes, Matt Conley and Nicholas McCue. From the very first day until the last, seven parliamentary interns, or PIPs, have been a critical part of our team. My thanks to Etienne Grandmaison, Claire Sieffert, Andrew Walker, Enya Bouchard, Angelica Kalubiaka, Sarah Rollason-MacAulay and Camille Cournoyer. In politics, as in life, there is nothing of greater value than teammates who have each other's back, and that has been us for nine years. My team has always been there for me, and I will always be there for them.

In Ottawa, I have been fortunate to chair the indigenous and northern affairs committee and to serve as parliamentary secretary to four ministries: democratic institutions, Canadian heritage; infrastructure and communities; and innovation, science and industry. I want to sincerely thank each of those ministers and teams for their work and their support.

Coming back to Halifax, I am incredibly grateful to have been backed by an electoral district association led by current chair Martha Reynolds, past chairs Joanne Bouchard and Michelle Daignault, and indeed everyone who served on the board of the association throughout my time as their candidate. I would not have walked these halls for nine years were it not for an extraordinary team of campaign volunteers of every age and background who joined me on the doorsteps, on the phones and at countless events. It takes real guts to climb the stairs to a stranger's door and engage them in the political process, and yet that is what this team has done for over 100,000 doors over three election cycles. These are the people who power Canadian politics: tireless, selfless volunteers.

My final thanks is for those to whom I owe it all: the good people of Halifax who took a chance on me and then renewed their trust in me twice more. I came here to be their champion. Whether they voted for me or not, I hope in the end that I have served our city well. Looking back now, we achieved a lot together. We moved Halifax's share of federal funding from the bottom of the pack to eighth out of 338 ridings in Canada. With shipbuilders, we stood up for good shipbuilding jobs and closing the work gap. With community partners, we saved our beloved Northwest Arm from harmful infilling.

With provincial partners, we reopened Georges Island in Halifax Harbour after generations of closure. With longshoremen, we defended the Port of Halifax. With veteran advocates, we revived the veteran's ID card. With advocates across the country, we created Canada's first national active transportation strategy and associated fund.

With colleagues here in the House, we passed Motion No. 45, my private member's motion that put a green lens on federally funded infrastructure projects. With government and industry partners, we brought NATO's Defence Innovation Accelerator of the North Atlantic, DIANA, to Halifax.

With indigenous partners, we secured funding for a new Mi'kmaw Native Friendship Centre in downtown Halifax. And with the Royal Canadian Navy, we established the first-ever Halifax International Fleet Week.

These are just some of the projects that I have had the chance to work on and lead as Halifax MP, and yet there is still more to do, like my current effort to open up Canada Post lands in Halifax for housing. Rest assured, my colleagues here and back at home in Halifax will continue to hear from me on this.

I also want to express my deepest thanks to my dear colleagues in this place. This experience has taught me not just about the inner workings of Parliament and politics, but about Canada itself. What a unique experience it is to sit in a room with 338 people representing every corner, every single community of our vast nation. In the 42nd Parliament, my seatmate was former MP Pam Goldsmith-Jones, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. There we were representing the west coast and the east coast, separated by 4,400 kilometres and yet, sitting side by side at the same desk in this chamber, we found so much in common in the Canadians that we represented and in their shared hopes and in their aspirations.

In moments of intense debate in this House, when I struggled to see the other side, the thing that helped me make sense of this place was to remember that each of us here in this chamber together represented every single Canadian, regardless of background or persuasion, and that is the beauty of our Canadian democracy. Let us never forget that we do this job in service to every single one of them.

This job has taught me a lot about my hometown too. It has taken me into places I may never otherwise have been. I have been welcomed into people's homes, their places of worship, community centres, businesses, workplaces and backyards. I have forged new friendships with communities of every kind, seeing Halifax in a way that has inspired me over and over again.

I spoke earlier about the potential of our country's cities and towns to propel Canada toward its best days if only we unlock their potential. I believe there is nowhere in Canada that is more true than in Halifax, a municipality bursting with hard-won potential. Over the last two decades, so many Haligonians have rolled up our sleeves, linked arms and put our collective ambition into action. Together, we have turned the tides of stagnation that had haunted our municipality for decades and turned Halifax toward prosperity and growth.

Today that growth has brought many opportunities, but it has also brought its share of challenges, and so today, while I find myself reflecting on the past nine years, my sights are firmly set on the future, because the job is not finished at home. There is still work to do for Halifax, and I intend to see to it.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is highly unusual for me to ask a question or even make a comment, but I just wanted to reflect a little on the hon. member's speech when he talked about family. All of us come with some of the very same kinds of challenges when we come here, where we leave family behind in order come back and would like to be able to spend more time with them. What the hon. member is doing is trying to find another opportunity to spend more time at home.

I do congratulate him in making his decision on putting his name forward, I think, for mayor of Halifax. I keep hearing that. That is the story going around in the community.

With all the things the hon. member has listed, what is the project he looks most forward to that he did not have the chance to do as the member of Parliament for Halifax?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, indeed, this place can be very hard on families. I am so grateful that, as a result of COVID, we were able to innovate some virtual protocols such as voting by app, which have made this place more hospitable, friendly and welcoming to family and people with children. This is very important. Collectively, moving forward I hope this place protects those hard-won abilities to do so.

As for what is next in Halifax, like the rest of the country, there are a lot of houses to build. There are a lot of people to support in all kinds of different ways. However, there is tremendous optimism in my city, and I look forward to propelling that and keeping the good momentum we have built through hard work going into the future.

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

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise to celebrate my colleague from Halifax's career in federal politics. I really enjoyed working with him, particularly on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I believe it is possible to be friends with and trust the people with whom we work. I even believe that, together, we could have gotten Bill C-27 passed, if we still had similar responsibilities.

That being said, he talked about the many things that have been accomplished in Halifax, but he forgot one: Halifax hosted the Memorial Cup in 2019, which gave the Rouyn-Noranda Huskies the opportunity to win not one, but two cups, the President's Cup and the Memorial Cup, against the Mooseheads. Perhaps I should not mention that here. Perhaps now is not the time. I am sorry.

I really appreciate my colleague's ambition in running for mayor. I would like him to tell us what particular thing he is most proud of.

What is the greatest legacy he is leaving his city and this Parliament?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would tell my dear friend, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, that of course my greatest accomplishment was making sure his Huskies could have a place to win in the Memorial Cup in Halifax. I hope it is a great legacy for both of us from my time in this place.

I am very proud of my work with the member on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. We worked together on all kinds of matters, such as critical minerals, quantum computing, the Copyright Act modernization, blockchain technologies, crypto and fair competition across industries. We did an awful lot together.

If I I were to answer the member directly, my greatest accomplishment was done as a team with everyone in the House who achieved the great things for Canadians that are propelling them forward through what has been a difficult time and have set them up for a strong economy looking forward. We all did that together in so many different ways, and that is the thing I am proudest of.

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

Madam Speaker, it is huge honour and privilege to rise after the final speech of my friend from Halifax. We have done many things together.

When he was the parliamentary secretary to the environment and climate change minister, he worked with me on a national strategy to combat plastic pollution and helped get his caucus to unanimously support that. We also worked together on cycling. I had a bill on a national cycling strategy. I remember getting the call the night before the announcement of the first-ever $400 million dedicated to active transportation and an active transportation strategy.

The member also supported a health-based approach to the toxic drug crisis. He even broke away from his party and supported my bill. Last, he worked with me to double the firefighter tax credit and the tax credit for search and rescue.

I cannot say enough about the member's ability to work across political lines. I appreciate his dedication to the people of Halifax. I know he will be at home watching the last blow on a gale. He will not be missing it anymore. I had to use a maritime comment.

Will he be reaching out to the NDP, if he becomes the mayor of Halifax, in ways that we can continue to work together on things that are going to help benefit Canadians and the environment?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I really do appreciate working with the member for Courtenay—Alberni. We have done very well together over a long period of time.

If I think back to the harmful plastics ban, it was about a week before that bill passed that my daughter, who I spoke about earlier today and who at that time was about 12 years old or so, texted me when I was here and asked me if there was anything I could do about helping sea life, given all the plastic bags and everything. A week later, I was able to tell her that, in fact, we had passed that bill with the member's help.

I want to finish with the firefighters' tax credit, an absolutely remarkable thing. I thank the member for the help that he applied to that. In fact, it doubled the credit from $3,000 to $6,000. That had everything to do with the advocacy of the member and other members. We are in a position now where we know the skills of firefighters are going to be called upon more and more frequently throughout the course of the year, and we need to do everything we can to position them for success. Again, collectively, we can all feel good about the way we have been able to position them for that success.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to debate Bill C-69.

Here we are again. Another year, another NDP-Liberal budget, and every budget it seems is worse than the one before. This year's iteration of the budget is falsely titled “Fairness for Every Generation”. The title is ironic because, after nine years of the government, virtually every generation in the country is worse off. In fact, I cannot think of a single demographic, other than the Liberal insiders, that is better off in nine years.

Our youth can only dream of affording a home after the government has allowed a housing shortfall. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we would need to build 1.3 million homes to close the housing gap. Both renters and homeowners are struggling to pay their bills after the cost of housing has been allowed to double under the leadership of the Prime Minister.

Our seniors are seeing their pensions ravaged by inflation. Not that long ago, it used to be that their old age security, CPP and whatever other savings they might have could see them through on a monthly basis. That is no longer the case. The government has directly driven up that inflation, making life unaffordable by continuing to overspend. By piling on another $61 billion of new spending this year, piling on to our already enormous debt, it has proven that it does not plan on changing course any time soon.

Parents are struggling with affordability, and it is now difficult for many families to feed their children. We are seeing yearly inflation rates for many food products in the double digits, while a record two million Canadians had to use a food bank in a single month last year, which is incredible.

Let us not forget the pesky carbon tax that compounds through the economy, costing over $30 billion of economic activity, as recently highlighted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Therefore, not only is it costing us every time we make a purchase, but it is costing our economy $30 billion in output. After nine years of the government creating intergenerational poverty, that would be a more apt name for this budget.

We know things are bad for the government when former Liberal Bank of Canada governor David Dodge has called it the worst budget since 1982, when the current Prime Minister's father was the prime minister. Like father, like son, as they say.

Instead of cutting back spending, the government has continued to be irresponsible and is spending money that Canadians no longer have. This has forced the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates. The cost to service the debt is now $54.1 billion. One must wonder what $54.1 billion could have been spent on instead of servicing the debt.

Like many Liberal bills, the budget has been turned into an omnibus bill to push forward strange and unusual requests that have little to do with budgets or measures, that are so controversial that if tabled on their own would not likely get the support of this chamber.

This year's boondoggle is the new tax on capital gains, a direct attack on business owners. It is only after the Conservatives pushed back that the government relented and put the capital gains changes into a separate bill. I chalk this up to pure incompetence, as the government continues to wedge, stigmatize and divide Canadians, and has open class warfare in our tax system.

The government claims that this change will bring fairness into the tax system essentially to target the richest 0.13%. Nothing could be further from the truth. What it conveniently ignores is how this tax will likely impact, and only impact, middle-class Canadians. This includes tradesmen, farmers who are worried about the succession of their family farms and small business owners who worry that it may not be worth growing their businesses in Canada anymore after these changes. The immigration stats are proving this to be true.

This would not be the typical 1%, but in fact would not be any of the 1% at all. Rather, they are our neighbours, friends and family members, the people who put food on our table and build our homes, and those industrious small business owners who employ people in our local communities and, meanwhile, sponsor the T-shirts for our kids' soccer teams.

I would also like to focus the attention of members on another underhanded change in the budget implementation act, and that is the newest changes to the Food and Drugs Act. The NDP vacated its role as an opposition party in March 2022, and instead of holding the government to account, its members have decided to help ease the passage of budget Bill C-47, which was the budget implementation act of 2023.

The ghastly bill was a direct attack on Canada's natural health product industry, one of the safest and best regulated industries on Planet Earth. These changes came as part of a push to radically change Health Canada's regulatory framework. Health Canada claimed that the changes were necessary to safeguard public health, but we simply know, with all the powers that it has, that this simply is not true.

The major alteration to the act was to change the definition of a therapeutic product to include natural health products. A therapeutic product is essentially a synthetic drug and it has little in common with food, which is the closest commonality that natural health products actually have. This would essentially put natural health products in the same regulatory framework as pharmaceutical drugs. It would also force the industry to pay for Health Canada's costly bureaucratic overhead with expensive new licensing fees and fines.

Essentially, by putting a self-funding model in place, what the government would be doing is just taxing the industry with that self-funding regulatory model so that it could free up the $50 million a year, which it already uses to manage the natural health product space, and use that money on some other misguided priority of the government.

Previously, natural health products were exempt from much of the regulations in the Food and Drugs Act, as a common understanding is that natural health products are a much lower risk to one's health than a pharmaceutical drug. That is why I introduced my private member's Bill C-368 to repeal these changes to the Food and Drugs Act and return to the status quo, maintaining the distinction between natural health products and therapeutic products.

However, if my private member's bill fails to pass, this new budget may also have a big impact on the natural health products industry. That is because division 31 of part 4 of this new budget implementation bill has introduced new ministerial powers pertaining to therapeutic products. Once again, it would be another change to the Food and Drugs Act and Health Canada. Instead of putting it in its own bill, it is tucked into part of an omnibus budget implementation act.

The most concerning of these changes is to allow the minister to make unilateral changes on therapeutic products without any basis in science demonstrating risk. Proposed subsection 30.01(1) of the bill states:

Subject to any regulations made under paragraph 30(1)‍(j.‍1) and if the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that the use of a therapeutic product, other than the intended use, may present a risk of injury to health, the Minister may, by order, establish rules in respect of the importation, sale, conditions of sale, advertising, manufacture, preparation, preservation, packaging, labelling, storage or testing of the therapeutic product for the purpose of preventing, managing or controlling the risk of injury to health.

That might seem innocuous, however, proposed subsection 30.01(3) states, “The Minister may make the order despite any uncertainty respecting the risk of injury to health that the use of the therapeutic product, other than the intended use, may present.” It states “despite any uncertainty”, so there would be no scientific rationale needed anymore, if the bill passes, for the minister to pull any product he or she wants off of the shelf. That is uncontrolled power. The powers that would be given to the ministers are concerning, but what is even more concerning is the combined effect of both budgets on our homegrown natural health product industry. The effect would be catastrophic. Not only is the industry reeling from the changes in the last budget implementation bill, but this one has introduced the element of arbitrary power in the hands of the minister.

There is little worse in business than uncertainty, and natural health products are only a small part of what is wrong with this bill and with industries across Canada. Small businesses are closing across our country, and yet, instead of supporting our entrepreneurs, the government uses every budget it has to target them.

We need a budget that empowers small business owners instead of penalizing them. In essence, I say not to buy into the budget title. If the last eight budgets from the Prime Minister are any indication, fairness for every generation is simply a pipe dream. As Winston Churchill once noted, “The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” If by promoting fairness, the government means promoting intergenerational poverty, then in its own way, I guess it is fair, but absolutely nobody is better off.

Only the Conservatives can restore Canada's fiscal house to order. Instead of saddling Canadian families, tradesmen, small enterprise operators and entrepreneurs with ever-growing regulation and taxation, we would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Canada has a vast and untapped economic potential and it is time for a Conservative government to unleash that potential.

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

Madam Speaker, it is about fairness for generations. What we have witnessed is the Conservatives being consistent. Members will recall that when it came to having an additional tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%, the Conservatives voted against that a few years back. When it came time for a tax break for Canada's middle class, the Conservatives voted no for that too.

When we can look at the capital gains tax and what has been proposed, less than 1% would be affected, some of the wealthiest people in the country, and the Conservatives again are voting no. Where in the platform of the Conservatives does it imply any sense of fairness to Canadians? What I see are cuts, cuts and cuts.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, the question from my colleague is sadly preposterous and hilarious in its own right. If we take a look at the wealthiest Canadians, we see that their wealth has actually doubled under the leadership of the Prime Minister. It is the middle class and those who are desperately trying to cling to it who are just hanging on, which is why the government continues to raise taxes to provide solutions to the problems it created in the first place.

I do not believe that Canadians want the government to do everything for them. Canadians used to be able to save for their own retirement, buy their own home and pay for their own health care, like dental plans and so on. They used to be able to buy their kids food. The Liberal government brags that there are now 400,000 kids in Canada who need the government to buy them lunch. I dream of a day when the government does not have to do any of that for any Canadians and when Canadians can look after themselves.

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

Madam Speaker, of course there are partisan speeches and there are the repercussions they have on people in real life. I would like my colleague to tell me what tools are being given to communities in this budget so they can take charge of their lives, especially as concerns the question of housing and other issues. We need to find a way to decentralize management and trust our people on the ground. There are growing problems. Témiscamingue, for example, needs levers to take charge of its economic development, especially in the forestry sector.

Can my colleague commit to making sure that more power and means are given to communities that want to take charge of their development and invest in their economy if we have a change of government in the next election?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am from Alberta, and like a Quebecker, I have very similar thoughts about how much control Ottawa should have on our daily lives.

I do believe, as my colleague is from Quebec, that he was trying to say thanks for the millions of dollars that his province receives in equalization and transfers. My province does not receive any of that.

However, we do not need to belabour those particular issues. If we actually cut the size of the federal government and allow our provincial governments to do the jobs that they are constitutionally empowered to do, get out of the way and just focus on economic growth and opportunity, reduce the red tape and the gatekeepers, as the leader of my party says, Canadians, including Quebeckers, will be better off.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I applaud my colleague for his work on natural health products in particular.

I was interested to hear him deride the use of omnibus budget bills, because omnibus bills are a bit of a dark art that has been perfected by successive Conservative and Liberal governments. In fact it was a government under Stephen Harper that tabled a budget bill that was 880 pages in length. By comparison, the budget we are debating is 416 pages, including the annexes.

My question is a simple one: Has the Conservative Party decided to oppose the use of omnibus budget bills?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, the irony of the question is that I have been here for 18 years and remember a time when the NDP used to actually keep count of how many times time allocation had been used, and they said they would never, ever do it. However, here we are; the NDP is just going along with every time allocation motion moved by the government across the way. We would have plenty of time to have the debate if we did not have time allocation on Bill C-69.

I will remind my colleague that when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, we cut taxes over 130 times. That required a fairly big budget implementation act.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, is a real pleasure for me to stand here on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Davenport to speak to Bill C-69, the budget implementation act.

It is legislation that would deliver on key measures from budget 2024, a budget that would advance our government's plan to build more homes faster, make life cost less and grow the economy in a way that helps generations get ahead. Budget 2024 is a plan to build a Canada where people of all generations have a fair chance to build a good middle-class life, a Canada where Canadians, especially young Canadians, can get ahead, where their work pays off and where there are homes that they can afford.

Fairness matters. Budget 2024 matters. Bill C-69 matters.

The bill we are studying allows us to implement several elements of the last budget, as well as policies that the government announced in recent months. I am thinking in particular of the housing sector, because giving a fair chance to the next generation begins with housing.

One of the key elements of the plan is that it would improve the homebuyers' plan. This is one of the programs that can help Canadians buy their first home. It allows people to withdraw money tax-free from their RRSP to make a down payment for their first house. Homebuyers then pay themselves back over the years by putting the money back into their RRSPs. The program has been in place for over 30 years, and it has enabled thousands of Canadians to become homeowners. I am one of them; I used the program to buy my own home, and I am delighted that we are expanding the program.

Across the country, especially in major cities, home prices have gone up steeply. With rising prices, the amount needed for a down payment is now much greater. The housing market facing today's young families is different from what it was when the homebuyers' plan was created, a time when many of today's young buyers had not yet been born.

We still need to help first-time buyers save, but the support must keep pace with market prices. Currently, a person can withdraw $35,000 from an RRSP to use in the homebuyers' plan. As announced in budget 2024, we have proposed to increase the limit to $60,000 per person.

For couples, if both spouses meet the eligibility requirements of the home buyers' plan, the maximum withdrawal limit will go from $60,000 to $120,000. This will allow more Canadians to buy the first home of their dreams.

In addition, we are proposing to temporarily extend the grace period during which homebuyers are not required to repay their home buyers' plan withdrawals, from two years to five years. This extension would apply to those who made a first withdrawal between 2022 and 2025 inclusive.

In reality, whoever buys a house in 2024 would not have to start paying it back until 2029. In the medium and long term, the building of new housing will drop real estate prices in Canada. This is why in April's budget we presented a plan to make 3.87 million new homes available by 2031.

We must also act in the short term. That is what improvements to the home buyers' plan will do: help Canadians buy a home and enjoy a middle-class quality of life.

Liberals want to help Canadians put a roof over their head. Building more housing is one way. Helping Canadians buy their first home is another. We also need to ensure that homes are for Canadians to live in, not to be used as speculative assets for investors. Platforms such as Airbnb and and Vrbo are keeping tens of thousands of homes off the market, homes that Canadians cannot buy or rent on a long-term basis.

We need to crack down on short-term rentals that do not comply with provincial and municipal restrictions. In last year's fall economic statement, we announced that we would introduce a measure to support provincial and municipal efforts in this area. Bill C-69 proposes legislation to do just that. Under the proposed legislation, tax deductions would no longer be available in computing income from a short-term rental if the property is located in a province or municipality that has rules that prohibit or restrict the operation of short-term rentals and the property does not comply with those rules.

