Debates of April 10th, 2019

Question No. 2273

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

With regard to the large white elm tree that is located near the southeast corner of the Centre Block of Parliament: (a) when does Public Services and Procurement Canada plan to cut it down; (b) when does Public Services and Procurement Canada plan to begin excavation or other operations that it believes necessitate the removal of the tree; (c) when was the decision made to cut it down; (d) when was the decision to cut it down announced publicly; (e) by what method was the decision to cut it down announced publicly; (f) what are the details of the public announcement made by Public Services and Procurement Canada respecting the decision to cut it down, including additional information that was made publicly available in support of the announcement; (g) what information informed the recommendation to cut it down, including the titles, authors, publications or applicable media, publishing dates, and applicable Internet addresses of all reports or other documents used to prepare the recommendation; (h) what analysis was done respecting the possibility of maintaining and protecting the tree during the excavation and other operations related to the Centre Block Rehabilitation Program and phase 2 of the Visitors’ Welcome Centre complex, including the titles, authors, publications or applicable media, publishing dates, and applicable Internet addresses of all reports or other documents used in the analysis; (i) was the Minister of Public Services and Procurement consulted on the decision to cut it down; (j) did the Minister of Public Services and Procurement authorize the decision to cut it down or, if not the Minister, who authorized the final decision to cut it down; (k) what are the details of the public consultation process that preceded the decision to cut it down, including time range, available methods of public input, public meetings held, attendance of public meetings, documents provided to the public, and advertising and public notice of the consultation process; (l) what are the details of the Parliamentary consultation process initiated by the Minister that preceded the decision to cut it down, including time range, available methods of Parliamentarian input, meetings held with Parliamentarians, documents provided to Parliamentarians, and advertising and notice to Parliamentarians of the consultation process; (m) what are the details of all meetings and communications respecting the tree since October 20, 2015, including dates, times, locations or methods, and participants, that occurred between the Greenspace Alliance of Canada's Capital and (i) the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, (ii) exempt staff in the Office of the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, (iii) employees of Public Services and Procurement Canada; (n) what are the projected costs of cutting it down, extricating the root system, and removing the resulting debris from the Parliamentary Precinct; (o) what are the projected costs of the planned carvings of the tree to be procured from the Dominion sculptor; (p) what is the name and firm, if applicable, of the arborist hired by Public Services and Procurement Canada to inspect and report on the tree; (q) when did the arborist hired by Public Services and Procurement Canada to inspect and report on the tree deliver the report to Public Services and Procurement Canada; (r) is the arborist’s report delivered to Public Services and Procurement Canada available on a public Internet site, and, if so, what is the Internet address at which the report is available; (s) what are the details of the arborist’s report on the tree that was delivered to Public Services and Procurement Canada, including (i) figures or estimates respecting the tree’s age, (ii) general health and condition, (iii) arboreal disease status, (iv) life expectancy, (v) response to past or ongoing treatment for arboreal disease, (vi) resilience against future arboreal disease, (vii) resilience against close-proximity construction or excavation, (viii) structural integrity, (ix) present, future, and contingent maintenance and care requirements; (t) what information is held by Public Services and Procurement Canada with respect to treatment provided to the tree for arboreal diseases; and (u) what information, not held by Public Services and Procurement Canada, was provided to or consulted by the department with respect to treatment provided to the tree for arboreal diseases?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Statements by Minister of National Revenue

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege concerning misleading comments made to the House of Commons by the Minister of National Revenue.

On December 13, 2018, the minister told the House that the Canada Revenue Agency “hired 1,300 new auditors”. Again, on February 5, 2019, the minister said, “we hired 1,300 new auditors”. This weekend, Quebec newspapers reported that these numbers were wrong and erroneous.

Le Journal de Montréal reported in an article entitled “Elle répète des chiffres erronés depuis cinq mois” that the real figure is 192 new auditors. That is about one-seventh of what the minister claimed to be the truth. Since January 1, 2016, the number of auditors has increased from 6,265 to 6,457.

Page 85 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, describes the three-part test that must be met to establish that the House has been misled. First, it must be proven that the statement was misleading.

Ted Gallivan, deputy commissioner of Revenue Canada, told the newspaper that auditors were replaced as they retired or moved to other jobs. The minister tries to take credit for replacement hiring as so-called new auditors. Le Journal reported that:

Mr. Gallivan even admitted that, unlike [the Minister], he does not use the figure of 1,000 when praising the work of his department.

