Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to very specifically speak to the part of the motion asking for the finance minister, our Deputy Prime Minister, to appear before the committee for a full two-hour meeting and, in particular, to why I think that's very important for the sake of ministerial accountability.
I certainly don't have the amount of experience of my colleague Ms. Dzerowicz; I don't have four years of service under my belt yet. I've been here for less than two months. I think it would be fair to observe that it is very hard to get a straight answer out of a lot of the ministers in this government in the House of Commons. You sit there, and for 35 seconds you have a chance to ask a question, and then for the next 35 seconds you rarely get an answer to the question that you've asked. It's a pretty consistent theme. In fact, it happened for an entire hour today. The idea that it is important for the finance minister, our Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, to appear before this committee for a full meeting and answer questions presents hope and opportunity that perhaps we can get some questions answered about this budget.
I find it interesting that for weeks now, we have seen the Deputy Prime Minister and this Liberal government run around the country claiming that this budget is achieving generational fairness. It's been emphasized over and over again, with them pleading to millennials and gen z that somehow this budget is a magic recipe for fairness for a generation failed by this government for nine years. I think there are some deserving questions coming out of that.
For example, how exactly is a high-deficit budget good for young Canadians? It just amounts to kicking the can down the road, with young people paying the bill for the Liberal government's current expensive photo ops and high-priced broken promises. I don't know how anyone would call that generational fairness. Then there's the fact that the budget continues to make promises about affordable housing for young people after nine years of those very same promises leading us nowhere but to double mortgage payments and double rental payments.
There is an opportunity for a two-hour meeting where the Deputy Prime Minister may have to answer questions about this, and it seems like that would be in the best interests of Canada. It seems to me that Canadians deserve that, at least. If you're going to make these bold, lofty promises despite all the evidence to the contrary, there may be some ministerial accountability built into that.
However, there are more reasons for the Deputy Prime Minister to appear and answer questions before this committee. This budget continues to push a regressive carbon tax onto the Canadian people, and let me be very clear when I say that. This is absolutely a regressive tax from a supposedly progressive government. The Liberal carbon tax continues to punish hard-working families by making life more expensive. Gas, food and everything that a person needs to survive and thrive in this country are becoming more expensive.
I appreciate that Deputy Prime Minister Freeland may not fully understand how much this hurts hard-working families. After all, it was only recently that she suggested a solution to the cost of living crisis would be that everyone just adopt her lifestyle of taking bicycles and public transit everywhere. Well, most people don't live in downtown Toronto. In fact, most families in this country need a car to get to work or school and function in a basic manner. It is very clear that a tax that punishes those very necessary activities can be considered nothing but regressive, and the Deputy Prime Minister should answer questions about that.
Why would a government that claims to be progressive and makes a big show and dance in the House of Commons all the time about caring for young people be hitching its wagon to a regressive policy that, in fact, punishes working-class and middle-class families? To put into perspective what the continued carbon tax in this budget is doing to people in this country, I would like to draw attention to the 2023 report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which details that the carbon tax will cost the average Ontario family $592 this coming summer alone from Victoria Day to Labour Day.
Again, I think many Canadians may be concerned that the Deputy Prime Minister Freeland does not appreciate how much money this means to most families, but the reality is that it means a lot. This is an issue that deserves a fulsome conversation and a full meeting at which the finance minister answers questions from the finance committee.
The Liberal elite bubble in Ottawa may not appreciate $592 over the summer, maybe because the leader of the party lives off a trust fund. I don't know. Maybe for him it's pocket money; he finds that in the middle of his couch, perhaps. However, to most Canadians, it's a pretty big deal. It could be the difference between being able to pay their bills in a given month or over the course of the entire summer and perhaps going into debt.
Last summer, the insolvency firm MNP LTD conducted a survey of Canadians, and most Canadians who responded to that survey—52%—said they are $200 or less away from not being able to pay their bills at the end of the month due to higher interest rates and a rising cost of living. Those statistics come from Canadians who completed the MNP survey, not from billionaires like Warren Buffett or friends of the Liberal Party with Ph.D.s who the Liberal Party likes to cite as evidence that their carbon tax economy is good for the Canadian people. Unsurprisingly, the Canadian people have a very different perspective on the economy than Warren Buffett does.
If most Canadians say that they are less than $200 away from not being able to pay their bills every month, the cost of the carbon tax this summer—$592—is actually a big deal. For that majority of Canadians, $592 could help pay their bills for two or three months. The carbon tax is just taking money away from Canadians this summer and is having real-world consequences that the Deputy Prime Minister Freeland should address before this committee.
While I'm here and have the chance to speak, I'd also like to draw attention to some local issues. My home community of Durham is home to many families that feel the economic pressure the Deputy Prime Minister Freeland has created with inflationary spending and a regressive carbon tax. According to Durham region's health department, 16.4% of households in the Durham region are considered food insecure. In short, that means over 16% of households in the Durham region report they are worried that the food they have in their house will run out, that they will have to compromise on the type or the amount of food they eat, or that they will have to skip meals. This is a very real problem attributable to both food inflation and the rising cost of basic living.
I must say that it is a real shame that the Liberal MP for Whitby, my neighbour to the west, continues to downplay this problem. Ryan Turnbull, the Liberal MP for Whitby—I'm sorry; I have to pause as I shudder—is the parliamentary secretary for the Deputy Prime Minister Freeland, and I have seen him personally over the last few weeks stand in the House of Commons and paint a false picture of the very serious economic problems impacting Canada, the Durham region and Whitby in particular.
This is relevant because Mr. Turnbull has put forward a way of measuring success and progress in the economy that the Deputy Prime Minister Freeland should probably answer to. Let me provide some examples.
Two weeks ago, the Liberal MP for Whitby, Mr. Turnbull—the Deputy Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary—stood in the House and cited Warren Buffett to explain that the Liberal carbon tax economy is going great. He said that Warren Buffett is not uncomfortable “putting [his] money into Canada”, quoting the American billionaire as if that's evidence that the government's inflationary spending is good for Canadians. Mr. Turnbull may believe that the measure of a healthy economy is Warren Buffett's point of view—