That income would be subject to tax without an offsetting deduction. By ending these tax deductions, the government is eliminating a financial incentive to non-compliant short-term rental properties. The changes will be retroactive to January 1, 2024.

We are also proposing adding an incentive for short-term rental property owners who revert their properties to the long-term rental market.

This too would make more homes available for Canadians.

Another way to help Canadians find a place to live is to limit the number of homes that are left empty and often kept only as a passive asset. To counter this practice, an annual 1% tax is applied on the ownership of vacant or underused housing in Canada; this has been in place since 2022. The tax generally applies to foreign owners. However, Canadians who own their residential property indirectly, like via a corporation, partnership or trust, have been required to file an annual return even if they did not have to pay the tax. Bill C-69 proposes changes first announced last fall to facilitate the application of the law while ensuring that the tax would be applied as intended.

The change would make it possible for more Canadian owners to be excluded from application of the law, particularly those who own their property through entities that are substantially or entirely Canadian. They would no longer have to file an annual return on underused housing or pay the tax.

We also propose to implement a new exception for houses that serve as employee lodging in rural areas with around 30,000 residents. We are proposing these changes in response to constructive suggestions sent to us by Canadians.

Finally, Bill C-69 would extend by two years the existing ban on foreign buyers of Canadian housing, something we promised we would do in January. The ban was set to expire January 1 of 2025. Bill C-69 would extend it to 2027.

That means even more homes on the market for Canadians and less upward pressure on the price. Every exception in place will remain in effect, including those for non-Canadians who will be settling in Canada to build a new life.

Bill C-69 would help to make housing more affordable for every generation. For years and years in this country, if one found a good job, worked hard and saved money, they could afford a home. For today's young adults, that is under threat.

Bill C‑69, like budget 2024, seeks to ensure that the dream of joining the middle class remains accessible to everyone and that Canadians, including millennials and those who are part of generation Z, have the means to buy a home.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I really appreciated the fact that she delivered some of it in French.

My colleague talked about housing initiatives. There is one for the first nations. As members know, the Auditor General of Canada released a scathing report. We need to encourage initiatives by, for and with indigenous people, particularly the Yänonhchia' initiative.

Will my colleague commit, with the Minister of Finance and her colleagues, to exert pressure to support these opportunities for first nations?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know that we need to build more housing for indigenous peoples here in Canada. We need to build more on reserves. We are very committed to doing that. We have committed and will continue to commit a significant amount of money to building the homes they need.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here this evening to debate Bill C-69, the budget implementation act.

We are again debating the out-of-control inflationary spending by the Liberals that is driving up the cost of literally everything for Canadians. In the budget for which this is the implementation act, we saw another $61 billion in inflationary spending piled on the backs of Canadians, on top of the billions we have seen over the last nine years. It must be noted that, as a result of this, Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for $58 billion in interest on that debt, which is more than the federal government sends to the provinces for health transfers. This point has been made, but it is worth restating because it is such an astronomical number.

All this debt and interest equals more taxes on the backs of Canadians, which is why, on April 1, we saw the Liberals increase the carbon tax by 23%, notwithstanding the outcry from premiers and Canadians. It is on the way to quadrupling, which we now know will be a $30-billion-per-year hole in the economy. The report has now become public. Of course, there is the recent job-killing tax hike as well.

The problem with all the spending, taxes and red tape is that these things are killing our economy. Canada is now the worst-performing economy in the G7 and in the OECD. Since 2019, the last year before COVID, GDP per capita in Canada is down 2%; in the U.S., it has increased by 8%. Therefore, we really have a huge gap here between our two countries. We are at the very bottom and the U.S. is at the top of the G7, after nine years of the Prime Minister. The OECD calculated that Canada's economic growth will be the worst of the nearly 40 advanced economies in the OECD in this decade, again in the very basement. It will be below Greece and Italy, which are often the historical underperformers. If this trajectory continues and is not reversed, the OECD projects that Canada will have the worst economic growth for the next three decades.

Therefore, as we debate the budget, all of this means that we are on track for the worst decline in Canada's standard of living in 40 years, according to a Fraser Institute report from last month. In fact, we are seeing the widest gap in GDP per capita, which is a measure of the standard of living, between Canada and the U.S. since 1965. That is according to RBC.

This is alarming to me, and it should be alarming to all Canadians. It should be setting off alarm bells on the government benches as to how we got here. Clearly, all the inflationary spending, debt, taxes and red tape have compounded it. Really, it is what we have been calling economic vandalism.

Over the weekend, I was talking to a constituent who has a trucking firm. He told me that his orders are down and people are shipping less. This is in the midst of the greater Golden Horseshoe in southern Ontario. He is seeing that decline in business in the daily orders he is getting. He told me that, often, trucking is a harbinger of a decline in economic activity. We know this is true. Therefore, it confounds me that this is the case. How did we get this way in Canada? We have so many advantages that have been squandered by the Liberal-NDP government, with its fiscal and economic policies. The budget, with its taxes, exacerbates the issue even further.

In Canada, we have everything the world wants. We have 18 LNG projects awaiting approval; they are on the desk of the Prime Minister. The Germans, the Japanese, the Poles and the Greeks have all come to Canada looking for our LNG. We can help get the world off coal and replace Europe's dependence upon Russian natural gas. However, the Prime Minister told the German chancellor that there was no business case for LNG, so Germany went to Qatar, which helped it build the facility in seven months. This was a lost opportunity for Canada and Canadian jobs.

Canada has all the critical minerals, as well as many rare earth minerals. The world needs them, the world wants them, and we need them for our own economy. While we have 6% of the world's lithium, we do not extract it because of the government's bad policies and ideological aversion to natural resource extraction industries.

We also have nuclear expertise; not far from my home in southern Ontario, there is the second-largest nuclear plant in the world. There is a whole supply chain of companies that help feed that throughout southwestern Ontario, some of which are located in my constituency. That is another advantage that Canada has, yet our economy and standard of living are in decline, with the worst decline in 40 years. How can this be? Despite all these obvious advantages, along with smart people and good people, Canada is lacking in private sector investment in our economy. We saw that in the recent report about the lack of entrepreneurs that will take risks and seed innovation.

Therefore, it is not surprising that, after nine years of Liberal taxes and out-of-control spending, entrepreneurialism is being stifled. We saw that Canada lost 100,000 entrepreneurs. In the year 2000, Canada had three entrepreneurs for every 1,000 people. Today, that is down to 1.3, on average, per 1,000 people. The Prime Minister has bloated the size of the federal government at the expense of entrepreneurs and innovation. What is sad is that this is happening in Canada; we have every reason to succeed, but the government, these policies and the budget are dragging us down.

I contrast that to 2014, when there was a headline in The New York Times declaring that Canada had the strongest, most prosperous middle class in the world. In fact, The New York Times suggested that the Canadian dream had replaced the American dream in many respects in 2014. That is why my omas and opas came to Canada from the Netherlands following the Second World War. After the hunger winter, when the Dutch people were literally being starved to death by the Nazis, it was Canadian troops who liberated them. Many Dutch people came to Canada seeking hope, opportunity and freedom, and that is the story of many Canadians over the course of our history.

These people came with nothing in their pockets, as my grandparents did. They could work hard, save up, buy a home and start a family, but after nine years of the Prime Minister, that is no longer possible. It was possible in 2014, when The New York Times had that headline. Now, mortgages, down payments and rents have doubled, and taxes are up. That is why Canadians of all generations and backgrounds are upset. They are very upset. The most common thing I hear is people asking how it is that the Canadian dream has faded away. They ask how the freedom to work hard and succeed, to have that opportunity and hope, has drifted away after nine years of the Prime Minister.

It used to be that nine in 10 young people had given up on the dream of home ownership. It is now nine in 10 Canadians overall who see no future and no hope. That is an indicator of what the government farcically calls a budget that has fairness for every generation, when it is actually unfairness for every generation. They government has eroded that hope. I will be voting against Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, because it does not serve the interests of any generation of Canadians.

It is long past time that the Liberals get out of the way so that common-sense Conservatives can unleash Canada's potential and people can bring home powerful paycheques. Let us bring it home.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleague saying that we could extract 6% more lithium, that we could explore nuclear energy, and so on.

Apart from suggesting that we deplete our soil and subsoil, in Quebec and Canada, does my colleague realize that the humidex in the region is 45 degrees today and that it will be 45 degrees again tomorrow, that 135 million people around the globe will suffer from the extreme heat, and that 19 pilgrims in Saudi Arabia died today, all because of the over-exploitation of minerals and oil?

How does my colleague see the future, he who was born in Canada, this wealthy country that opened doors for him? How does he respond to this? How does he respond to the fact that his fellow citizens in Canada and around the world are dying?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say a couple of things. First of all, the carbon tax is a tax plan and not an environmental plan. That is why we see that Canada is 62nd out of 67 countries in achieving our emissions targets. Therefore, I reject the member's analysis.

Second, we have an abundance of and an opportunity for liquefied natural gas in Canada, which is what I spoke about. We have seen the Japanese, the Germans, the Poles and the Greeks, who are hardly environmental Luddites, wanting our liquefied natural gas. This can help get the world off coal. China, which has one-third of the greenhouse gas emissions in the world, is using coal for its manufacturing economy. We have the ability to help China get off that. We should actually embrace that.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I found it somewhat interesting to hear him talk about the dream of home ownership, of owning a house. For several years, the government has had a plan to build more housing. In budget 2024 alone, we are increasing the number—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I have a point of order from the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if there is a quorum in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

There is a quorum call. The bells shall not ring for more than 15 minutes.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

We now have quorum.

The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, my hon. colleague was talking in his speech about the dream of home ownership. For several years now, the government has been working to build new homes so that both younger and older people can have the opportunity to own a home. For example, the 2024 budget includes investments in the housing accelerator fund, which will help municipalities.

Can the member tell me whether the fact that he is voting against the budget means that he does not believe that we are helping municipalities to build more housing? If he thinks he wants more housing—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on a point of order.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not want to interrupt my colleague, who had to start her question again, but I am having trouble hearing her. I should be able to hear her. I think the quorum call interrupted things. Some people are talking about their travel plans and rum tasting.

Perhaps they should be asked to focus and promise not to break quorum, if it is going to prevent us from being able to hear the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention.

Journals Branch is telling me that it is really nice outside, so members can take the conversations outside, if they need to.

The hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am all in favour of rum tasting.

In response to the question, there is a reason why nine in 10 young people have entirely given up on the dream of home ownership. We are building fewer homes today.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. I am still hearing a lot of chatter, and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is really trying to listen. I see the pain on his face. I am just saying, for those who want to be outside, that it is beautiful outside, so take the conversations at least out into the lobbies where it is not quite as hot as it is outside.

The hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook.

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

Mr. Speaker, in terms of home ownership, we see fewer homes being built today than we did in 1972. That is more than 50 years ago. In terms of the macroeconomic policy of the current government, fuelled by taxes and overspending, even Scotiabank has said that 2% of the rate hikes are attributable to government overspending by the Liberals. That is causing massive pain to those renewing their fixed and variable-rate mortgages. It is having a direct impact on the ability to access home ownership. It is also exacerbating the issue of people's ability to save for a down payment.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, unfortunately, what we do not see in Bill C-69 is an investment in the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link project, which would help Nunavut communities not to rely on diesel. Does the member agree that there needs to be more taxation on oil and gas companies so that tax collected from them can help fund projects such as the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link project?

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

Mr. Speaker, our energy sector in Canada is a large contributor of tax dollars to the federal government and to transfers to the respective provinces. In fact, the oil and gas industry in Canada is the most environmentally conscious and socially conscious, and it consults with indigenous communities more than any other energy sector in the world. I would reject the fact that we are importing oil from jurisdictions that have a horrible human rights record when we could be getting that right here from Canadian sources.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise this evening and represent the most generous and entrepreneurial residents in the country, the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge. It is a privilege to represent them. I understand there are other residents in the 338 ridings, but mine are the most special, in my humble view.

Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, is another major piece of legislation that would move Canada forward, move our economy forward, and provide foundational pillars for a strong economy and a strong future for my children and all the children who are blessed to call Canada home.

One thing I want to really be adamant about tonight is Canada's economic fundamentals. If we look at the foundation that we are building as a government, that we have built, one piece is the dental care plan. In my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, all over the riding, there are billboards up of dentists accepting patients under the Canadian dental care plan. We can think of the over two million seniors who have been approved by the plan. Over 200,000 seniors have seen oral health care providers from coast to coast to coast. Now, kids who are under 18 can also go.

This is transformational, and it is moving the country forward. This is helping Canadian families, not only for today, while we are elected to be in the House, but also for the future and for decades to come. It is part of our health care system. We did it, and we should be proud of that.

On the early learning and national day care plan, I am blessed to have a two-and-a-half-year-old who is in day care. We know of the reductions that have taken place in Ontario. By September 2025, we will get day care down to an average of $10-per-day, working with the province of Ontario. We need to expand the child care spaces to meet the demand, and that is happening. Yes, there are always kinks in the road. Life is not a straight line, and every representative knows this. However, it is about working hard and making sure that we are doing the right thing for our constituents, and the constituents in Vaughan—Woodbridge know that. We will continue to move forward.

On the housing accelerator fund, there has been a $59-million investment into the city of Vaughan, and we are using those funds to incentivize home building.

The Canada child benefit is a transformational plan. When the Conservatives were in power, they were sending $100 cheques to millionaires. We stopped that. We now have monthly, tax-free cheques going out to families across the country. It is nearly a $30-billion program.

Now, we know that Conservatives equal austerity, and they are going to need to come clean on their plan to cut vital programs for Canadians and hard-working Canadian families, much like the ones in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

On the capital gains front, I have heard some chirping on the other side about the inclusion rate. Capital gains were taxed at 25% versus dividends in the mid-30% and versus interest. When we look at forms of capital income, it can lead to tax avoidance strategies put in place by accountants across this country, but I love accountants. I was halfway through doing my CPA. I have my CFA, and I have my master's degree in economics. I also worked on Wall Street and Bay Street, and I understand the tax system very well.

However, this is a fairness question that we need to fundamentally debate in the House. We move to integration, and the IMF said it in its review that this measure would make the tax system fairer. It makes it neutral, and we do not undertake strategies such as surplus stripping. I recommend members of the House to type in “surplus stripping”. They will see that it is a tax avoidance strategy.

We need to build a country that incentivizes entrepreneurs and incentivizes investment, such as in the auto sector, and we know that the opposition would have abandoned the auto sector. They would have abandoned St. Thomas, Windsor, Oakville, Brampton, Alliston and Oshawa. The investments in Quebec and British Columbia would not have happened. However, we stood up, and we collaborated with our provincial partners, the Ontario Progressive Conservative government, and that is what it is about. It is working with industry and labour, and getting those strategic investments.

I have heard much about energy and the forms of energy. We know that we will not, in the world, reach net zero by 2050 without nuclear energy, and Ontario is a leader. I am proud of our government, which believes in nuclear energy and is investing in nuclear energy. I have been up to Bruce Power in Kincardine, and I have been over to OPG on the east side of Toronto, near the area of my colleague's riding, the hon. member for Whitby, who is seated close to me. We are investing in small modular reactors. We have put in an ITC to assist the nuclear sector. The Conservatives would cancel that.

The Conservatives do not believe in incentivizing investment. They believe in small government. They want to shrink the size of government. They would starve the government.

Some of my Conservative friends say that the FTE count has increased on the federal bureaucracy. Yes, it has, but do colleagues know why? It is because the Conservatives cut the living daylights out of the public service when they were in power. That is what they did. They made cuts. How do colleagues think Phoenix happened? The former Conservative government cut border services. It made cuts to the RCMP. It made cuts to everything to try to achieve a magic balanced budget, and used some accounting gimmicks from the sale of the shares of GM. Conservatives claim that was due to the small government. They should come clean and put out a plan.

It is 40°C outside. The world is experiencing climate change. It is real. They have no plan. We need an environmental plan. We need an economic plan. They have neither. They have slogans which mean absolutely nothing. It is unfortunate because I know that, on the other side, there are some hon. members with a lot of substance. It is unfortunate that they are not allowed to put forth ideas that have substance.

On Bill C-69, I look at our economic growth rate, which has forecasts for the IMF, built on the budget implementation act, built on the past. In 2025, Canada is forecasted to lead the G7 in growth. I think it is around 2.5%. Yes, we have had a population increase that has impacted our per capita rate. That will adjust itself in time. We know that. As an economist, I know that.

Let us be serious. We need to build a country where all Canadians are given the chance to succeed, not just the lucky few. I hear the chatter about capital gains. I hear the chatter against dental care. I hear the conversation against child care, which has increased labour participation rates, and I hear the chatter against nuclear energy and renewable energy, which half that caucus probably does not believe in. We know the cost curve has come down, that it is the cheapest form of energy there is and how many hundreds of billions of dollars is going into that. That is where the smart money is going. The member from Calgary on the opposite side knows that. We understand that.

Look at our AAA credit rating, which we have sustained since the former Liberal government, under Martin and Chrétien, fixed it. Look at our growth rate. Look at our net debt-to-GDP ratio and our deficit-to-GDP ratio, which is at 1%, versus the United States, which is between 5% and 7%, depending on how one measures it, and the European countries, which is three or four times that. Countries around the world look at us with envy and say, wow, look at their fiscal framework. Look at their banking system. Look at the FDI they are receiving for indirect investment. That is how to build a country. That is how to move forward.

On climate change, I am going to say that, again, we need to believe in climate change. The science is there. The next thing we will be having is a debate about vaccines again. Thinking about some of the commentary I have heard over the last couple of years, maybe members on the other side will say we should not vaccinate against measles, polio or something else.

When I look at my own riding, the EDA president was just shamed on Instagram for putting up fake news about our Minister of the Environment. That is what the Conservative Party of Canada is about. It is about fake news and misinformation, not real solutions for people at home and middle-class Canadians who work hard, get up and do the right thing every single day. That is unfortunate because Canadians deserve better. As an economist, as a father, as someone who worked for 25 years in the private sector before coming to this place, I will debate any one of those colleagues on economics, finance and business at any time. We are building a country where all Canadians get a fair shot of success, and that is what we need to continue to do.

I would be more than happy to have questions and comments. It is a beautiful day outside, but it is very hot. Climate change is real.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I usually enjoy the speeches from the member on the other side of the House. I often refer to him in public as the “minister of finance” because I think he knows more about finance than anybody on that bench.

However, that speech was a ramble. I do not know if it is just because it is Monday and he had not prepared to be here, but he talked about a lot of things, including the capital gains rate, which, I will tell him, because he probably has not read it, is not part of the budget implementation act. He needs to go back and read that.

I will ask him some questions because he raised the budget implementation act. As far as capital gains go, capital gains are going back beyond the formula of his party's previous leaders, Chrétien and Martin, who reduced it to the 50% level because they got the budget back in balance. The budget is now not in balance, so of course, they are looking for ways to take more money from Canadians and are pretending it is only a certain sector of Canadians. It is all Canadians.

At that point in time, what exactly was the exemption rate that Canadians paid zero dollars on for their capital gains?

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

Mr. Speaker, there we have it. The Conservative Party of Canada is advocating for a 0% capital gains inclusion rate, which would only benefit the wealthiest of the wealthiest in this country. That is exactly what the member just said.

I will say this: When given a choice between investing in dental care, seniors and child care or having a capital gains inclusion rate of two-thirds times the personal income tax rate, to get to a rate around 35%, so that somebody keeps about two-thirds of the dollars when they have a capital gains rate transaction, I will choose our plan over the 0% rate the member just talked about.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I see my colleague, whom I very much like, get so heated. I am disappointed because I was on a mission with him and I tried to teach him a little more French. It did not work that evening, but he always has a French word to say.

He talks about building a country. It is clear that we do not feel included in that country, because Quebeckers and the Bloc Québécois's demands are ignored.

I will list a few of our demands: Quebec's right to opt out with full compensation; increased old age pensions for people aged 65 and over; an end to subsidies for all fossil fuels and support for a clean energy transition; and the transfer of housing money to Quebec.

How does he respond to this? We are not part of the story. We will never be part of the Liberals' federalist story. There is nothing there for us.

Does my colleague agree that the Bloc Québécois's demands remain unanswered?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see my colleague. In response to his question, I would say that we are working together with all of the provinces and territories in our country. We are focusing on economic growth.

We are focused on creating a country that is more fair and where all Canadians succeed, all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

I love Canada, and I love the beautiful province of Quebec. I am an anglophone from Ontario. I take French lessons all the time because I want to get better at it. My daughters are in French immersion in Ontario.

I always believe that Canada is the best country in the world, with all its provinces and territories.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated how much the hon. member talked about the seriousness of climate change. I do agree. I come from a riding that is in a rainforest. We are in droughts more often than we are not, which is very concerning for me because of the long-term impacts that it will have.

I am just wondering if the member could talk about why they keep giving so much money to oil and gas industries in subsidies instead of taking some of those resources and investing in a more green economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are investing the ITCs in climate, in renewable energy and renewable resources, literally billions of dollars in partnering with industry to do that. At the same time, we need to be realistic. With our climate goals, we will need energy sources, both renewable and non-renewable, for the years to come.