The minister's spin is, simply put, false.

The second arm of the three-part test is that it must be established that the member making the statement knew it to be misleading.

When called out on her misleading claims by an intrepid journalist, the minister and her office tried to backtrack. According to Le Journal:

The Minister's staff repeatedly told the Journal de Montréal that the Minister was too busy to grant an interview. In response to very specific written questions, her communications director sent us a short statement in which, lo and behold, the reference to “new” auditors had vanished.

She was caught and she backed down. The original statements were not simply some slip of the tongue, or this newest statement a slip of the fingers on a keyboard.

The newspaper reminded its readers that:

The woman who was appointed minister by the [Prime Minister] in late 2015 has been repeating this statement to anyone who cares to hear it since November.

The article goes on to provide a list of occasions in the House, at the finance committee, at press conferences and in written statements where the minister made her claim of new auditors. You can infer, Mr. Speaker, that the minister, confronted by the real facts, is tacitly acknowledging that her claims were misleading.

Finally, the third test laid out in Bosc and Gagnon is that the statements must have been made with the intention of misleading the House.

The comments I quoted earlier were made during question period. A plain reading of the situation is that they were obviously meant to deflect and parry opposition charges against the Liberal government's failures to take tax evasion seriously. The minister's comments were meant to contain the political damage of her lacklustre efforts to address tax evasion and the Liberal government's reluctance to crack down on the well-connected with deep pockets. However, it is not just members who were misled. It is indeed all Canadians.

The article quotes Toby Sanger, the executive director of Canadians for Tax Fairness, who said:

When the Minister spoke about more than 1,300 new auditors, I definitely thought that the number of positions had increased by that amount. I feel that I was completely deceived by the Minister...

Mr. Sanger is not alone. The minister has been trying to fool all Canadians but it has not worked.

In closing, I want to add a comment about how this satisfies the requirement for a question of privilege to be raised in a timely manner. As you can tell, Mr. Speaker, my first language is English. I do not sit for a Quebec constituency, so I do not routinely follow Quebec media in real time every weekend. This news, however, has come to my attention upon my return to Ottawa this week for the sittings of the House.

With that said, if you find a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope for raising his question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. I listened with great interest to the member's question of privilege. We will probably come back to the House a bit later to add some additional material.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby for the notice.

Bill C-97—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that Bill C-97 is an omnibus bill as defined under Standing Order 69.1.

My NDP colleagues and I are deeply concerned at the current government's reliance on omnibus bills to ram its priorities through in this place and to attempt to conceal measures from Canadians. We firmly believe that this practice is inherently undemocratic. Therefore, we request that you intervene.

Standing Order 69.1 states:

(1) In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

Page 730 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

In general, an omnibus bill seeks to amend, repeal or enact several Acts, and is characterized by the fact that it is made up of a number of related but separate initiatives.

To render an omnibus bill intelligible for parliamentary purposes, the Speakers have previously ruled that such a bill should have “one basic principle or purpose which ties together all the proposed enactments”.

Given this definition, it is plainly obvious to me that Bill C-97, with over 350 pages and several stand-alone pieces of legislation, is an omnibus bill. I strongly believe that Canadians at home would agree. I would imagine they would also like us, as their representatives in this place, to properly study and debate these separate pieces of legislation as such.

However, it is clear that the Liberals are once again using the loophole they added to the Standing Orders to include many unrelated measures. That would be Standing Order 69.1(2), which states:

The present Standing Order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.

While we have had limited time to sort through this mess of a budget implementation act, we have already found several provisions contained in Bill C-97 that were not announced on March 19.

First, subdivision B of division 9 of part 4 amends the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act. Second, subdivision D of division 9 of part 4 amends the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act. Third, subdivision E of division 9 of part 4 amends the Precious Metals Making Act. Fourth, subdivision F of division 9 of part 4 amends the Textile Labelling Act. Fifth, subdivision G of division 9 of part 4 amends the Weights and Measures Act. Sixth, subdivision J of division 9 of part 4 amends the Pest Control Products Act. Seventh, subdivision K of division 9 of part 4 repeals provisions of the Quarantine Act. Eighth, subdivision L of division 9 of part 4 repeals provisions of the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act.