I just want to take my hat off to the over 800,000 Canadian workers who are employed in the oil and gas industry and related industries across Canada because they get up and they go work hard every day. They save the money. They want a bright future for their kids, and they deserve it. We will be there for them as the years go by. We will make sure we are the leader in renewable energy, just as much as we are in the auto sector—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about Bill C-69, which is a huge omnibus bill containing more than 650 pages. I would not be entirely honest if I said that I read them all. It contains 67 different measures, more specifically 23 tax measures and 44 non-tax measures. There are therefore a lot of elements in this huge bill.

Like any omnibus bill, Bill C‑69 contains some commendable measures. However, it also contains measures that the Bloc Québécois and I consider unacceptable. I will give two examples.

First, the division regarding the banking system essentially removes Quebec and the provinces from the financial sector when a financial institution deals with its clients through a technological platform. The parties treacherously made no move to change this, as though nothing had happened, despite the explanation by the witness from Quebec. A representative from Mouvement Desjardins, the largest financial cooperative in Quebec, told the committee that the entire financial sector in Quebec and the provinces would be penalized if this power were taken away. My colleague from Joliette clearly explained how this does not make a lick of sense for the provinces and Quebec. Despite that, this division remains in Bill C‑69, to our profound dismay. We do not understand why the members of the parliamentary committee did not listen to Mouvement Desjardins and the other witnesses who criticized this.

Bill C‑69 also contains a new oil and gas subsidy. The government has added a so-called clean hydrogen tax credit. It is a 15% to 40% tax credit that will be calculated based on the carbon intensity of the hydrogen produced. I think we can read between the lines. It is really a tax credit tailor-made for natural gas producers. We have talked ourselves hoarse saying that enough is enough with the support for all the companies and producers that has increased greenhouse gas rates in Quebec, in the provinces and across Canada.

I could list make a list of things that disappoint me, but what disappoints me the most is that there is nothing, no income support measure, for our farmers. When I say farmers, I am talking about small-, medium- and large-scale fruit and vegetable growers who are subject to the vagaries of climate and temperature.

If the members over there could stop talking loudly so I could finish my speech—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I did not mean to interrupt the hon. member. I was trying to give a little wink and a nod to the members.

To the hon. members for Abbotsford and Provencher, the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît is not far away, and men's voices tend to carry in the chamber. I just want to make sure they know that when members are speaking in French, it is just as important as when members are speaking in English.

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the House to rise, because situations like this are unacceptable. I know my colleague is not wearing his earpiece, so he does not know how angry I am that he interrupted me during my speech.

I will go back to what I was saying. What outrages me is that there is no support for farmers, especially produce growers, those who grow our peppers, carrots and lettuce, those who work the land and really depend on the climate. There are all kinds of weather variations. Abitibi has had droughts. Elsewhere, we have seen floods. Farmers and produce growers had to deal with that last year. Their yields were a total disaster. I am thinking of strawberries and raspberries.

The fruits and vegetables we are buying right now in grocery stores in Quebec come from our produce growers. I am not just talking about small-scale produce growers who put together baskets of organic fruits and vegetables and sell them to people in their region or at farmers' markets in Montreal. All those produce growers have come to the same conclusion: The current programs are not designed for them and do not meet their needs.

More importantly, they have been asking the federal government for help for months now. One of the things they are calling for is for the AgriRecovery program to be activated, but the government refuses to listen. Quebec, meanwhile, understood the situation weeks ago, granting emergency assistance to support produce growers during the current season. They need to buy seeds and whatever else they need for the summer growing season. Everything we eat this fall and winter will come from investments made in fruit and vegetable growers. If the previous season was a disaster, that means they will not have enough cash. Produce growers cannot be compared to dairy farmers. They are two completely different sectors. I care deeply about this because there are a lot of produce growers in my riding. Many small-scale organic producers tell me that they feel completely ignored by the federal government. There is nothing in the budget for them, nothing to help them cope with the bad seasons that are, ultimately, the result of climate change.

I want to talk about something I have mentioned several times in the House. Two years ago, the government exempted apple ciders and meads from excise duty. It did so because the output of these small producers in Quebec is not intended for the international market. It is actually destined for the domestic, local and regional markets. There is not enough product to sell to a broader market. There are 118 cideries in Quebec. Those that produce apple cider or mead, a honey-based wine, have been exempted. We were very pleased because this is something the Bloc Québécois worked hard on, with help from the member for Joliette.

Has anyone ever tasted pear cider? It is heavenly. It is like regular cider, but made from pears. Has anyone tasted maple wine? It is an alcoholic wine made with maple syrup. Quebec has a lot of sugar bushes, and some have developed alcoholic products. There is one thing I do not understand. In my area, for example, we have the Black Creek cider house, which produces magnificent apple cider. It tastes heavenly too. This cider house also produces maple-based wine. Its bottles of apple cider are exempt from excise duty, but the small amount of maple wine it produces is not. It makes no sense. We do not understand why the Minister of Finance did not try to harmonize the exemption for all producers of berry wines.

As a last resort to convince the Minister of Finance, maybe I should offer her a bottle of currant wine, pear cider or ice pear cider. La Capsule Temporelle, a new cidery in my riding, makes a pear cider that tastes absolutely ambrosial.

However, the companies are struggling with the accounting. One of the companies is exempt from excise duty, while the other is not. Can we ask our Minister of Finance for some harmonization to allow our artisan producers to make a good living and sell a quality product in our regions, in all fairness and justice?

This is a heartfelt plea. I even wore a botanical print today in hopes of swaying the government. I hope my message has been heard by the government, specifically the Minister of Finance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too have a passion and love for agri-food businesses, especially the ones in Quebec, like the microenterprises that produce high-quality products in Quebec that are to be savoured and enjoyed. When I travel through the region, I really appreciate that about Quebec.

In the federal budget this year, the BIA, we have the Canada carbon rebate for small businesses, which supports a rebate going back to small businesses. We have initiated an opportunity to work with Crown corporations, including BDC and EDC, so they can take more risks and lend more money to small and medium-sized enterprises, including agri-food businesses. We are also investing in Canadian start-ups through Futurpreneur, which has increased funding, and are working with Canada pension plans to see if they can invest more domestically. The list goes on. There is more money for regional economic growth as well.

There is quite a bit to be desired in this budget. Can the member opposite speak to the very large investments in it for small business?

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

Mr. Speaker, we noticed that the budget contains a helpful measure for microbreweries that make craft beer.

My question for the parliamentary secretary, who, if I remember correctly, serves on the Standing Committee on Finance, has to do with excise duty on small artisanal producers. It is a lot for them. It makes a big difference in the cost per bottle, whereas exempting them from excise duty will not have much impact on the government's coffers.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to use his influence to convince the Minister of Finance to exempt berry wine producers from excise duty at the next opportunity. It is too late to do so in Bill C-69.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I found my colleague's intervention very interesting, because a distillery in my riding that had been in business for five or six years was forced to shut down. It was producing some absolutely extraordinary products, mainly fantastic gins.

Unfortunately, it was forced to close down for obvious reasons. Small businesses like this one have to fill out literal mountains of paperwork on a daily and monthly basis to satisfy the government's ravenous appetite for red tape.

I will ask my colleague if she can confirm that her goal is truly to reduce the amount of paperwork that these small artisanal producers of wine, cider, honey and other fabulous made-in-Quebec products are required to fill out.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right.

In a region or a riding like mine, there are a lot of small artisanal producers of alcohol and other products. They all complain about the mountain of red tape they have to deal with, because it takes up a lot of their time. They do not have a lot of employees. Often, they are family businesses that do not have a lot of staff to meet these requirements.

The first thing my colleagues need to understand is that Quebec is proud to be home to many distilleries, microbreweries, cideries and wineries. Quebec produces many excellent artisanal products.

We cannot understand why these businesses are not getting better support. The first measure the government should take is to put apple cider and mead producers on an equal footing with berry winemakers. The first step in doing this is to exempt these producers from excise duty. As I said, this will not make a huge hole in the government's budget, but it will make a huge difference for small-scale producers.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be able to speak to the budget implementation bill. Bill C-69 is a very important piece of legislation. Ultimately, it shows very clearly to Canadians in all regions of the country what they can expect from a Liberal government versus a Conservative opposition, or the Conservative-Reform party compared to the Liberal Party. Let us be very clear on that.

A few weeks back, I was at the party's annual general meeting, where some of the members were asking me a very simple question. They asked how I would best describe the difference between the Conservative Party today and the Liberal Party. The best thing I could come up with at the time was to say to think of it in the sense that the Liberal Party cares while the Conservative Party cuts. There is so much truth to that.

All one needs to do is take a look at what the Conservative-Reform party stands for today and listen to the many announcements being brought forward by the government to get a better appreciation of the contrast between the two parties. As a government and as a political party, we have advocated for very strong progressive policies. At the same time, we have taken budgetary and legislative action to support a strong, healthy economy. The big difference is that our plan is about building a Canada that ensures fairness for every generation. We do not see that coming from the Conservative Party.

I would suggest some members need to look at Hobbes and his theories on economic development and people to get a better sense of maybe where the Conservative-Reform party is. I would argue the Conservative Party today has really shifted far to the right. The more people understand the degree to which it has shifted, the more they are going to turn their backs on the Conservative Party.

Former prime minister Joe Clark is distancing himself by saying things like he never left the Progressive Conservative Party but that the party left him. Individuals like Kim Campbell are talking in a not a very positive way about the current leadership of the Conservative Party and the type of misinformation the party—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Provencher.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know there is very little good to talk about in this Bill C-69, this budget implementation act, but it would be nice if the member could use some of his time at least to talk about the actual issue we are debating.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I guess that is a call for relevance, so I will ask the hon. member to maybe stick to what we are prescribed today, which is Bill C-69.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is one weird call for relevance. I suspect the member is maybe reflecting on some of the words that I am using and trying to point out the contrast, how that contrast is amplified in this budget and how the Conservative Party continues to vote against and indicate very clearly that its members do not support the measures. The types of measures that we are talking about are very progressive in their nature.

That is why I think it is valid to repeat Joe Clark, the former Progressive Conservative prime minister, when he said that the party has left him. I hear Kim Campbell and the comments that she is making about this new Reform-Conservative party and how far to the right it has gone. We talk about the late Brian Mulroney, and he indicated that they have amputated the progressive nature of the Conservative Party.

In fact, if we take a look at some of the actions that they talk about, we will find that the current leadership has taken the party even more far right than Stephen Harper, and Stephen Harper was not that popular. What is going to happen? As we get closer to the election, more and more Canadians are going to look at what the Conservatives have to offer and contrast that with the types of things we have put in place over the last eight and a half, coming up to nine, years.

We could talk about the economy and the two million jobs, which is virtually double what the former government did in the same time span. We could talk about the pandemic around the world or interest rates around the world going through the roof. Inflation numbers were astronomical around the world, compared to Canada's numbers, yet we were able to keep control over them. We brought forward budgets and legislation to support Canadians while continuing to build a strong and healthy economy. That is one of the reasons Canada was in a great position out of the pandemic to be able to continue to grow the economy.

In fact, in the first three quarters of last year, Canada was number one in direct foreign investment out of the G7. If we contrast that with the world, we will see that we were number three. We have people and companies around the world looking at Canada as the place to invest. This did not happen by accident. This government has signed off on more trade agreements than any other government in Canada's history. This government has invested, in real dollars, in more capital infrastructure than any government in Canada's history.

In order to develop and encourage a healthy middle class, we need to have a healthy economy, and we have not lost sight of that. At the same time, we recognize the importance of fairness, and we have been consistent on that. Our very first budget, and one of the first pieces of legislation that we brought forward, was to put a special tax increase on Canada's 1% wealthiest. The Conservative Party actually voted against that. Is there any surprise that they now vote against the capital tax increase, which would affect 0.2%? It is less than half a per cent. We are talking about some of the wealthiest Canadians and asking them to pay a fairer share. The hypocrisy that flows from the Conservative Party and the misinformation that it spreads through social media are virtually endless.

As we get closer to the election, people will take a look at some of the things that we have been able to accomplish in this budget and others, such as investing in generational support for health care, almost $200 billion over 10 years; the first-ever national child care program that is seeing people pay $10 a day for child care; the first-ever pharmacare program that is at least going to be there for individuals with diabetes or women in need of contraceptives; the dental program to support our seniors and our children and others as we continue to expand upon it; a national school program to ensure that children are getting nutrition in the classroom, because we know that one cannot learn on an empty stomach; and the first-ever disability benefit. It would have been great to see a higher amount, but it is the first ever. It is the single greatest, I believe, expense in terms of new money on this budget line.

These are the types of things that we are bringing forward. What we are hearing from the Conservatives is that they are going to chop, chop, chop. There is the contrast: a caring, competent government and party versus a Conservative-Reform party that is more focused on the wealthiest Canadians and wanting to cut the programs that Canadians need and will support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been very perplexed. I am hoping my colleague will be able to clear something up for me. We have in place a number of programs that actually help people, the Canadian dental program, thanks to the NPD, which has helped two million seniors who have signed up already, and we have millions of others expressing interest. We have pharmacare, which is going to help six million Canadians with diabetes and nine million Canadians who take contraception. Affordable housing and school lunches help hundreds of thousands of kids around the country and hundreds of thousands of families to recover from the national housing program that was gutted by the former Liberal government under Paul Martin.

All of these things benefit constituents of all of us. Perhaps the member could explain to me why the Conservatives have been fighting tooth and nail to block all of those programs, even though these programs are literally helping thousands of their constituents. I know seniors who live in Conservative-held ridings who say that their Conservative MP told them nothing about dental care but that, thanks to the NDP, they know it is there and they are actually getting these dental services.

Why are Conservatives, elected to represent their constituents, fighting their constituents' interests tooth and nail?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when one takes a look at the types of programs in a minority situation, the government needs to find a party inside the House in order to pass things. There is no doubt that the New Democrats have played a very strong role in that. I value that support and I truly appreciate it.

What is confusing is that, quite often, we will see the Conservative Party talk in great opposition to many of these benefits, yet in each and every Conservative riding, one will find that there are literally thousands of their constituents who will benefit by them.

In the dental program in particular, they even have some Conservative spin discouraging the development of that program. I believe that the Conservative Party has moved so far to the right, and that is one of the reasons I suggest that it is not the traditional Conservative Party. It is more of a Reform-extreme party today.

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

Mr. Speaker, if Canada is in a sound financial position here and around the world, as our dear colleague from Winnipeg North, who I really like to listen to, says, why was the government unable to include a single one of the measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois? They included giving Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation, increasing old age security for those aged 65 and over, ending subsidies for fossil fuels, supporting a clean energy transition and transferring the amounts dedicated to housing to Quebec.

None of these are in the budget implementation bill. Why is that? For Canada, everything is going well financially. Is it different in Quebec? Are we not entitled to such measures?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a number of points, and I would love to be able to address them all. However, let me address one that the Bloc members constantly bring up, and that is in regard to seniors and the age 65 issue.

We, as a political party, made an election platform commitment to increase the OAS by 10% for seniors who were 75 and over. That was intentionally done because, as people get older, often, medical requirements increase. There are other issues, like the ability to get a part-time job if they need or desire one. By looking at a number of factors, it was determined that the best way we can assist seniors is to look at those who are 75 and up and to give them a healthy increase of 10%.

Through the years, we continue to see the COLA increases to OAS, and we have also seen substantial increases to the GIS, which date back to 2015-16. We dramatically increased it and took hundreds of seniors, in Winnipeg North alone, out of poverty.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour once again to rise on behalf of the great people of southwestern Saskatchewan. There is no shortage of issues to talk about today, especially as we are debating the budget implementation act, yet again.

I first want to talk about the livestock tax deferral. This was in the budget. It was one of only two or three items that dealt with agriculture when the Liberals tabled the budget. Agriculture is obviously one of the largest economic drivers not just in southwestern Saskatchewan but also across the Prairies, and indeed, it contributes greatly to the national economy across the country.

I noticed today that there was an early designation of tax deferral zones under the livestock tax deferral program. I noticed that the majority of it, this go-round, was not so much in Saskatchewan, but in Alberta. Weather being weather, that is just the way it is, but what I want to talk about in particular are producers and producer groups who have been asking for a three-year window when it comes to the livestock tax deferral. When I spoke to the budget the first time, I brought this up, and I see no changes have been made when it comes to that window or time frame. I want to talk again about why that is important.

Over the last couple of months, I have been driving across my riding. I have been to Grasslands National Park in the south. I was at Leader on the weekend, with the Great Sand Hills near the Alberta border, and I was down Highway 1 in both directions. I am happy that there has been more rain than usual, definitely more than in the last five or 10 years. Right now, the pastures and the grass look really good, but the problem is that there has been probably five to seven years of persistent drought-like conditions in my neck of the woods. If we look at a map, my riding is right in the heart of the Palliser Triangle. When this country was being settled, people were told that it was not suitable for humans to live there, but we have been doing our best. We have done remarkably well in the time that we have lived in the prairie region.

Why is the three-year window important? Like I said, coming off about five years of persistent drought-like conditions, the native prairie grass and even the tame grass are under a lot of stress. With the current system the way it is, the livestock tax deferral lets farmers defer the taxes they would pay on any cattle that they sell this year until next year. They could defer that tax payment so that when they sell, they have a bit more money in their pockets. It is a good concept. The problem is that it incentivizes ranchers to buy back in when their pastures have not recovered and to do further damage if they do not have access to more grass.

Right now, the pastures have grown back quite well, but just because the grass is growing again this year does not necessarily mean this is the right time to graze it. It might be better and might be in the best interests of the land, the rancher and even the animal to leave a lot of this pasture alone, to let it rejuvenate for a whole season, and then, next year, go back to it. That would be a two-year window, but to have a three-year window available to our producers would be of greater benefit. That needs to be considered going forward, particularly by a party that says it cares so much about the environment. If it cared about the environment, this is a common-sense policy that it would look to adopt, but it has not done it.

The next thing I want to talk about is the Impact Assessment Act. The budget had some minor tweaks, particularly in the budget implementation act. So far, the commentary on it is that this is most likely going to be unconstitutional. I noticed when I read over some of the wording, and I heard comments from others, that there are a couple of issues, one being to keep the ministerial designation framework in place. This is problematic for a couple of reasons.

One is that it could allow the Liberals to again wiggle their way into the province's jurisdiction, which was a problem with the original Impact Assessment Act, and it is currently an issue in other ways the Liberal government treats the provinces. It ventures into provincial jurisdiction on a regular basis, and the changes in the Impact Assessment Act would further enable it to do that. Keeping this ministerial designation framework is going to continue to lead to that infringement, but it also creates uncertainty for the investor, the proponent, looking for a quick, rapid timeline to get their projects built.

This matters because, even with the current government's approach, whereby it wants to stop pipelines and wants to stop oil and gas development, which I get, there is a lot of green energy that wants to be built and developed all the way across the country, and allowing uncertainty like this continues to be problematic. We heard about this issue in the natural resources committee, when we were talking about the Atlantic Accord bill that came through, and this was not addressed.

Trying to make sure that there is certainty for all the resource sector is of utmost importance because all across this country, Canada is blessed with all kinds of rare earth minerals. We are blessed with an abundance of oil and natural gas, and other things like helium and lithium. We have cobalt. We have all the things that are going to be needed to build, say, a battery supply chain, and traditional oil and gas obviously is a big part of that because the world needs Canadian gas. Officials came and asked, multiple times, and the Liberal government has turned them down numerous times, for Canadian LNG.

Another report I read today shows that last month, Russia passed the United States as the biggest supplier for natural gas to Europe. Knowing what is going on in Europe right now with the war in Ukraine and what is going on with Russia, the current government is further enabling the Putin war machine to continue to get the resources it needs because the Russians are still selling their gas into Europe. Canada has the resources to be able to be that provider, but because the government has killed off around 15 to 16 LNG projects, since the time the Liberals have been in power, to make sure they were not built, they have put us at a disadvantage and have put our allies in Europe at an extreme disadvantage because we do not have the ability to supply them with the product that they want and need. The government said that it would give them green hydrogen, but we are years away from that being a reality. We have a proven commodity that we could be using and could be exporting, and the Liberals have said no to that.

The other thing I want to touch on was in the budget, and the Liberals removed it from the budget. We can suspect and wonder why, but it is in regard to the capital gains increase. I was talking to a rancher this morning again. He looks at this is as a tax on inflation. The reason I say he said that is that, sure, he bought the land maybe 25 years ago that he would be looking to sell, and the value of that land has increased. However, what else has increased is the cost for him to buy a tractor, to buy machinery, to buy product, to buy cattle and to buy feed. All the costs on his ranch have gone up as much, if not more, than the cost of the land that he might be looking to sell. Therefore, in all reality, there is not much of a gain that has been recognized there.

Because the value of one little thing that the government wants to focus on has gone up, the government does not take into consideration the value of everything else that has gone up over that same period of time. Let us imagine that over that 20-year span, the government's target with the Bank of Canada is a 2% inflation rate, if we multiply that, it is a substantive increase to all the products he has on his ranch. When the rancher sees this increase coming in, he says that all the government is doing is taxing inflation because his purchasing power has not gone up one bit.

Last, I just want to talk about the other piece of the government's supposed agriculture policy. The government only had really two or three things in there, as I mentioned at the start. Regarding the second one, the concept is a great idea, but it would be good for the Liberals if they would just get out of the way, and let it be done. With respect to my private member's bill, Bill C-294, for the second budget in a row, the Liberals said they are going to do consultations on interoperability. The government has three-quarters of a page in the budget and has done absolutely nothing with it. I already accepted a friendly government amendment to my bill at committee. It passed through the chamber, and we are still waiting for it to receive royal assent. It would be good if we could just get that bill passed. That is a good, Conservative common-sense bill that would do wonders not only for the manufacturing sector, but also for our farmers and our ranchers across the country. Let us just get that passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was great to hear the member recognize climate change. It is not often we hear Conservatives speak about stress on prairie grass or heatwaves, wildfires or droughts, which the member opposite mentioned, so he is recognizing the impacts on our climate and on the Prairies, which is great to hear. The member also mentioned numerous other things that our government is doing in the federal budget this year, including the investment tax credits and getting the impact assessment agreement up and running again to give that business certainty he was talking about and to give investors that certainty in the market. We have also added the indigenous loan guarantee and have extended the mineral exploration tax credit. I am sure that the member can agree that these are good things for industries within his riding.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to touch really briefly on one thing. One of the biggest threats to our native prairie grass is the government's management, through Parks Canada, of the Grasslands National Park especially. The way it is handling the species at risk there is they've been adding more species than were there before. It has been an adversary for the producers there who are actually doing a great job of maintaining the grasslands. It is trying to introduce a non-native species into that park, which is destroying the natural habitat for the one native species that is there, the sage grouse. It is making it impossible for the sage grouse to survive and thrive, because of its management of the park. It has been a failure.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the most recent budget is truly an attack on Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions. It is obvious that the Liberals were influenced by the New Democrats, who are so centralist that they would like to get rid of the provinces entirely.

We heard the Leader of the Opposition say many times that he would respect Quebec's and the provinces' areas of jurisdiction, and we know that Quebeckers send $80 billion in taxes to the federal government.

Last weekend, I heard the Leader of the Opposition speak during a debate in Quebec City on whether there should be a tramway, a third link or both. The leader of the official opposition said that Quebec should opt for a highway if it wanted money—our money, by the way. He said that if Quebec chose the tramway, it would not get a cent.

That means that he is blackmailing us with our own money. Is that not a form of interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction? It is up to Quebec to decide whether it wants a tramway or not. When he says that, he is interfering in Quebec's jurisdictions. Do you not agree?

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating that the member referenced how many tax dollars the Province of Quebec has paid into the federal coffers, but that his party turned around and voted for the government spending all of Quebeckers' hard-earned money on other things.

We can agree on one thing, which is that the federal government needs to respect provincial jurisdiction. However, the member's party continues to prop up the government. The member and his party had a chance to send a statement and say that they do not agree with the way the government is spending their money, but they voted with the government instead of against it.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji , I do have a hard time trusting what Conservatives say, especially regarding indigenous peoples' issues. I was an adult when the Conservatives were in power, and although their prime minister made an apology to former residential school students, the very same government cut programs that would have ensured proper healing of intergenerational trauma from residential schools.

I wonder whether the member can explain what the Conservatives would do to make sure that indigenous peoples continue to get the supports they need and that their rights are upheld so we would see more indigenous peoples thriving in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was really happy to hear the leader of our party talk about his support for the optional first nations resource charge. This would allow first nations to decide whether they want to have a greater share and greater participation in resource development on their lands. I think it is a great opportunity to allow for economic reconciliation, to allow for self-determination and for them to be able to have jobs for their people to create that wealth that they need.

That way, they would not have to go to the federal government to ask for the money that they could be getting on their own if they were in charge of their own resource development. I think that the first nations resource charge is a great first step, and I look forward to being in government one day when we can implement it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave to present questions on the Order Paper.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in the House to debate on matters on behalf of the great people of Steveston—Richmond East. Today, it is to continue on the debate on Bill C-69, the budget Implementation act for budget 2024, which is about reinforcing the promise that all Canadians should have a fair chance to build a good life, and about continuing to build a country that works for everyone. We are going to do that by building more affordable homes, by making life cost less and by growing the economy in a way that is shared by all.

Today I would like to talk about one element of Bill C-69 that could improve financial outcomes for Canadians: consumer-driven banking. Every Canadian deserves access to affordable, modern banking services to help them pay their bills, save money, receive their government benefits and build their credit. Budget 2024 includes measures to lower banking fees by capping non-sufficient fund fees, modernizing free and affordable bank account options, expanding financial help services, doing more to crack down on predatory lending and launching new consumer-driven banking tools.

Consumer-driven banking, also known as open banking or consumer-driven finance, provides a way for people and small businesses to securely transfer their financial data to different service providers, including banks, credit unions and accredited financial technology companies, fintechs. This could include apps that use data to provide automated budgeting and savings advice, help keep track of bills, secure a loan, find a better deal on insurance or on a currency exchange rate and track monthly rent payments to build up credit.

Consumer-driven banking provides real-time access to all financial accounts, products and services in one place and access to personalized tools and products to help improve financial health. It can play an important role in the future of the Canadian economy and increase consumers' choice and control over their financial data. It can help make life more affordable and even help young Canadians when it is time to buy a first home.

However, so far, in the absence of a framework, fintechs have been limited in their ability to develop new financial tools, largely due to a reliance on an unsecured process called screen scraping, which pulls data from a bank account by reading the account information. This requires consumers to share their banking credentials with fintech companies. An estimated nine million Canadians currently share their financial data this way, which raises security, liability and privacy risks to consumers and the financial system. I presume there may be hon. members present who have gone through this process and felt uneasy about it, as I have.

As first announced in the 2023 fall economic statement, the government published Canada's consumer-driven banking framework along with budget 2024, in order to drive an innovative consumer-driven banking system in Canada. As announced in budget 2024, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, FCAC, is mandated to oversee, administer and enforce Canada's consumer-driven banking framework.

FCAC's existing financial literacy and consumer education mandate make it well placed to help guide consumers who engage in consumer-driven banking. The mandate was informed by an extensive review of international jurisdictions and is in line with international best practices, offers administrative efficiency and allows for the timely delivery of consumer-driven banking in Canada.

At this point, I should also stress that the government would not be privy to any personal information or data.

I will move now to the bill before us. Bill C-69 introduces legislation to implement key components of the framework, including a new act, the consumer-driven banking act, and amendments to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act. These legislative updates would establish the foundational elements of the framework, including governance and scope, as well as criteria and the process for the technical standard.

The amendments to the FCAC Act would create a senior deputy commissioner for consumer-driven banking, who would be responsible for the supervision of the framework. The commissioner of FCAC would retain full administrative control of FCAC and would continue to report to the Minister of Finance and Parliament. As well, the consumer-driven banking act would require FCAC to maintain a public registry of participating entities in the framework.

Once implemented, the framework would regulate access to financial data, providing Canadians and small businesses with safe and secure access to financial services and products that would help them manage and improve their finances.

The framework would also align with those of our largest trading partners, including the United States. In order to facilitate oversight of provincial entities while respecting their jurisdiction, provincial entities would be able to opt in to governance, supervision and participation. In the case of provincial credit unions, provinces would retain the authority to impose their own requirements.

Importantly, the functional scope for participating entities would be limited to “read access”. This means that participating entities would only be able to see, not change, the data held by another participating entity should a consumer request it. The scope would not include payment initiation, or “write access” as it sometimes is called. Furthermore, data could be obtained only if a consumer provides consent to the participating entity.

Access to data would be limited to what is specified in the legislation, which includes chequing accounts and savings accounts, investment products and lending products such as credit cards, lines of credit and mortgages. Regardless of an entity's size or business model, due diligence of its security controls would be conducted before allowing it to participate in the framework. This would help set an equal and high bar for security measures and give confidence to consumers that their data is safe.

Participating entities would be required to comply with existing privacy legislation as well. The framework would also include additional privacy rules that are unique to financial data sharing to address the provision of express consent to access data, consent management, and revoking access to data shared by a consumer. Participants would be required to have a standardized process for consent and revocation that would be done in a clear, simple and not misleading manner.

The proposed legislation represents a culmination of long-term engagement with industry, consumer groups and experts, and would deliver a made-in-Canada solution to the issue of screen scraping. There is alignment among stakeholders for the government's proposed approach, including fintech and the Canadian Bankers Association.

The government would continue to engage with industry, which would lead on the implementation of the framework in key areas, including technical standards, with oversight from the FCAC. This collaborative work would refine more complex elements, such as the accreditation framework and common rules for privacy, security and liability, to be introduced in additional legislation later this year.

Canada's consumer-driven banking framework, with government-led oversight of security requirements, technical standards and consumer protections, would enable consumers to securely and confidently exercise their right to use and move their data. Once the framework is operational, the government would consult with stakeholders to determine how and when to phase out screen scraping. This would include review of other jurisdictions' approaches to screen scraping.

Canada has a strong, well-regulated financial sector that has proven to be stable, resilient and trusted by Canadians. Consumer-driven banking would contribute to the strength of the sector and protect financial consumers, part of the government's plan to grow Canada's economy in a way that works for everyone. I encourage all hon. members to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague did not really reference much in his speech in regard to where the government is at with its spending habits. There is the $61 billion more in spending that virtually every sector, the banking industry and even the government people themselves are saying is leading to continuing inflation.

Can the member tell us what he thinks is wrong with the idea that, as Canadians are telling me, the government raised $54 billion on the GST and it is all going to the interest on the debt this year?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the member opposite to look at the responsible measures taken in the spending review right now. If we look at all of the measures in the budget, we see that they are all about productivity. Whether we are talking about $5 billion in loan guarantee programs or whether we are delivering major economic investment tax credits, it is all to increase productivity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear my colleague talk about banking services. That is something that Bill C-69 does not talk much about.

I have two short questions to ask him about banking services.

First, does he recognize the authority of Quebec and the provinces in this sector?

Second, does he realize that Bill C-69 will give all of Canada's big banks a huge advantage over the smaller ones like Caisses Desjardins in Quebec?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a tremendous number of initiatives respect what Quebec has to offer. If we look at the budget, there is $3.4 billion to support young researchers in Canada and Quebec, billions to fight homelessness, $780 million in support for creative industries and $1.5 billion to protect and expand affordable housing. There is a lot in this budget that respects how we are working with Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate my hon. colleague's remarks.

Every day we hear in the House the Conservatives talk about the cost of living pressures that Canadians are under. Obviously, they continually make it sound like global inflation has been caused by our government. We know that is not true, and it is misleading to imply that.

We see in this budget numerous measures that would help Canadian families save money on their bills: more child care spaces, the national school food program, dental care, pharmacare and others. Could my hon. colleague speak to how our government is there for Canadians in helping them out with the cost of living pressures they are under?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listed a few things in some of the other answers. For example, the member mentioned the dental program. We have over 500 dentists now signed up in my city of Richmond, British Columbia, who are ready to help those who need help the most. I speak to all of these measures as being a way toward productivity. If people can get help and get a leg-up, they can contribute in a better way.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about homelessness. The Auditor General of Canada has said that for the government to meet its target of reducing chronic homelessness by 50% by 2030, it would have to invest seven times more money than it is currently investing.

What does my colleague have to say to address the homelessness crisis?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the member to look at all the measures that were put into this budget. They amount to billions to help with homelessness and to give people another chance.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise here this evening to speak to Bill C-69, a bill that enacts certain provisions of the budget tabled back in April. I spoke to the budget at that time, back in the spring, but I would like to add a few comments now that it is before us as an implementation act because it is an important budget. All budgets are important, but this one in particular is important.

As we all know and hear every day, Canadians are struggling, especially to find housing, to pay the rent, to dream of paying a mortgage or even to find a roof to put over their heads. They struggle with the cost of groceries and the price of gas at the pumps.

Also, we are facing a climate crisis that is bringing us fires, floods and other extreme weather events that cause widespread stress to Canadians, their health, their homes and their livelihoods. Last year's fires in my riding and surrounding areas not only destroyed houses, but put tens of thousands of people on evacuation. They ended the tourist season abruptly in early August, just when all my local businesses are poised to make an income after months of losses. Then a mid-winter freeze caused serious damage to grapevines and peach, apricot and cherry orchards, which are part of the agriculture sector, a real backbone of the economy in my riding. Any budget has to recognize and face the climate crisis head-on.

While Canadians are struggling, big corporations and wealthy Canadians are doing better than ever. Big oil companies are making a killing. Big grocery companies are making record profits. Budgets are documents that make choices that will help Canadians. That is what we hope. It is clear that it is ordinary Canadians who need that help, not big corporations and wealthy individuals.

The NDP has used its leverage in this minority Parliament to deliver results for people. In this budget alone, we have compelled the Liberal government to build more homes, preserve existing affordable housing, protect renters and bring in universal single-payer pharmacare, starting with contraception and diabetes medications and devices. I want to pause there because, while they are all critical, people may not realize how critical diabetes medications are. A friend of mine, who was 27 years old, died because he could not afford the full cost of his insulin medication to monitor and help his diabetes. That will not happen again.

This budget would establish a national food program. Canada is the only G7 nation without a national school food program. A quarter of Canadian kids live in homes that are food insecure. This is another NDP initiative put in this budget. We are very proud of it. The Conservatives voted against it.

This budget would reverse damaging cuts to indigenous services. It would invest in accessible, high-quality, non-profit child care, another NDP initiative. It would establish a dedicated youth mental health fund. It would double the volunteer firefighters tax credit. I will talk more about that later.

As I said, several elements in this budget are key NDP initiatives. They are the pillar of this budget, I would say. However, they would not be there without the NDP's pressure. This is not an NDP budget. It would be different if it was an NDP government. We would go much further in some areas to help Canadians who need it the most.

I will talk about some of the victories, the things that will change the lives of Canadians for the better, and some things that are conspicuously missing.

We have the homebuyers' plan, which has been enhanced by increasing the withdrawal limit from $35,000 to $60,000. The government is also cracking down on short-term rentals by denying income tax deductions on income earned.

Short-term rentals are one of the big issues in my riding. My riding is a very popular area for people to come visit and spend their vacations at all times of the year. Increasingly, it is becoming more and more difficult to find housing, simply because it is very profitable for people to buy houses simply for investment and to put up as short-term rentals. This will help curb that, along with some important provincial legislation that has just been introduced. That is very welcome news.

This budget implements the Canada health transfer 5% growth guarantee. Canadians expect the federal government to support provinces in delivering the health care that we need. We all know that our health care system is struggling as well. This will help keep it going and give us the health care that we need, which we are so proud of, health care that was brought to us, again, by the NDP back in the 1960s.

I mentioned the volunteer firefighters tax credit. It used to be $3,000. There are almost 100,000 volunteer firefighters across Canada. They are the people who keep us safe in small communities from one end of the country to the other, and yet they receive so little in return for that brave and hard work.

They used to get a $3,000 tax credit. That was raised to $6,000 in this budget, again, based on an NDP initiative by my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni, who put forward a private member's bill to increase that to $10,000. We will take $6,000 as an improvement, but let us keep supporting our firefighters.

There is one thing that is not in this budget. With regard to wildfire firefighters who are not part of local firefighting corps but who fight wildfires in the summer, one would be surprised to find that they are not defined as firefighters under the CRA regulations. Firefighters, policemen and other people, such as ambulance drivers, get special dispensation under the Income Tax Act to put more money aside for their retirement. Wildfire firefighters do not. They are specifically excluded, and we need to change that, to call wildfire firefighters “firefighters”. It was not in this budget, but I hope it will be soon.

While I am talking about firefighters, another thing that is not in this budget is a national wildfire-fighting force. We need this, and 75% of Canadians have come out in support of such a force, which would be there to support local and provincial firefighting services. We need this help. It is clear that things are getting worse year by year. We cannot go on as we have been. We have been depending on the armed forces to help us. This year, the armed forces have said they are not going to be there this summer. We need to do something different, and I think a national wildfire-fighting force is the way to go.

I will also mention the good news about support for research. Finally, the government is putting funding into the scholarship and fellowship funding for young researchers in Canada. That funding had remained stagnant for 20 years. Students were living in poverty, and that has finally been fixed. That is very good news.

I will just finish by mentioning the Canada disability benefit, something the NDP has been fighting for, and yet we are very disappointed that this was brought in as a $200-a-month benefit, something that will not get people with disabilities out of poverty. People with disabilities live in poverty all across the country. No province gives them enough money to live above the poverty line. We had a chance to finish that, make it right, and we will continue fighting for people with disabilities, to make sure that they will not live in poverty.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's role in our caucus, as well as in this House, with his many years of expertise.

One of the parts he mentioned in his speech that really resonated with me was the realities of climate change and the impacts it has on smaller communities and their economies. I am just wondering if he could talk about some solutions that we could be looking at, instead of giving so many dollars to the oil and gas industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, small communities are really at the pointy end of the stick when it comes to climate change and its effects, whether it is through floods or wildfires. We have to mitigate the effects of climate change, that is, get serious about the emissions we put out by bringing them down through every means possible, but we also have to help these small communities adapt to climate change.

Just outside my riding, there are small communities in my area, Princeton, Merritt and Abbotsford, that were devastated by floods, for instance, in 2021. They are still waiting for adequate federal help to pay for the rebuilding of their communities in a way that they will be resilient in the face of future floods or fires. I could go on.

We have to support small communities. They do not have the resources, and we should and could help them.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe we could talk a bit about what was not in the budget: eliminating the price on pollution, as an example, or cutting programs for people who are struggling. We are continuing to invest in Canadians and at the same time fight climate change.

The hon. member had started talking about science. If he could work science and climate change, and our need to invest in that, as well, into his answer, that would be great.

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

Mr. Speaker, that sounded a bit like an improv act where one has to talk about a couple of things to bring it in, but I am happy to do that. I sit with the member for Guelph on the science and research committee. Right now, we are studying the effect of climate change in the Arctic and the research that we need to support in the Arctic about that: about how it is affecting people, what we can do about it, and how we can mitigate it. There is so much that needs to be done.

We have all heard about how Canada has to maintain and strengthen its support for Arctic communities, about how we have to work with indigenous groups there, the Inuit, the first nations of the north. We need to invest in infrastructure across the Arctic for that research. We have to invest in logistics support.

There is the polar continental shelf project, which, like the fellowships I mentioned, has been stagnant in funding for many, many years. It is the backbone of Arctic research. We have to maintain and strengthen that.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member comes from a beautiful part of the province, but not as beautiful as North Okanagan—Shuswap.

I would like to ask the member what his thoughts are about the $60 billion in additional debt that this budget is going to be passing on to future Canadians. Members in his riding, just the same as in mine and in every riding across the country, are going to be forced to pay the debt and the interest payments, which will now overcome what we actually do in health care transfers to the province. How does he justify passing that debt on to future generations?

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

Mr. Speaker, we could talk all night about this. I would simply say that budgets are about choices. There is some increased funding here in this budget. It would go to a dental care plan that would bring dental care to nine million Canadians. For the first time, they would have access to a dentist. All of us here get free dental care, but the Conservatives want to keep that from the rest of Canadians. That is an investment in our health care system that would save us money in the long term. There are many other examples like that.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House this evening to join the debate on the budget implementation act.

As this may be the last time I have the opportunity to rise in this House before the session ends for the summer, I do want to take some time to acknowledge my staff members, who helped me tremendously, allowing me to do the work that I do: Natasha, Norman, Kevin, Donna and Kiran on my constituency side, and Sophie, Edith, Ahdi and Danica helping me on the legislative side. I thank them so much for the incredible work that they do.

I do want to spend a few minutes talking about budget 2024. Particularly, this budget takes some significant steps forward in ensuring that we can get more housing built faster. In my mind, there is perhaps no bigger challenge that we have in the country right now than tackling the housing crisis. This year's budget lays out an ambitious plan that shows how we would build 3.87 million new homes by 2031, which is what we need to do to close the housing gap. This is about building more homes by bringing down the cost of home building, helping cities make it easier to build homes at a faster pace, changing the way Canadian home builders manufacture homes and growing the workforce to ensure that we get the job done. The budget also includes funding for below-market housing.

I have very much seen the impact of these programs already through many of the municipalities, through the housing accelerator fund, speeding up the permitting process for new housing, as well as the federal government supporting the construction of over 1,000 new below-market homes since I was elected in 2019.

The budget also takes some significant steps forward in helping with the high cost of living. There would be $1 billion in additional funding to build new child care spaces. Already, through the federal government's programming, families are saving, on average, $6,600 per child on child care each year in B.C. The budget would also provide additional funding for training of more ECE workers. We are also moving ahead on the first two parts of our pharmacare program, providing free access to contraceptives and diabetes medication, which would make a tremendous difference in the lives of so many Canadians.

This budget also moves ahead with the national school food program, as well as launching the Canada disability benefit, and I will get to those a bit more in a few minutes.

This budget also takes some steps forward in growing the economy in a way that is shared by all. There would be a generational investment in artificial intelligence, which is going to be a huge part of improving productivity in Canada going forward, as well as major investments in research and development, which was just mentioned in the previous intervention. We are also moving forward on a number of investment tax credits that would continue to grow the green economy in Canada, which has already led to Canada's being the largest per capita recipient of foreign direct investment last year.

I do want to highlight a few measures in the budget implementation act, knowing that I will not have time to cover all of them, as this is a 660-page piece of legislation.

With respect to the housing file, there are changes to the Income Tax Act that would now prevent folks from deducting income for short-term rentals in areas where municipalities do not allow them. This would be really important to ensure that those homes go back into the long-term rental pool. The homebuyers' plan withdrawal limit would also be increased from $35,000 to $60,000 to allow people to save for a down payment for their first home, which would be in addition to the first home savings account that we created, which is already allowing Canadians to save $40,000 tax-free in and tax-free out.