Additionally, I am simply disheartened by the Liberal government's attempt to hide within the budget bill implementation act two pieces of stand-alone legislation that will significantly transform the Canadian immigration system.

First, in part 4, division 15, sections 292 to 302 would create the college of immigration and citizenship consultants act. As you know, this issue was studied by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which produced the only unanimously supported report in that committee of this Parliament. It called for urgent action and was concurred in on December 4, 2017, in this House.

The government response to that study was presented to the House in October 2017, wherein the minister stated, “The Government expects to be able to provide more information on the way forward next year.” The minister missed his own self-imposed deadline and is now forced to hide these changes within the budget implementation act. Given the significance of this stand-alone piece of legislation, my colleagues and I strongly believe that this 45-page act must be separated out of Bill C-97 so it can be debated, studied, amended and voted on as the separate legislation that it is.

Second, and even more alarming, is the Liberal government's attempt to hide its efforts to shut down the Canadian border to asylum seekers in the midst of a global refugee crisis. In part 4, division 16, clauses 302 to 311 would make dramatic changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These changes would render ineligible potentially thousands of individuals seeking asylum from even having their claims heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board.

There is an ongoing court case challenging the constitutionality of the safe third country agreement and it appears that the government is looking to legislate around this lawsuit, expanding the agreement to include countries that Canada has an information sharing agreement with and codifying it into the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I will quote a refugee lawyer who has contacted me already on these changes. He stated, “The substance here is disappointing, but the fact that such significant change is being introduced this way, without consultation, without notice, is what's even worse. At least Harper and Jason Kenney (and this is something straight out of their kitchen) would have had the courage to stand behind this.”

This would be a grave injustice to some of the most vulnerable groups in the world and an abdication of our duty under international law to simply slide this legislation through in Bill C-97. We, as parliamentarians, have a duty to separate out this piece of legislation from Bill C-97 so that its impacts can be truly examined and debated in this place. We must have the opportunity to debate in this place whether this is truly a direction the Canadian government wants to take.

By throwing in elements that were not announced in the budget presentation and by hiding significant stand-alone legislation that would have far-reaching impacts on Canada's immigration system, I submit that the bill meets the standards set out in the Standing Orders to be treated as an omnibus bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I will take the recommendation under advisement and return to the chamber in due course.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I attempted to catch your eye to respond to the earlier question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope. I also would like to put on notice that I will make representations on that motion later.

At this moment, I want to support the motion we have just heard related to Bill C-97 and its status as an omnibus bill. I am still working my way through it, but it is very clear that this meets the definition of an omnibus bill. I regret so much that it has now become common to hear the words “omnibus budget bill” strung together. I did not think we would be seeing this in this Parliament. I believed the Liberal commitments to end the use of omnibus budget bills, but this one does contain sections that are quite disturbing.

As I went through the budget, it was very clear that 35 separate measures within the budget required legislative changes, so it was very clear to me that we were going to see legislative changes for things like changing the interest rates for student loans and getting action on items that we think are appropriate and long overdue. However, bundled up in all of those measures are things like division 16 of part 4 with amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that are deeply disturbing, unacceptable and should never be bundled together in an omnibus fashion in a budget bill.

I will not go on at length, although I could because this is really outrageous. I do hope that we can at least split apart these sections so that the immigration committee studies this division. Otherwise, it is very clear what happens in an omnibus budget bill. Most of it will never get properly studied because it is only before the Standing Committee on Finance. It is not that there is anything wrong or delinquent or inadequate about the finance committee, but it is not the proper place to study substantial changes to other areas of law where the expertise resides with the committee, which is a standing committee, on that issue.

Mr. Speaker, in the strongest possible terms, I urge you to find this bill as omnibus and allow us to split out those sections that require proper and thorough study.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I thank the hon. member. That will be taken under advisement. As I mentioned to the member for Vancouver East, we will get back to the chamber as soon as possible.

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

moved that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Youth Economic Opportunity)]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to contribute to the debate on Bill C-97, the budget implementation act. The act would implement important measures in our 2019 budget that the Minister of Finance tabled last month in the House.

Budget 2019 comes at a time when Canada's economy is strong. Thanks to the hard work of Canadians, more than 900,000 jobs have been created since 2015, most of them full time. Unemployment is at 40-year lows.