There are a number of measures that would make life cost less for Canadians. One that would make a tremendous difference in my riding is doubling the volunteer firefighter tax credit and the search and rescue tax credit for volunteers. As someone who has both Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue and normal search and rescue, as well as a number of volunteer firefighter stations in my riding, I know this would make a tremendous difference for folks who put themselves at risk to help us in our most vulnerable times. Therefore, this is a small token of our appreciation for the incredible work that they do.

As I mentioned before, we are moving ahead with a national school food program. We are currently the only G7 country that does not have a national school food program. Through an investment of $1 billion over five years, we would be providing meals for 400,000 children across Canada.

Through measures in this budget, we would be able to start negotiations with provinces, like my own, British Columbia, which has already started on the work to ensure we can pass along these benefits, which are not only going to ensure that children get fed but also save families an estimated $800 per child per year.

This budget also moves ahead with the Canada disability benefit. This is the largest single-line budget item in this budget, which would provide $2,400 tax-free to Canadians living with disabilities. We know these are some of the most vulnerable Canadians who face high costs because of living with a disability, so measures in the budget implementation act would give effect to this benefit.

The budget implementation act would also expand the Canada student loan forgiveness program, which provides student loan forgiveness for professionals to tackle labour shortages in remote and rural areas. As a proud representative of a semi-rural riding, I am pleased that the budget implementation act would offer loan forgiveness to ECE workers, dentists, dental hygienists, pharmacists, midwives, teachers, social workers, personal support workers, physiotherapists and psychologists, in addition to doctors and nurses in all communities in my riding outside metro Vancouver. Up to $60,000 over five years in loan forgiveness is available in some cases. For those in one of these professions, it is yet another reason to consider coming to my riding.

This budget would also cut the excise duty rate on craft brewing, which is 90% of brewers in Canada. It would make a big difference for those businesses and their customers as well.

This budget would also drive inclusive growth. We are moving ahead with a number of investment tax credits, including for green hydrogen and clean manufacturing, as well as the extension of the mineral exploration tax credit, which would ensure that we can find the critical minerals that we need and use those critical minerals in the value chain to build the technologies we are going to need to decarbonize, as well as to produce the green hydrogen that we are going to need in a number of sectors, like heavy transportation, where electrification will not work.

I also want to mention that this budget would make a number of legislative changes to improve Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime. In fact, in every budgetary bill, both the budget and the fall economic statement, since I was elected in 2019, we have made legislative amendments to improve this regime, in addition to investing close to $375 million to ensure we can better combat financial crimes. The budget implementation act would expand coverage under this regime to tackle more high-risk areas, like cheque-cashing businesses, leasing and financing companies and others. It would also allow businesses that report under this regime, like banks, to communicate with each other while maintaining privacy regulations. This is very important as we know we are dealing with very complex matters that would require that sharing of information, provided that we do it in a safe way. Lastly, we would allow FINTRAC to communicate directly with civil forfeiture offices. This is very important because it would make it much easier to seize assets, ill-gotten gains, where it is very difficult at times to prove at a criminal level.

I want to mention a couple of things that I would like to have seen in the BIA that were not included. Number one, while we do make some important changes to the underused housing tax, there are more areas that we need to address. As an example, in my riding, there are areas that municipalities zone to prevent people from being long-term renters. The areas are zoned to be short-term rentals, where foreign direct investment was sought after to build up the bed capacity. We need to take into account examples like this to create exemptions.

Lastly, we made a number of changes to the Impact Assessment Act in this budget implementation act to respond to the Supreme Court of Canada case. I believe we may have gone a little too far and were too cautious in those changes, such that we have created gaps in our environmental assessment regime. My suggestion is that in the fall economic statement, these are two areas we should look at to make sure we improve them going forward.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague's intentions are sincere.

The challenge with the government is that it has no problem making promises it has no intention of ever delivering on. What does 3.9 million homes over the next seven years amount to? It is about half a million homes a year. We built 240,000 homes last year.

Could the hon. member tell us how on earth he expects us to get to 3.9 million homes?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, this is perhaps one of the largest challenges that we have in the country.

We cannot keep building houses the way that we are building them right now. I can give an example from my riding. A company called Nexii is building homes in a factory sense. If we can prefabricate homes and then assemble them on site, that is one way of increasing the productivity in that space. It is something that we need to do. We need to get more people to work in trades to build more homes. That is part of the challenge.

Through the budget, we are now expanding funding through the housing accelerator fund to speed up the permitting at the local level. We need to work very closely with municipalities and provinces. I am very fortunate with my province of British Columbia. We have a great working relationship.

We need to make sure that we have the density as-of-right, and that we are working together, rowing in the same direction, because it is a tremendous challenge that we need to be able to solve as a country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is my neighbour, and it is always good to see him here in the House.

My question is around the disability supports. We know that the NDP has been fighting desperately for a long time, along with a lot of advocates for the disability community, talking about the high level of poverty and the reality that so many are slipping through cracks that we should be filling.

It was very disappointing to see the Liberal government not put forward something more substantive, but instead, something that will keep people in poverty rather than lifting them from it.

I am just wondering if he has heard the same thing, like I have from my constituents, that this is a significant concern, and they expect to see more.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous step forward in this budget, creating the Canada disability benefit. To have $2,400 each year, tax-free, going to individuals living with a disability makes a huge difference in people's lives. Again, we are talking about some of the most vulnerable Canadians. This is moving ahead with something that was committed to in the 2021 platform for my party.

Can we do more? Absolutely. There is more we can do to make life more affordable for all Canadians, but particularly some of the most vulnerable. This is just one such measure in this budget.

We are also moving ahead with providing a dental care plan for low-income Canadians, as well as a lot of the investments in housing and pharmacare. Collectively, these are a lot of the measures that we are taking to make life more affordable, in addition to the Canada disability benefit, which I think is already going to make a tremendous difference in people's lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue in the spirit of my colleague's question on the Canada disability benefit. The Bloc Québécois criticized one thing in this bill, and that is the fact that the rules, the eligibility requirements and the benefit level were all to be determined by regulation.

The government used the budget to announce a benefit amount that we feel is insufficient, and it did this without having tabled the regulations as planned. What can my colleague tell us about that?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said to my other colleague, this is a very important program to support Canadians who are in very challenging situations.

We also need to work with the provinces to implement this program. We need to make sure that this program will take effect and that the provinces will not use the money that is to be used for this program for other purposes. There are a number of things we need to do to ensure this program works well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand today and talk on Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, or as I prefer to call it, “the economic vandalism act”.

This is a budget that continues to build upon the inflationary deficits that Canadians are struggling to deal with. The government's spending continues to be out of control. First it was borrowing money, then it was printing money, and now it is going to continue to dip into the pockets of Canadians and raise taxes so it has money to spend on all its crazy ideas and programs.

We know the Liberals have gotten no results the entire time they have been in government. For the past nine years, we have witnessed rent double. We have witnessed the cost of a mortgage double and the cost of a down payment double. Our children and grandchildren will not have the opportunity that we did to own a home and to move ahead in life because of the out-of-control spending of the Liberal-NDP government.

We have a deficit this year that is going to be over $40 billion. It has been described as the worst budget since 1982. Who said that? The former, Liberal-appointed Bank of Canada Governor, David Dodge.

We have witnessed that Canada has the worst living standards in 40 years according to the Fraser Institute. We have also seen, under the Liberal-NDP government, that we have had the worst growth in GDP, or income per person, since the 1930s. Nine in 10 middle-class families are paying more in income tax today than they were nine years ago.

We have a situation that is increasing and is hurting everyone. In my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, it is hitting everybody. Our farmers are struggling with increased carbon taxes that have gone up 23% and they now have to deal with the capital gains tax, and that is really starting to take a bite.

We can look at how farms have been structured, family farms, over the last number of years. I come from a farm family. My daughter and son-in-law are grain farmers. I have two brothers who are farmers. They put hard work and effort into growing their properties. They want to make sure that there is something to pass on to the next generation, which is the same thing that my father did for his children, and that is at risk.

To make things more manageable, people have formed their family farms into limited corporations. Our doctors, our dentists and our chiropractors, especially in rural areas, have set themselves up into limited liability partnerships and corporations. Those limited corporations pay out capital gains. Of course, now these capital gains are all going to get taxed by the Liberal-NDP coalition by up to 67%.

This is not a tax on the wealthy. This is a tax on the hard-working people who feed us, take care of us and take care of our health. All of them are going to be attacked and become either less profitable or be forced to relocate to jurisdictions like the United States where it is easier to make a living without having to work as hard. I have had doctors and dentists tell me that they are going to work fewer hours because of the income tax implications with the capital gains tax grab by the Liberals and the Minister of Finance.

This is also hitting cottage owners and those who have secondary residences, whether they bought a property for rental income or they bought a home that they hope to pass on to their children. Now, when they go to sell those properties, they are going to get nailed with this capital gains tax that they did not expect. There is a word for this. When somebody takes something away from another that they never deserved, it is called highway robbery. That is the economic vandalism that we are talking about here by the Liberal-NDP coalition.

As the shadow minister for national defence, I do want to switch gears and talk about how this budget does not support, in any way, shape or form, the even less ambitious defence policy update. The defence policy update had some ideas, but all the spending, especially in this budget, has been kicked down the road until after the next federal election. We are talking three, four or five years down the road before we see any increase in spending for national defence to support our troops.

At the national defence committee today, we actually had one of our witnesses say that the defence policy update is a national “embarrassment” that fails to recognize the threat environment we are in and that, technically, Canada is already “at war”.

We are witnessing what is happening in Ukraine. We have had increased escalation in the conflict in the South China Sea between the PRC and the Philippines, plus what we are seeing in Taiwan. This defence policy update fails to recognize those threats. All the money that has supposedly been promised is kicked down the road.

As a case in point, we have a retention and recruitment crisis happening in the Canadian Armed Forces. One thing that we identified is the lack of housing. The Minister of National Defence even said that we are short 6,700 residential housing units for our troops. We have troops who are living homeless and actually couch surfing. They are living in campers or in their cars. Worse yet, they are stuck in these tent cities that have sprung up across the country over the last nine years under the Liberal government.

Even though the government recognizes that we need more homes for our current serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, the budget has zero dollars for new housing for our troops. It has zero dollars next year. There is only $8 million in the budget in three years' time, which does not build 6,700 housing units. Eight million dollars will not build, in today's dollars, 24 homes. Again, that is a national embarrassment. We have people who are serving this country but cannot house themselves properly, and the government and the defence minister fail to recognize that we have to support our troops. Therefore, we have a retention and recruitment crisis, and the defence policy update gives no idea of how we are going to increase our troop strength. We are 17,000 troops short today, and it could get worse if this is not rectified soon.

We have a housing shortage and, of course, we have no money to put into new houses. As we heard today again at committee, we have an army that the government has no plan to get new kit for so that it can become the expeditionary force we have come to rely on as Canadians.

A case in point on how the government does not take our forces seriously and puts them in awkward positions is the news we heard just this weekend that the Canadian Armed Forces, through the Royal Canadian Navy, positioned one of our Arctic offshore patrol vessels in Havana, Cuba, for a celebration of the Communist dictatorship there. It is docked alongside Russian navy destroyers. Why would we want to use the Royal Canadian Navy to liaise with a hostile dictatorship in Cuba and an aggressive country that is invading Ukraine today?

We know that Cubans are serving in the Russian armed forces today and fighting in Ukraine. Cuba has actually sent troops to Belarus to train alongside Russian and Belarusian soldiers so that they can invade Ukraine again from the north. This is a national embarrassment and, again, speaks to the fact that the government does not have a plan when it comes to supporting our troops. Instead, it uses them for photo ops with Communist dictatorships rather than supporting our allies in fighting back against the evil that is occurring around the world.

We have frigates that cannot be deployed on as frequent a basis. We no longer have destroyers. We no longer have any of our own supply ships. They are slowly coming, and we have the Asterix out there, of course, which we ordered when we were in government. However, we do not have the same reach in the navy that we used to.

When we look at Ukraine, our government, again, continues to dither and delay in delivering. It announced 18 months ago that NASAMS was going to be sent to Ukraine, and it is still not there. The Liberals finally announced that we were sending 2,000 CRV7 rockets, but guess what, Mr. Speaker? We asked back in February to send the 83,000 we had, not 2,000.

We will continue to put pressure on the government to do the right thing for Ukraine, for the Canadian Armed Forces and for rural Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had a very hard time listening to the member referencing support for Ukraine in his speech. He stood up multiple times in the House and voted against more support for Operation Unifier, support for Ukrainian refugees coming to Canada and an updated free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, which President Zelenskyy himself asked us to pass. I cannot understand.

The BIA has additional support for Ukraine, in terms of using seized Russian assets. We just heard an announcement that the Prime Minister made at the G7 to support Ukraine with additional funds.

How can the member honestly criticize our government when he cannot stand up for Ukraine?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member over there knows well that no one has fought more and harder for Ukraine than I have. I was one of the first of 13 to be banned from Russia because I have taken a strong stand in support of Ukraine for a long time. I will take no lessons from the member.

When we did not support the free trade agreement, it was because we already had a free trade agreement in place. It was better than the current free trade agreement, in which the Liberals actually stuck a carbon tax. We know that the Liberals also supported sending over turbines to pump Russian gas into Europe to help fund Putin's war machine. We will never take lessons from the Liberals on how to not stand up for Ukraine.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I think there could be a lot more decorum, and people should not be taking the floor unless they are recognized by the Speaker. The hon. member had asked a question. The other hon. member was responding.

The hon. member for Nunavut has the floor.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I know the member talked about the importance of the military in other places, and I appreciate that. He might appreciate my question about how much more investment needs to be made for Canadians so that they can participate in Arctic sovereignty and Arctic security. Does the member agree that, for example, investing in Canadian Rangers would be much better for keeping Canada secure?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member knows my mother was born in Chesterfield Inlet and raised in Pangnirtung, so I have a lot of connections to the Arctic. I really do firmly believe that the Canadian Armed Forces have a major role to play in expansion of the Canadian Rangers to make sure that they are better financed, as well as able to do a greater job in carrying out exercises to establish our control and sovereignty over the entire Arctic.

We also know that we could be making more investments in dual-purpose infrastructure for both the Canadian Armed Forces and local populations. That is everything from runways to ports and from telecommunications to broadband. We need to do more of that to make sure that those collaborations will work for all Canadians, especially those in the high Arctic.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his work on the defence file. On defence, could he comment on the fact that the Liberals are saying they are going to increase the amount of expenditure over the next five years, but they are actually cutting back this year? It is as though they are putting everything down the road and saying they are really increasing, but they are actually decreasing. I know the forces are suffering because of this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. The Liberals are cutting $2.7 billion from the budget over the next three years. That is having an impact, and we are starting to see it in the issues around readiness and training. We are now deploying our troops to the NATO enhanced forward position in Latvia that we are running, and they are not taking their pretraining before they go and deploy. That predeployment training is critical to being able to make sure that we are the leaders in the theatre of NATO allies that are also stationed at the same base in Latvia. When we go over there and have them play catch-up, again, it is a national embarrassment. Therefore, we need to make sure that we are making the investments that are required. A case in point is that one of the first things the Liberals cut was uniforms for women in the Canadian Armed Forces; they did not think these uniforms were necessary. It is a shame.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak on behalf of the great people of Red Deer—Mountain View. I plan on speaking to some of the issues that are important to the families and the businesses in my riding, particularly housing; agriculture; food supply; global issues, such as energy and food security; and, of course, debt financing.

Food and shelter have long been considered some of the bare necessities for human beings to survive, yet these two critical needs to sustain the health and well-being of Canadians have been and continue to be put at risk by the NDP-Liberal government's reckless handling of governmental affairs. While it upsets me greatly that we are unable to have amicable, maybe even friendly discussions about these issues and how the government fails to address them in the budget implementation act, we just do not have this luxury. It is necessary to be blunt.

We, as parliamentarians, ought not to have that luxury when this past spring saw the percentage of first-time users of food banks rise sharply to 61%, compared with 43% last fall, according to the Salvation Army's Canadian poverty and socio-economic analysis. We should not have the luxury to sit around and act as if the current government's handling of these challenges has been sufficient when, according to the Grain Growers of Canada, Canada's national voice for grain farmers, the average grain farm will pay 30% more after the capital gains tax changes. As well, we should not have any luxury to tolerate the continued endangerment and mortgaging of Canadian lives as our nation continues to face a drought of family doctors and our government continues to erect barriers for health care providers.

The budget implementation act fails to address these three concerns and, frankly, many more. It is bizarre that we as a government can, on the one hand, muse about the struggles everyday Canadians face in being able to afford to eat and, on the other, pass legislation that would effectively make it harder for Canadian farmers to grow food for us domestically.

Here is a scenario that might resonate with a typical grocery shopper. We all know how the price of fruit works. As fruit goes out of season, the price increases because of how difficult it is to source supply. It is a question of supply, not necessarily a question of demand, as I am sure cherries and peaches are popular fruits for most.

Other foods that are also universally popular and never a question of demand are meats and grains, which are essential to a healthy diet for people around the world. While inflation has, without a doubt, played a significant role in the cost of food and groceries, we must look to pull on the lever of domestic supply in our fight against this cost of living crisis. However, this lever has continued to be neglected and ignored by our current government.

We have a carbon tax that, without a doubt, penalizes our farmers for working hard to feed Canadians. According to the Grain Farmers of Ontario, it is estimated that up to $2.7 billion of carbon tax will be paid by Ontario grains and oilseeds farmers by 2030. Most grain farms are family owned. I have already mentioned how the average grain farm will be forced to pay nearly 30% more in taxes as a result of the proposed capital gains tax changes. These, of course, were removed from the current budget implementation act for what could only be described as political purposes.

I myself am a fourth-generation farmer, and I can wholeheartedly say that this proposed change would target the retirement plans of farmers, make it more difficult for farms to change hands between generations and threaten the security and long-term viability of family farms across this country. We will need more farmers here in Canada if we are to have any hope of combatting the cost of food for everyday Canadians.

RBC found that, by 2033, 40% of Canadian farm operators will retire; however, 66% of producers do not have a succession plan in place. Certainly, what is happening now is not making it any easier. Our farmers, and those who grow our food, are in need of certainty about their futures, not more penalties on their hard work or more uncertainty about their retirement.

When we challenge our farmers, who are an essential component of what makes up the backbone of this country, with more taxes and uncertainty, it does not bode well for the future of domestic food production and agriculture in this country. Once again, this budget fails to respond to these growing challenges and leaves much to be desired.

This budget fails Canadians by missing the mark entirely in addressing food security here in Canada. I say this because I know that many will cite worldwide disruptions of supply chains and global trade. They will point to the invasion of Ukraine and the conflicts of the Middle East, but for years I have been involved as part of Canada's delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the OSCE, and I am very aware of the current situation there, along with the consequences on global food supply.

The OSCE deals not only with food security, but also energy security and, of course, the discussion about security within the continent of Europe. Even after saying these things and affirming statements of how food insecurity is a global issue, I want to remind us all here today that to act as if things in Canada are all right and that agriculture in Canada is not impacted by global affairs is reckless and short-sighted behaviour. In fact, it is unfortunate that I have to point this out, but this behaviour has become par for the course after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government.

When our allies face an energy crisis and are in need of alternate sources of oil and natural gas, they can count on us for words of affirmation and emotional appeals of support, but when they come to ask for our own oil and natural gas, both of which we have an abundance of, the answer has been that there is “no business case”. When farmers and food growers here in Canada are allowed to do more of what they do best, which is to provide us with the means to feed both ourselves and the world, we not only help ourselves, but also help our allies in need. We cannot responsibly prioritize helping others when we cannot help ourselves.

Canadians want to help their neighbours. Canadians want to be known as the breadbasket for our allies, but only if they are in a position where they must not choose between that and feeding their families or keeping a roof over their heads. Canada stands ready to work hard and to be rewarded. Canadians do not need more government tools. They need fewer government barriers. A food production renaissance in this country would fundamentally shift our approach to tackling the cost of living crisis we face after 12 years of reckless, unabated government spending.

Whether one is a banker on Bay Street, a construction worker maintaining critical infrastructure, a police officer protecting our streets or a nurse coming off a 12-hour night shift, we are all Canadians, and we all need to eat. Empowering our farmers by removing unfair and unjust penalties and continuing to support community initiatives, such as 4-H Canada, would nurture our next generation of food growers and prioritize common sense over ideology. That is what we need to get this country back on track so that young students are able to focus on studying for their next quiz instead of having to worry about what to eat.

I cannot in good conscience support this budget implementation act knowing that there is so much this budget fails to address. The $61 billion in new spending is not the answer we need to bring down inflation and lower interest rates. Canada will have to spend $54.1 billion to service our national debt, which is more than we are currently sending to provinces for health care. Instead of printing more money to help Canadians scrape by, we need to start producing more of what that money buys.

Under a future Conservative government, we would axe the tax on farmers, build more homes for families to eat their suppers in, fix the budget to allocate modern supports for those who grow our food and stop the crime against hard-working Canadians, who want nothing more than to raise responsible citizens and make Canada the greatest place to live on earth.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a great respect for the fine work that our farmers do day in and day out, 365 days a year. Let there be no doubt about that, whether they are addressing the needs created in drought situations or promoting trade.

Earlier this year, I was with the Minister of Agriculture when we opened up one of the greatest economic opportunities for the future of agri-foods by opening up an office in Manila, a trade office for 40 Asian countries. I wonder if the member would recognize that we not only have budget measures to support farmers but also other initiatives. Does the member support the Indo-Pacific Agriculture and Agri-Food Office opening in Manila?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been on the international trade committee for a number of years, and I have had opportunities to go around the world to see just how well thought of Canada is in the trading world. The fact that the government continues to deal with some of those things and keep that going can be appreciated because it is important that we continue to do the great work that was done by the Conservatives when we were last in power. It is so critical. In agriculture, it really becomes one of the most important parts because, yes, we grow a lot of grain, but if we are going to be successful, we have to make sure that it gets to world markets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of visiting Red Deer once because my son was working there.

My colleague mentioned that grain and wheat crops are important in his region, but the same can be said of the oil industry too.

I imagine that my colleague agrees that we need to stand up and fight climate change. With that in mind, what measures does he think should be included in a budget to ensure a just transition?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the member that oil is important, but it is not just important in my province. It is important for Canada and for the world since we are able to produce this oil and gas most efficiently and with the least emissions around the world. The drops of oil and molecules of natural gas should be moved, and we should be finding markets for them because we will continue to need them. It does not matter if we are going to be putting in windmills, solar panels or geothermal. All of those types of operations for renewables require a massive amount of hydrocarbons to build them. We need the rare earth minerals to put them together.

We have this concept that says we will ignore how all of these other sources of energy come to be, and we will just talk about the fact that there seems to be a pretty good whipping boy in Canada to go after oil and gas. The last drop of oil and gas in this earth should come out of Canada.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I know the member thinks there are not enough investments for farmers. Whatever he thinks there is for farmers, there is far less for hunters in the north. We know that the rates of poverty are much higher in the Arctic.

I wonder if the member agrees that, whatever investments are made for farmers, there must be comparable investments for hunters so they can provide for their families, communities and Canadians as well.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is critical because harvesting, whether it comes off of land where we grow or the animals on the earth as part of tradition or just that we need to eat, is important. When the government talks about agriculture, it should deal with that part as well. I know that people compartmentalize and say that hunting is different than the other part, but to me, it is critical, especially for the north.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a treat to rise in the House. I will just share a few thoughts about this budget, particularly as it relates to the housing portfolio. I would note that the housing section of the budget this year was significant. Unlike other years, housing was at the very beginning of the budget. I find it interesting because the government has talked a lot about housing for some time.

We certainly all recall the 2017 launch of the Liberals' national housing strategy. We saw lots of pictures and videos of the Prime Minister with some of his MP colleagues and workers in front of a big housing project. At the time, the Prime Minister announced $40 billion, and gradually the Liberals came up with new numbers that brought it up to $70 billion, not all of which was really new money. However, it was lots of fanfare and lots of talk.

In fact, the Prime Minister, at the time, described the national housing strategy as being a life-changing, “transformational” national housing strategy. That was announced with lots of fanfare, and then the Liberals slowly rolled it out. We found out a few years later, from a report from the Auditor General on the specific piece of it that was about homelessness, that the department was not even tracking the spending. The government did not really know whether it was having any impact. As the Auditor General and maybe anybody else with any sense would know, if one is not tracking what they are doing, then they do not know if the money they are spending is actually having any impact or they are just throwing money out the window. The department was not really tracking it, which I guess probably does not come as a huge surprise with the government. The Liberals really are a lot better at the photo ops than they are at the follow-through, so they did not really know if that was working or not.

However, Canadians know the truth of all that because, despite the fanfare and the announcements made in 2017, tent cities are not just in the large cities in this country. They are everywhere. They are in smaller towns all across the country. Homelessness is worse now than it has been since we started tracking homelessness. Then, as well, we also know the results of the national housing strategy and the transformational program. Since the government took office nine years ago, house prices and rents have doubled in this country. Thanks to the excessive borrowing, there were going to be little, wee deficits. We remember that it was a $10-billion deficit. Deficits were going to be very, very small. Former prime minister Harper warned us that maybe that that was not true and, sure enough, he was correct. The deficits have been massive. Of course, out-of-control spending and out-of-control borrowing lead to higher interest rates and higher inflation, and that is what we have seen with the government.

We fast forward it to today, when we have the borrowing and the excessive spending and, on top of that, the extra taxes. We have talked a lot about the various different tax schemes these guys have come up with to fund their spending. Ottawa does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem.

Therefore, they came up with the carbon tax, which the Liberals have been insisting all this time is really good, that it is going to reduce carbon emissions and that it is good for people. The Liberals keep saying that eight out of 10 people get more more money back. Do they know what? The lid is finally off. We have finally seen the hidden reports of the Minister of Environment that, in fact, the carbon tax is going to cost the economy $25 billion to $30 billion. We know that it is a tax on a tax on a tax on a tax.

I bring it back to housing. Carbon tax applies to every stage of building a home. Whether it is the materials that are produced to build the home or the truck that is used to deliver the materials to the site, the carbon tax adds on to that and, of course, there is tax on top of the carbon tax. Governments make more money on housing than anybody else does. In this country, the average cost of government on every single home is about 33%. That is more than the builders make on houses. However, it is not just the federal level or the provincial level. It is the local level. Of course, the Liberals finally caught on to the fact that housing was actually in a crisis.

I asked the previous minister if he would call this situation a “crisis.” He was afraid to use that word and would not use that word. In the summer of 2023, he was booted out, and a new minister was put in who is very good at using the word “crisis”, who is quick on his feet, who is a great debater, who is really good with the YIMBY language and who is generally a nice guy, too. I really like him.

However, at the same time, he has come up with even more programs. The one I find particularly bizarre is the housing accelerator fund. All the Liberals like to talk about it. They are really proud of the housing accelerator fund because it is designed to speed up the building permit process in cities. The idea is that they would go around, city to city, and they would have these agreements with the cities to speed up their processes to make it easier to build.

I have asked to see those agreements. There are about 100 or so cities, and I cannot see them. For whatever reason, they are a secret. However, I have been able to dig into some of the municipal planning reports that have gone to their councils. I will use Toronto as an example, just because Toronto is where the crisis is almost as acute as anywhere in the country. Vancouver is the worst, and I would say Toronto is next.

The City of Toronto, in its housing accelerator application, agreed to a couple of different things to try to speed up the process. It was all in the reports. We do not know, of course, if any of these things have actually been done, except for one. We know that one thing that the minister really pushed was the concept of permitting fourplexes, four units, without having to get any special permission on any residential zone. Whatever kind of homes people live in, in the city of Toronto, they could turn it into four units, without going for a special permit, a rezoning or any kind of public hearing. People could do that.

The minister pushed that in almost all of these agreements. It is almost as though he thought it was some kind of a silver bullet to solve the problem. As it turns out, the City of Toronto has already permitted this for about a year. In that time, there have been 74 applications to transform buildings into fourplexes. We know it is really not a silver bullet, but it was one of the big pushes.

At the same time as we have a housing supply crisis, we also have a housing affordability crisis. Again, it is because of not only the cost of materials but also the cost of local governments. Local governments charge so many fees. There are building permit fees, connection fees, permit fees and development charges. A lot of people do not understand these development charges. A cheque has to be cut just for the privilege of having that piece of property that someone might be able to one day build a house on.

That is not to mention the long, painful delays to get approvals. It takes, on average, in Canada, 249 days to get a building permit. In the United States, it takes, on average, 80 days. It is insane. Time is money. We could ask any builder, and they would tell us that time is money. That makes it more expensive.

We have this situation where the City of Toronto, one of the most expensive cities in the country to build in, got $471 million from the Liberal government. It is so proud of this money, yet in the same time it got that money, it increased its development charges by 20%. It is not $97,000 for the privilege of building on a new lot, it is $117,000 now. I just do not understand, in a housing affordability crisis, why the government is borrowing money. Keep in mind that this is $4 billion of borrowed money, when the deficit is $40 billion, that it is going to give to cities that then turn around and make it more expensive to build.

I am sure the Speaker cannot believe it. The Speaker is smiling because he cannot believe it. It is insane. This is what former Liberal finance minister John Manley referred to as driving with one's foot on the gas and the brake at the same time. The Liberal government is giving money to cities, which makes it more expensive. The Liberals are proud of this and think it is going to be some kind of a magical solution to what is literally a crisis in this country.

It is a shame. There are too many Canadians suffering with a photo-op government that does not deliver the results, and Canadians are paying the price.

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

Mr. Speaker, and then there was reality. The reality is that we have a government that is actually building literally thousands of homes in co-operation with other levels of government.

Contrast that to the leader of the Conservative Party, who, when he was the minister of housing, in one year, built, and I need two hands for this, six houses. I can suggest to you that the programs being put in place would have a positive, profound impact by working with other levels of government, contrary to the position that the Conservatives have, which is to cut the funding and beat the municipalities over the head to try to get them to build more homes. That is the Conservative approach.

Why does the member believe the Conservative approach is going to build any houses?

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, would anybody accept the premise of that ridiculous question? That is not the Conservative approach. The Conservative approach is to reward results, not to pay for promises, which is the Liberal approach. They keep spending money, borrowing money and pushing the cost of paying off that debt onto the next generation, which is already thinking they will never be able to own a home of their own. The fact of the matter is that cities are a big part of the problem. They are on the front lines of the crisis, but they are also part of the problem. Just rewarding them with millions and millions of dollars, while they make it more expensive, is idiotic.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I have the pleasure of working with him on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, where we have conducted many studies on the housing issue.

It is all well and good to talk about housing and affordable housing, but many witnesses have said that the issue cannot be reduced to supply and demand alone. We should not just focus on supporting private sector construction; we also need to invest in social housing. We need to invest in non-market funding to support non-profit organizations and co-operative housing. That is where the needs are pressing.

Does my colleague agree with such a measure?

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is this:

Yes, I agree.

There are lots of examples where governments can work together in partnership with community organizations. When I was the mayor of Huntsville, we gave land to different community organizations to build affordable and deeply affordable units. The federal government owns all kinds of buildings, thousands and thousands of buildings that are underutilized, and all kinds of land. We could make that land available in partnership with organizations and could reduce the cost of getting these units built, and we could get a lot more done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the comments about the Liberal government; what we have seen is a doubling of housing prices under the Liberal government. There is no doubt. Up until now, until the NDP forced the Liberals to actually make investments in affordable housing, we saw very little action for affordable housing. The problem is, of course, that the Harper government did the same thing. It doubled housing prices and did not construct affordable housing. In fact, it was a disastrous decade for social housing, co-operative housing, and it was probably the worst period in our history.

I wanted to ask my colleague why he thinks the Harper government failed, and why have Conservatives not apologized for their part in the housing affordability crisis?

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very quick answer for that member. The Harper government did not fail. In fact, houses cost half the price back then. Rent was half the price back then. In fact, with the crisis we have today, the genesis of it was with the Pierre Elliott Trudeau government, in fact. It was actually the Stephen Harper government that recognized we had a problem with homelessness in this country and that came up with the housing first program. It doubled the amount of money that the previous Liberal government was putting into homeless programs. It was the one that caught on, that recognized we had a problem and that started to do something about it. It was not a failure. The Liberals love to talk about how little investment there was in the Harper era. There was investment, and it was not in a crisis.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a headline. It says, “'Impossibly unaffordable': Vancouver 3rd-worst city for housing”.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is true.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the passing of a former parliamentarian just a few days ago. Gilles Perron, who was the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for 11 years, passed away after a brief battle with cancer. He will be remembered as a fighter, someone who was close to his constituents and dedicated to his community. He will also be remembered for his extraordinary commitment to veterans. Any progress made on post-traumatic stress disorder is thanks to him. Dearest Gilles, thank you and rest in peace.

Despite this sad news, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the bill to implement certain provisions of budget 2024, Bill C-69. I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois has decided to vote against this bill. Why? It is because too many aspects of the bill go against our values, the needs of Quebec society and what we have been protecting from the very beginning, that is, Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. They are also other provinces' areas of jurisdiction, provinces that might be less combative than Quebec, but, basically, these are our jurisdictions. As I see it, all of this is having a negative impact on the environmental balance of Quebec and Canada.

We have before us a mammoth omnibus bill. We are talking about 650 pages. It contains 67 different measures, 23 tax measures and 44 non-tax measures. Objectively speaking, this bill has some positive aspects, but clearly it has too many irritants for the Bloc Québécois to agree to support it. I will focus my speech on just two points. Given that we are talking about a 650-page bill, we obviously have to limit ourselves. Two things in this bill are very important to me, and Quebeckers are concerned about them too. I am talking about oil and the environment. Oil gets a lot of ink. Far be it from me to make extremist or—how shall I put this—demagogic comments, because people still need oil.

We still need oil, unfortunately, but if we were able to advocate for a well-thought-out, calculated phase-out of oil and gas extraction, that would help us move on to something else and look to the future in a better light. However, our government and the Conservatives are obviously not taking that direction. The implementation of budget 2024 is clear proof of that.

Who here believes that there is a single oil company in Canada that needs subsidies to operate? No one, obviously. I think that even the Conservatives would agree with me. Ottawa is subsidizing oil companies to the tune of a whopping $30.3 billion in tax credits. Subsidizing companies that have record revenues year after year does not add up and is even rather obscene.

The massive subsidies the federal government is giving oil companies in the form of tax credits will total $83 billion by 2035. Six tax credits were introduced by the Liberals in the last two budgets. What is more, this $83 billion is being given to companies whose shareholders are 70% foreigners, people from outside Canada. This creates a significant flight of capital out of Quebec and Canada. It is important to mention it.

As for the profits generated by these same oil companies, we are talking about $38 billion from 2020 to 2022. Yes, we, the taxpayers, are paying oil companies to continue polluting when they are making record profits. That is an insult to our intelligence and, of course, to our environment.

Similarly, the government has implemented a clean technology investment tax credit of $17.8 billion. That is also a rather striking and appalling example. Under the guise of promoting clean energy, this tax credit actually seeks to encourage oil companies to use nuclear reactors, which would, of course, enable them to extract more bitumen and make more gas available for export at taxpayers' expense.

This bill contains another tax credit, the $12.5-billion carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit. The problem is that this money once again enables oil companies to extract more oil. What is more, let us not forget that carbon capture is still in its infancy, in a completely experimental phase. The goal is to recover some of the carbon dioxide emitted and then store it underground, usually in old, empty oil wells.

Interestingly, former Liberal environment minister, Catherine McKenna, did an interview with a news site called 24 heures on December 5, 2023. She had this to say about the investment tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage:

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

I guess the Liberals need to leave their party in order to speak freely and intelligently.

I will now move on to my second point. People have probably been outside today and are likely aware of the massive temperature increase forecast for this week. We are in for a second heat wave, and it is not even officially summer yet. The temperature with humidex will be 45°C. Some 135 million people will be affected by this extreme temperature. There are also the 19 pilgrims who died today in Saudi Arabia. Let us also think of the teachers and students who are finishing their year and their exams in extreme heat. Above all, I am thinking of seniors whose health is fragile and who will be affected by these extreme temperatures. There are also the farmers who are struggling to make sure they can harvest their crops, which provide us with healthy food.

There is absolutely nothing in this budget to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Do we still need to convince the Liberals that it is nearly too late to take action? It is unacceptable to ignore this issue and not prioritize measures to ensure the quality of life for future generations. The Bloc Québécois cannot just sit back and wait for a plan that will not be presented until next fall.

In closing, I would add that the government did not pick up on any of the priorities put forward by the Bloc Québécois before the economic statement. These are priorities that would respond to the real and urgent needs of Quebec and would serve Canadians as well. I will simply conclude by saying that the Bloc Québécois will continue to stand up for the interests of Quebec and its citizens against unfair and harmful measures like the ones in Bill C‑69.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my condolences to the family of Gilles Perron.

Our country relies on exports. Energy, especially oil, represents 10% of our exports.

I know that Germany, Japan and Greece told the Prime Minister that they would like to have access to these products. The Prime Minister responded by saying that he would think about it, that he did not know whether there was a framework or if this would work.

My question is this. Why would the Bloc Québécois rather that the money go to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela instead of Canada?

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

Before giving the floor to the member for Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles, I would like to commend my colleague from Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge on his French.

The hon. member for Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his condolences to Mr. Perron's family.

This is not about the money going to Canada, Saudi Arabia, Brazil or wherever. It is about creating a plan to get off fossil fuels. The Liberals are not really offering us that plan, and neither are the Conservatives, that is for sure.

We still need oil. Unfortunately, I still have a car that runs on oil, for a short time at least. We need to create a plan to move away from fossil fuels, plain and simple.

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

Mr. Speaker, with its targets, the government is well on its way to ending fossil fuel subsidies. There are a couple of exceptions that I am aware of. For example, thinking of the environment, something needs to be done with orphan wells. There is government support to deal with them. Also, in certain situations in the north, we will see some subsidies.

Can the member give an indication as to what other specific subsidies he is talking about? I ask because I am not necessarily aware of them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was only talking about subsidies to oil companies, which are often indirect.

My colleague mentioned wells, which are reused for carbon capture. That is where the captured carbon is buried. That is the current plan.

I am not saying it is 100% negative. At least they are being used for that rather than being rehabilitated, as they were supposed to be a few years ago, if memory serves. A lot of money was injected into rehabilitating these wells, which, incidentally, were created by oil companies that have not had to foot any of the bill for the damage they have caused to the environment.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am glad the member talked about oil and gas companies. I want to ask him a question similar to one that I have asked in the House before regarding how investments could be made, especially during this time of climate change.

The Liberals have been offered a solution: Nunavut communities could help combat climate change by transitioning to not relying on diesel anymore. However, the Liberals are refusing to fund that project. Nunavummiut could contribute to combatting it.

I wonder if the member can explain to us why investing in Nunavut through the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link project could help Nunavummiut and Canada reach their targets, which, in my view, they are far from reaching.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is 2024 and it is time to put the brakes on oil. Fortunately, there are alternatives. We are talking about wind turbines and solar energy harvesters that can support entire villages. At my cottage in the Laurentians, I even installed a system that is not fully operational yet but will enable me to take 1,500 square meters completely off-grid in a few years.

This is affordable for everyone. Let us not forget that solar panels cost half as much as they did 10 years ago. They can be installed anywhere on the planet, in Nunavut in fact.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand today to speak to Bill C-69, the budget implementation act. As we have heard in the debate going on tonight regarding the bill, there are a number of concerns on this side of the House, specifically the government's new spending ideas: $61 billion in new spending. We do this when we are having and dealing with a very real inflation crisis that is causing real hardship throughout the country.

The number of people who are raising their voices to that fact is something we have never seen before. Food bank usage across the country is up to record levels. There are homeless encampments now in pretty much all of our major cities, not to mention the smaller rural communities as well, where this was never seen or heard about.

To make matters worse, this year we will be spending $54.1 billion to service the national debt. It is unfortunate, because we are paying more money for interest than the federal government is sending to the provinces for health care. That is absolutely significant. I do not think I have ever heard a single person articulate the benefit of paying more in interest payments on the national debt, how that actually makes sense. It is wasted money.

Not only that, but because we are paying only the interest, we are not actually paying down the debt. That means the payments will continue. That could fluctuate based on the interest rate at the time, depending on how that certain part of the debt is structured.

Future generations and the last generation we are looking at right now, the youth graduating high school who are going to college or university, are recognizing they might not ever be able to buy a house. They might not ever be able to have the dream many generations here in Canada had before them. Yes, there is a group of people, the very wealthy, who are not being hurt by this and are not affected by it. It is those everyday, normal, working-class people who are being punished with higher prices for food, rent, fuel and heat, all of the things making life more difficult for working Canadians.

When people have less money in their pockets, less money to spend on their priorities, cutbacks in family budgets occur. We have seen and heard the stories that grace the newspaper articles and the headlines about people skipping meals and watering down milk for their kids trying to stretch dollars and stretch the supply in the refrigerator a little longer just to get through the next day or so. It is absolutely crushing to hear and read these stories in a country like Canada, where the dream has always been absolutely real. It is absolutely crushing to see these young people.

The other side will always ask for patience, more time and more resources. There will always be the promise that utopia is just around the corner and that it will be worth it if we just keep spending. The other side will say that, but will it actually be what the Prime Minister is promising? I would argue no.

The Prime Minister and the Liberal Party inherited a balanced budget. The economy was on fire. Life was affordable and life was enjoyable. Now look at where we are. Was it worth it? The average Canadian's net worth, their nest egg, their savings account and their retirement package have suffered. The buying power of their dollars has suffered. The path the government is on is not worth it for the everyday person.

The policies need to change. We have to start focusing on what used to make us extraordinary. Ontario, especially, used to be the manufacturing wheel of this country. We used to build a lot more things in this country. It is unfortunate that in Ontario, when Kathleen Wynne and Dalton McGuinty were in the premier's office, obviously separately, one after the other, they started to mess around in the energy market.

That is when hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs left Ontario. We are watching the numbers continue under the Liberal government, because when the Liberal Party of Ontario lost the election, a lot of staffers made the trip up the 401 or Highway 7 to Ottawa and started working for the current government. We can see it is a continuation of the mentality that if we just keep spending, just keep borrowing and just keep taxing, we will eventually get there, but life has only gotten worse for the majority of Canadians.

The reality is that the Liberal Party has gone too far. Its members do not know how to fix it, and their solution at this point is yet another government program. They will start the tape; they will look at the problem they created, and the solution will be a new program. The government can get money only by borrowing, taxing, printing or a combination thereof, and if it does too much in excess, it can debase the economy or the currency. We have seen a bit of both here.

Conservatives want to look to where the problem started and address it from its root, and that is where a lot of our common-sense plans come from. We are addressing the fact that we need to build and make things again in Canada. How do we do that? We need a regulatory environment that allows private enterprise to start up and flourish.

The bureaucracy has gotten bigger under the current government. That, unfortunately, has been slowing a lot of the progress from the private sector, and we have seen money in the billions of dollars flee this country looking for other jurisdictions, because capital is like water; it takes the path of least resistance. When we allow the private sector to do what it does best, to innovate and to create opportunities and wealth in our communities, the economy grows. When the economy grows, jobs are created, spending happens, more jobs are created and overall happiness rises, because when people have options, when they have choice, they are happier.

When they do not have choice, people are more miserable, and in Canada there is very little competition in pretty much every single sector, such as airlines, groceries or telecommunications. The list goes on, and it is getting worse. We need some common-sense solutions here in this party. The Conservative Party is ready to take on that challenge.

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

Madam Speaker, did we just hear a speech from the hon. member on the opposite side, whom I have a lot of respect for? The Province of Ontario has created hundreds of thousands of new manufacturing jobs since we came into power. The Province of Ontario lost the jobs that the hon. member was referring to during the Harper administration.

I want to know who is correct. Are Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservatives correct in saying they and we have created, collaboratively, hundreds of thousands of jobs in Ontario, or is Doug Ford wrong? I have one final question: What programs is the hon. member mentioning that the Conservatives will cut? Is it dental care, seniors' payments or child education? What is it? I want to know.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, we do not need to go far to find the wasteful spending in the current government. The list goes on. It will not take much to figure it out.

I have a lot of respect for my friend as well. Yes, those jobs did leave in the 2000s. Guess who was in charge in the province of Ontario. It was the Liberal Party of Ontario. The Liberals cannot say the jobs left under Harper but forget who was in charge of the energy policy in the province of Ontario that drove up electricity rates to the highest among most jurisdictions in North America and then wonder why manufacturing left the province. If they are driving up the cost of energy, which manufacturing needs in order to produce, and then are just shocked when the manufacturers leave, there is their answer. When we talk about Conservatives getting to the root, that is the root.

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

Madam Speaker, I like the member, but, gosh, talk about inventing alternative facts. I lived through the Harper regime. We lived through the terrible financial mismanagement of the Harper regime. We saw $116 billion given to Canada's big banks in liquidity supports because the Harper government just wanted to splurge on the banking sector. That resulted in dividend payments and corporate bonuses.

However, the worst part of the Harper financial mismanagement was the infamous Harper tax haven treaties, which the PBO tells us cost us over $30 billion each and every year. That is why the Harper government was always in deficit, It was massive financial mismanagement. In fact, Conservative financial management is an oxymoron. When the Conservatives have such a lamentable financial management record, how could they possibly give lessons to anybody else?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, likewise, I do respect the member, but he also forgets we were in a global economic crisis, and countries all around the world agreed that they would deficit spend on infrastructure. It was agreed that the taps would open but eventually would close, and that is where the Liberals forget that the story continues. One has to turn off the taps in order to maintain financial strength.

The NDP was the party asking for more spending. By the time 2015 came along, the budget was balanced, the economy was back on track and we were growing as a country economically and politically across the world.

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

Madam Speaker, yes, there is alternate news here all right. Inflation in 2011 was 2.91%. It is now 2.7%. I wanted to also mention that in the summer of 2015, Canada was still technically in recession from the downturn in 2009, and it is simply because the Harper government turned off the taps way too soon. It took until we came along, recovering from the pandemic, when we added over a million jobs and cut the poverty rate and the unemployment rate significantly. Therefore I wonder whether the hon. member could go back and kind of revise his perspective on things.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Harper government started the mechanism that allowed the jobs to be created. The government of the day, when it came in, just benefited from them. What did the government do at the time? It raised taxes. It slowed down the economy. Now what do we have? We have misery. We have tent cities. We have food bank usage that is the highest it has ever been. How can that be a mark for success—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Kitchener South—Hespeler.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand before this House in support of the budget implementation act, 2024, no. 1, which will implement many of our government's key priorities in budget 2024 and fairness for every generation.

All children deserve a fair start in life, yet nearly one in four kids in Canada live in a household with too little income to buy enough to eat, which is impacting their health and their opportunities to learn and grow. That is just not right, so in budget 2024, we proposed a new national school food program that will help ensure children across Canada get the food they need to thrive, regardless of their family circumstances. The children of today are tomorrow's doctors, nurses, electricians, teachers, scientists and small business owners. By supporting them, we lay the groundwork for a brighter tomorrow. Therefore, I urge my hon. colleagues to pass Bill C-69 swiftly, so we can get this program up and running and do right by Canada's kids.

We are proposing to invest $1 billion over five years into the national school food program, which will provide 400,000 more kids across the country every year with food in school. That is 400,000 more kids beyond those currently served by the patchwork of provincial, local and charitable programs that currently exist and which are often under strain due to low resources and high food prices. By working together with provincial, territorial and indigenous partners, we will expand access to school food programs across the country as early as the 2024-25 school year, which is just incredible. For kids, this investment will mean not being hungry at school or missing crucial nutrients from their diet. That is important because studies show that students who consistently consumed a nutritious breakfast and lunch achieved higher grades in reading, math and science compared to their peers.

Meanwhile, for moms, dads, and caregivers across Canada, this investment will mean peace of mind, knowing that their kids are eating healthy meals and are well looked after in school, but also that they do not have to buy unhealthier foods in order to pay rent and other bills on time. Even with inflation easing significantly over the last year, affordability pressures are still causing more Canadian families to face food insecurity, which, frankly, should worry us all. After all, food insecurity is strongly linked to poorer health outcomes, including higher rates of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure, but also higher rates of mental health issues like depression and anxiety. All of this puts a large burden on our already stressed health care system. The national school food program will be a safety net for the parents who need this support the most, including first nations, Inuit and Métis families, many of whom have some of the highest historic rates of food insecurity in Canada. Once up and running, it will save an average participating family with two children as much as $800 per year in grocery costs. That is extra money families can direct toward clothing, toys and books for their kids, as well as groceries and other essential goods.

Further to that point, evidence shows us that school meal programs do not just reduce health inequities for kids, but they also promote sustainable food systems and practices, and create more jobs in both the food service and agriculture sectors, especially for women. This is feminist social policy in action. It is smart economic policy too.

When it comes to helping kids and youth, especially vulnerable kids and youth, we are going to keep going. That is why we have made generational investments like the Canada child benefit, which has helped lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty since its launch in 2016, and provides families with up to nearly $8,000 per child per year to provide the essentials their kids need. It is why we are continuing to deliver an early learning and child care system across all provinces and territories, which has already cut fees for regulated child care to an average of $10 a day or less in eight provinces and territories and by 50% or more in all others.

We are also improving access to dental health care for children under the age of 12 through the Canada dental benefit, and soon for children under 18 with the Canada dental care plan, so that parents do not have to choose between taking care of their kids' teeth and putting food on the table.

To help younger Canadians get the mental health and addiction supports when and where they need it most, we are also launching a new $500-million youth mental health fund. This new fund would help community mental health organizations across the country provide more access to mental health care for younger Canadians in their communities. This is so we can help more kids and youth live happy, healthy, supported and fulfilled lives. Canada's success depends on the success of its youngest generations.

The national school food program is on top of our generational investments to help families make life more affordable across the country. Thanks to this crucial investment, we will be helping families by making sure that kids do not spend the school day hungry and, at the same time, bring peace of mind and relief to parents and caregivers, but we cannot do it alone.

I hope my hon. colleagues will support Bill C-69 and join us in our vision of a Canada where every child and youth has enough food to eat, so they can focus in school and reach their full potential.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's support for the school food program. It is something the NDP has been fighting for and I am really happy to see that, with our pressure, we were able to finally see it in the budget.

Returning to this issue of people living with disabilities and the reality of the deep level of poverty that community is in, the benefit that the Liberals are putting forward is only $200 a month, which absolutely will not bring people out of poverty.

Is the member willing to advocate for persons living with disabilities and push the government to do better?

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know that people living with disabilities are facing financial challenges. However, the $200 a month is a start. It is a place maker. Liberals wanted to get money committed to this in the budget, so that we can build on it going forward.

Right now, we have so many pressing issues to deal with, like housing and food insecurity. It is impossible to help everyone to the extent we would like to all at once. We are focusing on housing and the food program, but we are also focusing on disabilities for now. I know that the $200 is inadequate, but it is a start and we will build on it going forward.

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

Madam Speaker, the government likes to say a lot of pretty words about housing and how housing is so important.

I am curious if the member can let the House know whose idea it was to come up with the catalogue for housing. They put millions of dollars into a catalogue and thought somehow it was going to be a solution to the housing crisis.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member brings up the topic of a catalogue, because I remember a certain Conservative leader who, at one point, thought a catalogue would be an interesting environmental solution.

I have often thought back to the time of World War II housing when we had all the veterans coming back home. They needed to start new families and needed quick, affordable housing. There were ready-made plans.

We still see them in St. Marys in my area. There is a heritage site that has wartime houses. They were very cost effective. They were modest, reasonable starter homes, which is what we need. We do not need big, palatial houses that nobody can afford. We need quick, affordable starter homes and that is what the catalogue, or suggested plans, would accomplish.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. In fact, when I left the forces myself, I lived in one of those wartime houses on Logan Avenue in the north end of Winnipeg.

What we have before us today is a government that is genuinely committed to working with other levels of government to address the housing issue that we face today. The federal government needs to play a leading role, which it is doing.

Would the member agree that co-operating with the different levels of government is far more effective in terms of dealing with the issue of housing than when today's leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for housing? He, in one year, completed six houses.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly do agree. Obviously, a problem of this magnitude requires all levels of government working co-operatively, all hands on deck, on creative solutions. There is excellent potential with modular housing. It can be built off-site year round and be moved into place very quickly. We have many examples of that in my area and it is phenomenal to see how quickly they are built. Even big, amazing hotels can be built in a modular fashion.

We have to think outside the box, get creative and come up with a number of different solutions. We cannot continue to do things with the same methods and processes that have failed us over the last few decades. We have to pick up the pace, and it is going to require all three levels of government working together: municipalities, provinces and the federal government.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to talk about the budget, but specifically firearms. Some might wonder why. There are really some simple points. The NDP-Liberals are spending billions of dollars that will not fix the problem, the NDP-Liberals are making us more unsafe by spending that money and, lastly, something we have all heard before, the NDP-Liberals simply are not worth the cost. Let us get into it.

How are the NDP-Liberals wasting billions of taxpayer dollars? We have what has been spent recently, which I will take right from the estimates. In the supplementary estimates 2024-25, funding for the firearms compensation program to advance a collection of banned firearms is $18,591,385. That is a lot of money. Funding for the collection, validation and destruction of firearms from businesses is another $15,270,047. I was just up in Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk. People are living in squalor there. Their houses are mouldy. They cannot afford to buy things like milk, sugar or coffee. Meanwhile, the government throws millions around like it was chump change. That is what Liberals are spending now.

What are they going to be spending in the near future? Budget 2024 proposes to spend $30.4 million over two years, starting in 2024-25, to Public Safety Canada for the buyback of firearms sourced from existing departmental sources, another $7.4 million over five years starting in 2024-25, with $1.7 million in remaining amortization to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to modernize the Canadian firearms program telephone and case management systems. Recent estimates have been close to $42 million that have been spent or budgeted. Can anyone guess how many firearms have been collected so far? It is zero. Even if some had been collected, buying firearms from law-abiding firearms owners, who are not the problem in the first place, is not going to make the country more safe.

That $42 million is going to pale in comparison to the number that I am going to speak about next. This is what Gary Mauser proposes the Trudeau government's buyback firearms program plan may cost. This is where it gets into the billions—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member knows that he should not be using members' names, but their riding or title.

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

I am sorry, I missed that.

The hon. member does know that, so I would ask him to refrain from doing so.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will rephrase that. The current government buyback firearms program plan may cost up to $6.7 billion. This is what it is estimated to be. We all know that the long gun registry was supposed to cost $2 million, but it ended up costing $2 billion. That $6.7 million, I am sure, will easily double, triple or quadruple by the time the government is all said and done with it.

All the while, the government is spending toward a $40-billion deficit this current fiscal year, not to accomplish one thing, and is going after the wrong people. It is going after Grandpa Joe and his hunting rifle and sport shooting shotgun instead of going after criminals and tackling real crime on city streets in our urban centres. I will also add, which I have said before, that what the government is doing by buying back firearms from law-abiding firearms owners is not making us any safer.

The OIC that was recently announced by the government, dated May 9, 2024, is called “Order Amending the Order Declaring an Amnesty Period”. This is how the government recently enabled Canada Post to be a place that would receive firearms as part of the gun confiscation regime. I will read out what it does specifically. It allows for a person to “deliver the specified firearm or specified device”, it allows an entity to “transport the specified firearm or specified device” and it allows an entity to “possess the specified firearm or specified device”. It is referring to Canada Post, but it is also referring to other carrier companies that can receive firearms and transport them.

One group that is very concerned about what the government is doing with this process is Canada Post. One of our colleagues, the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, recently asked the president and CEO of Canada Post if he was comfortable with the new OIC, just a month ago. In an article that I wrote recently for a firearms magazine, I noted:

Despite Canada Post's objections to serving as a collection point for the NDP/Liberal gun confiscation program and their risk assessment highlighting substantial safety concerns, the Minister of Public Safety recently proposed an amendment...to formalize the process.

Despite the concerns of Canada Post, Canada Post workers and the security of the building, the government is proceeding unsafely forward anyway.

Doug Ettinger, president and chief executive officer of the Canada Post Corporation, was recently asked at committee about potential safety concerns. My colleague from Saskatchewan asked:

Mr. Ettinger, we have seen recent reports in the media that Canada Post is going to have a role in the gun buyback program through the shipping of guns. It's my understanding that Canada Post had previously done a risk assessment of being involved in [the gun buyback] program and found that there were too many risks for Canada Post to be involved in it.

Is Canada Post being pressured to participate in this program, or was there another risk assessment conducted that found there were not as many risks as previously thought?

This was from Mr. Ettinger:

We did an internal safety assessment. We were not comfortable with the process that was being proposed in ongoing discussions over the last few months. Our position is that we're just not comfortable with elevated risk.

We're not set up for it. Our buildings are not set up with security or proper storage. The buildings aren't that secure overall in the way I'd like them to be. This is not in our expertise. This should be best left to those who know how to handle guns, how to dismantle them and how to manage them so that no one gets hurt. It is not something that we're comfortable with at all.

Mr. Ettinger finishes with this:

...our position is clear, based on the approach that was being considered. We're just not comfortable from the elevated risk assessment of that. I would not live with myself if somebody got hurt—it's almost that simple.

We see a government spending Canadians out of house and home, with a $40-billion deficit, while people are struggling to afford their mortgages. I have been through the northern territories many times. People there are struggling to afford heat, to afford food and to put fuel in their vehicles. I was just up in Inuvik. It is $2.73 per litre for diesel up there currently. They bring groceries up to Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk in a big truck that uses diesel. That is not covered and does not get any rebate from the government through the carbon tax.

The whole point of what I am trying to say tonight is that we have a government wasting billions on a program that is not going to make Canadians any safer and actually makes them less safe. All the while, it will be overspending by $40 billion, which we do not have, just this year alone. I did a video once, in 2016, highlighting our level of debt. Overall, in Canada, it was $600 billion. Since that time, the debt has doubled to over $1.2 trillion. In the short amount of time the government has been in power, it has doubled the national debt, and it is because of doing things like this while not solving problems in the first place.

I started off by saying some simple things, and I will finish with this. The NDP-Liberals are spending billions that will not fix the problem. The NDP-Liberals are making us more unsafe while Canadians are going without food, heat or houses. I have said it before and members have heard me say it a lot: The NDP-Liberals are not worth the cost.

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

Madam Speaker, as I have indicated before, when I listen to Conservative speakers, the first thing that comes to my mind is the contrast between the Liberals and the Conservatives. The Liberals, on the one hand, truly care. The Conservatives cut. The Liberals care; the Conservatives do not care.

At the end of the day, why does the Conservative Party, or the Conservative-Reform party, across the way continue to not support our programs, whether it is pharmacare, dental care, the disability program or the child care program; the investments in generational health care supports, with $200 billion over 10 years; and so much more? The Conservatives are preoccupied with cuts. The question is, why?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not think the member asked one question related to my speech. I was talking about firearms and how the government is wasting billions of dollars to take firearms away from law-abiding Canadians while spending money on things that are not fixing problems.

I met a Kevin up in Iqaluit. He is living in absolute squalor in a house there. He has three grandsons he is taking care of. Every window in the house does not work. If the window by the kitchen gets opened, where a lot of kids would, they could fall 15 feet and get badly hurt.

This is after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government. Outcomes are not getting measured. Therefore, houses are not getting built. A lot of money seems to be getting spent, but we are not sure where it is all going. The fact of the matter, to the member across the way, is the government is not getting it done.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I have the same concern as the Liberal MP when it comes to the Conservatives caring for people. When Nunavut had a Conservative MP, that MP was part of the party that made cuts to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, which was leading the way to ensure that indigenous people could get the healing they deserve.

How can anyone trust the Conservatives that they will lead in such a way that helps indigenous peoples?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, interestingly, this is from the member who said to me with her own mouth that if she could, she would shut down every natural resource job in the territory, every single one. She would not develop any natural resources in Nunavut.

Where are the jobs going to come from with this particular member in Nunavut? I am not sure. If the member wants to talk about what is cruel to local folks, it is not providing jobs and opportunities to prosper in that territory.

We saw projects done by the previous Conservative government with the previous member of Parliament. We just saw the Iqaluit port finished.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Please allow the hon. member to answer the question.

The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was there. We got to see the brand new port of Iqaluit open up, which provides great opportunities for the people of Iqaluit and Nunavut. That is from a previous Conservative government, and it has finally been realized. I hope the member supports jobs in her community, and I hope she changes her current position.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech because he really broke down to nuts and bolts what the government is trying to do to hunters and sport shooters.

One thing the Liberals quite often say is that they are going to buy back firearms, but the government never owned the firearms in the first place. I wonder if my friend could just explain to the Liberals that when they do not own firearms in the first place, they cannot buy them back.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is the best question I have had all night. That is why when I speak about this particular gun buyback program, which is the Liberal terminology for it, I call it the gun confiscation program. That is what it is. It is about the confiscation of law-abiding firearms owners' firearms. Ironically, guess who does not turn in their firearms. It is criminals and gang members. We have all the law-abiding folks turning in their legally obtained firearms, and all the illegal firearms, which are causing all the problems in the first place in our inner cities, are still out there. It is wrong-headed.

We have the right plan on this side to get things done and to spend the money where it is going to make a difference. We are going to bring it home.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to speak this evening about the concept of the government's assertion about tax fairness in this budget. I would like to read into the record some facts that push back on the government's assertion that a fairly significant tax increase it has included in this budget is only going to affect a very small number of Canadians.

I am reading from an article in the National Post. When I was putting my notes together for this speech, I thought that it actually summarized it very well, so why reinvent the wheel? This is an article written by Matthew Lau last week, which reads:

In its latest announcement on the capital gains tax increase, the Liberal government presents as a “quick fact” that it’s “increasing capital gains taxes on 0.13 per cent of Canadians, in any given year.” There are three problems with the 0.13 per cent figure. First, it is misleading; second, it is incomplete; and third, it ignores tax incidence, which is the concept that the economic burden of a tax falls on different people—in fact, on very many more people—than simply those who face a higher tax bill.

That concept of tax incidence is something that I encourage colleagues to understand, prior to continuing to vote in favour of this budget, because it will detrimentally impact the Canadian economy. The article goes on:

Let’s take the three problems in order. First, the 0.13 per cent figure is misleading because of the phrase that follows: “in any given year.” The taxpayers who are part of this 0.13 per cent in one year are different than the taxpayers captured in this group in another year. For many Canadians, reporting an annual capital gain in excess of $250,000 is a once-in-a-lifetime event—or an immediately-after-lifetime event if the capital gain threshold is triggered when a deceased person’s assets are liquidated.

What this is saying is that this affects families. It continues:

This means that even if only 0.13 per cent of Canadians pay this higher tax rate every year, a much greater percentage of Canadians will be hit with this tax hike over the course of their lives. [An] Economist...concluded that, “As a share of Canada’s tax filer population, those impacted by the new capital gains proposal on a lifetime basis is 1.26 million or 4.3 per cent of tax filers compared to the budget estimate of 0.13 per cent.”

Second, the 0.13 per cent figure is incomplete because it excludes corporations. As the Liberals estimated in budget 2024, approximately 307,000 corporations (again, in a given year) will be subject to the tax. About 6,000 of these are likely to be publicly traded...so many Canadians will effectively be subject to the higher capital gains tax through their investments, [and through their] pension...assets.

The government does not talk about how this tax increase is going to affect people's investments and particularly their pensions. The government has not adequately costed that or talked about it in its presentation of this tax to Parliament and to the general public.

Then there’s the approximately 301,000 private corporations, many of which have multiple owners, such as partners or family members, so even excluding exposure to publicly traded corporations, many Canadians will be hit by the capital gains tax...through their investments. “Overall,” [an economist] estimates, “4.74 million...investors in Canadian companies will be affected, representing 15.8 per cent of all filers.” Or more than 100 times the Liberals’ stated figure of 0.13 per cent.

Again, I want to emphasize what I said in the earlier part of that statement, which is that a lot of these are family members. These are family-owned corporations of tradespeople. That is why the Leader of the Opposition asked the Liberals to provide an amendment saying that if it is only going to affect 0.13%, then accept an amendment to keep it to that, but we know that they cannot. That is why they will not accept this amendment, because they know these facts, and they are just not telling the Canadian public. They are not being honest. That is not fair.

The article states:

This brings us, thirdly, to the concept of tax incidence, of which students will learn in a good economics class but which the Liberal government would like us all to ignore. A well-known example: on paper, corporate income taxes are paid by shareholders, but in reality the economic burden of the tax falls largely on workers in the form of lower wages. Corporate income taxes discourage investment, thus reducing labour productivity and the number of businesses bidding for labour.

The article continues:

No differently, the Liberal government’s capital gains tax discourages business investment and will have negative effects on workers...beyond those who earn high amounts of capital gains in [any] given year. Business investment has already fallen in alarming fashion since the Liberals took office: from 2015-Q3 to 2024-Q1, real per capita investment is down 13.9 per cent. A capital gains tax hike that distorts investors’ decisions to favour present-day consumption over long-term investment will make this trend even worse.

The incidence of the Liberals’ capital gains tax hike will fall on all of us, not just the 15.8 per cent...who are directly affected, or the “0.13 per cent of Canadians, in any given year” that the Liberals claim. For ordinary Canadians, learning about tax incidence for two hours could be a profitable and amusing activity; being whacked by a capital gains tax that the Liberals say will only affect the super-rich [but affects all of us], not so much.

The other point that has been made by economists and by any business person is that the brisk implementation of the hike guarantees that it will enforce Canadian investors to shed assets in a hurry to take advantage of the existing lower rate, but revenue will decline over time. While we know the Liberals are facing potential credit downgrades because of the incredible amount of debt they have incurred on the Canadian people and because of the incredible deficit they once again racked up this year, they are looking for a way to prevent that credit downgrade. They are looking for an easy cash grab.

One never wants to be in a position as a person where one is looking for a quick way to make money. That is where poor decisions are made. There are all sorts of crass examples I could give of that. Why would I not do that? This is like the equivalent of selling feet pictures for the Liberals. That is what the capital gains tax is. It is a quick cash grab to try to prevent Canada from having its credit downgraded.

This would all be bad enough if it was not for the finance minister, who I honestly do not know how she has her job. I am sure she is liked in the caucus. I do not have anything personally against her, but she is clearly incompetent. How the Liberal backbench allowed her to present a budget that was this unbalanced, with this in it, and to keep her job is beyond me. This is so irresponsible. What the finance minister said in announcing this should give all colleagues in this place pause for thought. Her comments were described in a major Canadian newspaper as, “[the finance minister's] remarks seem like naked class warfare in a miserably thin guise of technical fairness.”

The government has spent billions and billions of dollars. Are we in trillions now? It has spent so much money, and I do not think there is a single Canadian who can look at their life in terms of being able to buy groceries, to afford rent, to look at buying a house, to take a vacation or to look that long-term prosperity, and certainly not young Canadians, and who can say that they are better off now than they were nine years ago.

We have spent all of this money, essentially in peacetime, and the last few years are not pandemic time. There is no reason for this deficit this year. If the government has spent all this money in this short period of time and Canadians have nothing to show for it, then why are we still allowing the government to use spending as a metric?

Government members say that they are creating tax fairness, but they are just increasing taxes to make life more unaffordable and to create less investment for our country. As parliamentarians, we cannot allow them to do this. We have to hold them to account on this. I understand that there are different schools of political thought in this place about what the government should spend on and what it should not, but none of us, regardless of political stripe, should allow a government to spend without outcome, which is exactly what the government has done.

When we think about all of the waste, we have only scratched the tip of the iceberg on the scandal of the government's waste. We should never be listening to the government about trying to take more of Canadians' hard-earned money to let it go into the abyss. We have to stop it. I implore colleagues of all political stripes to vote against this budget. It is bad. The government needs to go back to the drawing board. Certainly, this measure it has put in there is not tax fairness; it is decimation for the Canadian people.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member's comments give rise to that old saying that we can put all the accountants end to end, and they will never reach a conclusion. I wanted to quote a few things from the International Monetary Fund and get the hon member's reaction to that. It says, “Canada's fiscal track record continues to compare favourably to many other advanced economies.... Debt remains low in international comparison”. It also says, “The increase in the capital gains inclusion rate improves the tax system's neutrality with respect to different forms of capital income and is likely to have no significant impact on investment or productivity growth.”

That does not suggest that things are going to go to hell in a handbasket. I am just wondering, with what the hon. member has read and with what I have just mentioned, if there is some kind of disconnect that she could explain.

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

Madam Speaker, I would argue humbly that the member is disconnected. If he goes and knocks on the doors in his riding, there is nobody who is going to accept what he just said because the lived reality of Canadians is not one of prosperity; it is one of hardship right now, and it is one of lack of hope for the future. That is what disconnect looks like.

Also, there are so many other metrics where the member is just flat out wrong. Canada is on a track for its worst decline in living standards in 40 years. Before the current Prime Minister, Canada's GDP grew at a rate similar to that of the United States, but since 2015, the economy has weakened significantly. Canada's GDP per capita is down 2%, while the United States' has increased by 8%.

I could go on and on, but I do not need to quote this plethora of economic statistics that validate my point. I just have to go door knock in my riding. That is all I have to do, and I encourage the member to do the same because I think he is going to find that he is in for a reckoning come the next election.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, since I was elected, I have noticed the Conservatives punching down, on seniors for example. They are talking about cutting CPP. In fact, I was a long-time schoolteacher, and one issue under the Harper government was that kids were going to school hungry, so I, as a teacher, paid out of my own pocket for food. What do the Conservatives do? They vote against the school food meal program and then make a whole bunch of excuses about why they do not support it, even though it is supported by advocates across the country. The Conservatives built no affordable housing during the time they were in. They come up with these slogans that totally axe the facts on a constant basis, which are certainly not based on the facts. They put down academic institutions. They have something against research. I am wondering what the member thinks about her party's record of axing the facts.

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

Madam Speaker, the fact on food bank usage and people not being able to eat is that under the current government, food bank usage has skyrocketed. Not as many children needed to use food banks in 2015 as they do today. In fact, that number is astronomically higher. With regard to homes and affordable housing, everybody's rent has doubled. Nobody can afford a home anymore, and that has happened under the current government. With regard to seniors, the opposition leader cited an example of a low-income senior who wanted to hive off a part of her property for her children. She now has to pay this tax that she cannot afford. I do not understand why the New Democrats, if they are proponents of helping people who are disadvantaged, would continue to support a government that is corrupt and that has never delivered on anything. I think voters will remember that in the next election.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say to my hon. colleague that another example might be that we have seen young professionals, as I have read in news stories, are leaving the country in significant numbers because they cannot deal with this taxing regime any longer. Would the member like to comment on another example of the outcome of the government's policy?

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

Madam Speaker, I want a country where people do not feel like they have to leave it to get ahead, yet that is exactly what the government has done. Regarding this tax, primary care doctors, when we are in a primary care doctor shortage, are saying that they cannot stay in this country because of it. This has to end, and I implore my NDP colleagues to stop propping the government up.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, to my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, those were great remarks that really reflect what, if people are at the doors talking to individuals, they will recognize as being an issue. It boils down to the fact that Canadians have lost hope and they feel like they are drowning, and there are a number of factors that contribute to that.

One of the things I have noticed about the government over the last number of years since the Liberals have been in power is that it loves to talk a great game. It is amazing the number of promises the Liberals continue to promise to deliver on that they do not actually deliver on. It is all summed up in an article that was in the paper in April 2016. It was titled “'Deliverology' guru schools Trudeau government for 2nd time at cabinet retreat”. I am guessing that he or she was there for a second time because they were having a hard time delivering the results, although it is pretty easy to make promises.

One of the things that concerns me about the government is not just the spending. The member for Calgary Nose Hill laid that out very well in terms of the constant spending, and there have been other members in the House who have talked about the spending. However, one of the challenges is that the government continues to make promises that it has no intention of keeping, no intention of delivering or no idea how they are going to begin. I can give hundreds of examples, and I am going to give a couple of examples tonight during my speech.

One of the members of the Liberal Party spoke earlier. We are in a housing crisis, so the Liberals talk quite a bit about their commitment to build 3.9 million homes over the next seven years. We can hear this number, and they talk about it all the time. They talk about all this money that they are contributing to the cause, yet we are not seeing any results. I know that we have had colleagues ask the question, and I want to break down the numbers for people at home, just to realize how absurd this number is.

On building 3.9 million homes by 2031, that is seven years away. That is almost 560,000 homes a year, which works out to over 46,000 homes a month, over 10,000 homes a week, over 1,500 homes per day and over 63 homes per hour. Therefore, we are looking at pretty much a home needing to be built every minute in this country.

When we look at what the current building situation is in this country, we see that this past year, we only built 240,000 homes, and part of the reason for that is the whole issue of red tape and regulations, and the fact remains that there is really no plan. Once again, there is a promise for what we would like to see happen. That is what the Liberal government does often times. The Liberals talk about what they promise or what they would like to do or what they would love to see happen. I am going to make my point tonight that the government is completely incompetent and does not have any idea how it is going to deliver any of the things that it actually promises individuals.

To help them try to deliver this stuff, the Liberals do spend a lot of money on consultants. That has been a theme here in the House over the last little while. We see that there was over $15 billion spent in 2021-2022. We see the McKinsey situation. Originally, we thought that the company had been given $100 million in contracts. It turns out that number is actually $200 million in contracts. We have seen the size of the bureaucracy increase by almost 40% since the time we were in government.

It was interesting that, right after COVID, people were going to get their passports renewed, and we remember the challenges they were having. They were waiting for hours and hours. We thought, okay, the government is hiring more people to help make this happen. In talking to my constituents, I have to say that the service is actually as bad as it was back then. I talked to someone the other day who went in for a passport and they waited for over three hours. Let us think about that. We are not in post-COVID times. We have a bureaucracy that is 40% larger than when we were in government, yet the government has no ability or competence whatsoever to deliver those things. We have not seen services improve at all.

As a matter of fact, government regulations is the other side of that coin. The reason we cannot build homes is that government regulations are pretty tough at all levels. I am not going to say that is just at the federal level, as they are certainly tough provincially and municipally as well. Some people are not so lucky as I am. I come from an area in Niagara where we actually have four levels of government. We have a regional level of government that adds a layer of complexity to that. CFIB said that it costs small business owners nearly $40 billion a year for them to deal with regulations. CFIB representatives also said that probably 30% of that $40 billion a year is unnecessary, redundant and overly burdensome regulation.

That leads me into talking about small business. I think that the government's record has been horrendous on small businesses. As a matter of fact, I think small businesses are being crushed under the government. I think that if we go back to COVID and see some of the unfair restrictions that happened with restaurants and the hospitality industry, those hangovers remain. We look at it right now in terms of large multinationals, global consulting firms and billion-dollar companies, which have never had it so good under the government. I mean, they are laughing. Their pockets are stuffed with cash, but small businesses continue to get crushed.

I had a chance to talk to an individual restauranteur in my riding. I was at an event in Grimsby, Ontario, on Friday, and I had a chance to talk to Mark. Mark owns a couple of restaurants. I asked him how he has been doing since COVID. I asked him if he has been able to rebound since COVID. He said, “As a matter of fact, I am still killed. I am still crushed. I am struggling to make the bills. I am struggling to be able to maintain what is happening. I had to try to sell one of my other restaurants because of the issues there.”

He is not unique. If one goes to Restaurants Canada, it will tell members that almost 42% of businesses went insolvent. The number is around 41% for businesses in general. When one adds in restaurants, that number goes up to literally 44%. The year before, coming out of COVID last year, we saw that only half of restaurants were losing money. That number, currently, this year, is probably up to 62%. When the government says to us that we have never had it so good, I would challenge that, and I would ask members to go to talk to a small business person to see if they actually feel the same way.

One of the challenges is that people are losing hope. They are losing faith. Once again, the member for Calgary Nose Hill did mention the fact, and one of the questions mentioned this, that people are leaving this country in record numbers. We are seeing that all the time because people are trying to go to places where maybe they would have some hope. I think that is the sad part. We have a great country. I just think it is tremendously mismanaged.

When I think about what is going on right now, I could stand here all night and just talk about the mismanagement. I just want to give members a couple highlights. I look at the most recent Auditor General report. It said that there were over 180 conflicts when looking at contracts, 186 times there were conflicts of interest. The Treasury Board said that there were over 160 conflicts when it came to dealing with consultants and contractors. That is for the people that self-disclosed. Imagine the people who did not mention it. It was 163 times.

Blacklock’s Reporter does a great job. I encourage people to have a look at its news organization. It is a subscription, but it has great information. It came up with a story. This was done with some OPQs. We were able to figure this out. There were a couple of sole source contracts during COVID. We do not have to go back too far. We see a sole source contract for StarFish, which had new ventilators and was given $170 million. Some of them were scrapped even while the pandemic was going on. Others were sold for as little as $6. We certainly will never forget the juicy contract that Frank Baylis, a one-term MP here, got for ventilators for $237 million.

These are the things that I think really frustrate people. This is what we are talking about. We are talking about a government that has a spending problem, and I think we have a government that is absolutely incompetent when it comes to being able to deliver the things it talks about.

I would love to talk a bit about the Winnipeg lab story. It is kind of ironic. It is sad that we had a couple of scientists that were actually getting packages from Amazon. They were getting stuff from China, and they were sending stuff back. That is unbelievable. The government then covered it up. That is absolutely insane. It did not want to realize how incompetent it was. We also found out they were working for the Chinese military.

Once again, there are many things I could go on about. One thing I will tell members is that the government is just not worth the cost. When we get a chance, we are going to give people hope, give people faith and give people a chance to have a better life once again.

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

Madam Speaker, the member said that he is going to give people a chance to have hope, yet he is going to cut back on issues that people genuinely care about, such as seniors receiving dental care services and the pharmacare program being rolled out. Imagine the individuals with diabetes. Think of the school food program. The Conservatives are going to cut that away. There are so many things they are going to cut.

My question for the member is this: Why do the Conservatives not recognize the need to be fair? Why are they opposing the capital gains tax? They voted against the 1% tax hike for—

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

I have to give the hon. member a few seconds to answer.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, do members know who is going to be upset when we form government? It will be Liberal insiders. They are going to be so disappointed because they will not be getting those fat, juicy contracts where there is no value for service and where things do not get delivered. The government had a sole-source contract for a quarter billion dollars, and then it scrapped the machines and did not even use them. What a joke.

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

It being 10:36 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 31.

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.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, we would like a recorded division.

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

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 32. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 33.

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.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, we need another recorded vote.

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

The recorded division on Motion No. 32 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 34.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 35 to 37.

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know the member opposite was about to ask for a recorded vote. If not, I will.

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

The recorded division on Motion No. 34 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 38.

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.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, but you can apply this result to the next 14 that you are about to read.

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

The recorded division on Motion No. 38 stands deferred.

Following the hon. member for Simcoe North's request, the votes on Motion Nos. 42 to 154 will be deferred until tomorrow.

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 18, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not believe there was unanimous consent to lump all the votes together and defer them. We will need to take them one at a time and confirm whether any members in the House wish to have a recorded division. We need to complete that process.

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

The hon. member is correct. We did not receive the email confirming unanimous consent prior to 6.30 p.m., so we have to go back to moving the motions.

The next question is on Motion No. 39. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 40 and 41.

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.

[An hon. member]

Madam Speaker, we would ask for a recorded division.

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

The recorded division stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 42. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 43.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask for a recorded vote.

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

The recorded division stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 44. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 45.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, it would be in the best interests of all members of the House if we had a recorded vote.

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

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 46. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 47 and 48.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to add my voice again to request a recorded vote on that important amendment.

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

The recorded division on Motion No. 46 stands deferred.

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

The question is on Motion No. 49. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 50 to 78.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, it would be best if we had a recorded vote on that.

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

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 79.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 80 to 129.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I apologize for my passion on this tonight, but I would request a recorded vote on that item as well.

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

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 130. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 131 to 141.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to request a recorded vote on that one as well.

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

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 142. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 143 to 145.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I know both the mover and the seconder would want a recorded vote on their amendment.

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

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 146. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 147.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, since so many Canadians are engaged in following the budget and the upcoming vote, I would ask for a recorded vote on that amendment, please.

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

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 148. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 149 to 153.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, after nine years, we believe we need some more common sense, and common sense would say that we need a recorded vote on that amendment.

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

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 154. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 155 to 161.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to assure you I am not doing this to try to beat the word count in the House of Commons of the member for Winnipeg North today, but I will request a recorded vote on that amendment as well.

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

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded divisions stand further deferred until Tuesday, June 18, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from June 17 consideration of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:20 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C‑69.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 31.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #831

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 to 31 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 32.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 33.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with the Liberal members voting nay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting yea.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against this motion.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is the birthday of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, so I would like to say that, in his honour, we accept to apply the vote and we will be voting no.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Greens agree to apply the vote, and we will be voting against.

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 32, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #832

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I declare Motion No. 32 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 33 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 34. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 35 to 37.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement from all parties to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with the Liberal members voting nay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting yea.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against this motion.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party of Canada will agree to apply the vote, and we will be voting no.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against this motion.

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 34, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #833

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I declare Motion No. 34 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 35 to 37 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 38.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement among the parties to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting nay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote. Conservative members will be voting in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against the motion.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote, and we will be voting no.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Greens agree to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 38, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #834

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I declare Motion No. 38 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 39. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 40 and 41.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting no.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives do agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting yea.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against the motion.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party agrees to apply the vote, and we will be voting no.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the result of the previous vote and is voting against the motion.

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 39, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #835

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare Motion No. 39 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 40 and 41 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 42. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 43.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting nay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote. Conservative members will be voting in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour of the motion.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote, and we will be voting no.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Greens agree to apply the vote, and we will be voting no.

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 42, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #836

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare Motion No. 42 defeated. Therefore, I declare Motion No. 43 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 44. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 45.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to this one, with Liberal members voting nay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the votes, with Conservatives voting yea.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

The New Democratic Party of Canada agrees to apply the vote and will be voting no.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting against.

(The House divided on Motion No. 44, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #837

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare Motion No. 44 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 45 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 46. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 47 and 48.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting no.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will be voting no.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Greens agree to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting against.

(The House divided on Motion No. 46, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #838

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare Motion No. 46 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 47 and 48 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 49. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 50 to 78.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that, if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this one, with Liberals voting no.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives do indeed agree to apply the vote, with all Conservatives voting yea.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote, and we will be voting no.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting in favour.

(The House divided on the Motion No. 49, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #839

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare Motion No. 49 defeated. Therefore, I declare Motions Nos. 50 to 78 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 79. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 80 to 129.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that, if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this one with Liberal members voting nay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote, and we will be voting no.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Greens again agree to apply the vote and will be voting no.

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting against.

(The House divided on the Motion No. 79, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #840

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare Motion No. 79 defeated and therefore declare Motions Nos. 80 to 129 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 130.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 131 to 141.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that, if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to this one, with Liberals voting against.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting yea.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will be voting no.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party again agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting against.

(The House divided on Motion No. 130, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #841

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare Motion No. 130 negatived.

I therefore declare Motions Nos. 131 to 141 negatived.

The question is on Motion No. 142. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 143 to 145.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that, if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberals voting nay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party of Canada agrees to apply the vote, and we will be voting no.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Greens again agree to apply the vote, and we will be voting nay.

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting against.

(The House divided on the Motion No. 142, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #842

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare Motion No. 142 defeated. Therefore, I declare Motions Nos. 143 to 145 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 146. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 147.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that, if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberals voting nay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting yea.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote, and we will be voting no.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, the Greens agree to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting against.

(The House divided on Motion No. 146, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #843

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare Motion No. 146 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 147 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 148. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 149 to 153.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know everyone is anticipating what I am about to say, so I believe that, if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting nay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote, and we will be voting no.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Greens again agree to apply the vote, and we will be voting nay.

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting in favour.

(La motion n^o 148, mise aux voix, est rejetée par le vote suivant:)

Vote #844

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare Motion No. 148 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 149 to 153 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 154. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 155 to 163.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that, if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting nay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives do agree to apply this vote. However, Conservatives will be voting yea.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote, and we will be voting no.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Greens again agree to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting against.

(The House divided on Motion No. 154, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #845

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare Motion No. 154 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 155 to 161 defeated.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yea.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote and will be voting no.

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

The Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members have agreed to apply the vote.

Because it is the last vote, I will just very quickly say, “Go Oilers”.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Greens agree to apply the vote, and we will be voting yes.

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting against.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #846

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

When shall this bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.