New jobs are being created across the country, but many of these new well-paying opportunities require a level of education or a skill set that people do not have the time or the money to get. Many Canadians feel as though they are missing out.

Young people who are striking out into the job market are hoping to get their first full-time job, one that pays well and gives them a good start to their working life.

That is why budget 2019 has a particular focus on the challenges faced by young Canadians. Young Canadians are more diverse, educated and socially connected than ever before. Like all Canadians, they want the chance to work in a good career, buy a home and build a better future for themselves, their families and their communities.

Whether at town halls or during online discussions, young Canadians have delivered the same message to the government: Invest in a plan that helps youth overcome the barriers to their success. Our government has listened. With budget 2019, our government is making strategic and responsible investments to address these challenges and provide young Canadians with access to opportunities that position them for well-paid jobs today and tomorrow, make it easier for them to have better access to home ownership and help them thrive.

Just as our government helps more children get the best start in life with measures like the Canada child benefit, which has helped lift nearly 300,000 children out of poverty since 2015, it remains equally focused on what comes next for young people, whether they seek to purchase a first home, enrol in university or college, or start their career.

Measures that address those issues are what I will be speaking about today, because budget 2019 is not just a plan to create jobs; it is targeted help where people need it the most.

We can see that approach when it comes to housing. Many Canadians might feel that because of high house prices in some of Canada's largest cities, buying a home is increasingly out of reach. We know that young people especially are being priced out of some house and condo markets. Average home prices today are about eight times larger than the average full-time income of Canadians aged 25 to 34. That is markedly different from a few decades ago, when they were about four times larger.

To address the difficulty that young families may be having in buying their first home, through Bill C-97, budget 2019 proposes a new first-time home buyer incentive. With this extra help in the shape of a shared equity mortgage through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadians can lower their monthly mortgage payments, making home ownership more affordable.

The incentive would provide funding of 5% or 10% of the home purchase price for existing or new homes respectively, with no ongoing monthly payments required. The program is expected to help approximately 100,000 Canadians buy homes that they can afford.

Through budget 2019 and Bill C-97, our government is also increasing the home buyers' plan withdrawal limit for the first time in a decade. This would provide first-time home buyers with greater access to their registered retirement savings plan savings to buy a home.

Specifically, the budget proposes to increase the HBP withdrawal limit to $35,000 from the previous $25,000 limit. Young Canadians are the main beneficiaries of the new first-time home buyer incentive and of the increase in the withdrawal limit on the home buyers' plan. They are the Canadians who are especially likely to be prospective first-time homebuyers and to live in urban centres where affordability gaps are pronounced.

These two measures to make home ownership more affordable for Canadians are the next step in our national housing strategy, which is included in the bill we are debating today.

For more affordable rental units in areas with low vacancy, budget 2019 would also expand the rental construction financing incentive, helping to build more affordable rental options for Canadians to live near where they work or study and tackling homelessness across the country through the reaching home strategy.

Our government also believes in doing its part to make sure young Canadians can access the post-secondary education they need to get the jobs they want. Our government is committed to making post-secondary education more affordable for students and to helping young Canadians pursue higher education without the undue financial burden that often comes with post-secondary learning.

While Canada is among the most educated countries in the world, too many Canadians still face barriers that prevent them from pursuing post-secondary studies or skilled trades programs. This is why, since 2015, our government has helped make university, college and apprenticeship programs more affordable and accessible. From boosting Canada student grants to lowering the interest rate on Canada student loans to improving access to loans for vulnerable students, our government is making sure more young people have the opportunity to go to university or college.

With budget 2019, the government is taking new steps to help Canadians access post-secondary education.

Budget 2019 proposes to lower the floating interest rate on Canada student loans to the prime rate, helping close to one million borrowers who are repaying their student loans and saving the average borrower approximately $2,000 over the time of the loan.

In addition, budget 2019 has proposed to waive interest payments during the six-month grace period after graduation, helping approximately 200,000 borrowers every year transition successfully from their studies to work.

To make these student loans more accessible, a modernized Canada student loans program will better respond to the needs of vulnerable student borrowers.

The investment in budget 2019 includes increased supports for students with permanent disabilities as well as the introduction of interest-free and payment-free medical and parental leave for student loan borrowers.

Also, budget 2019 proposes to expand parental leave coverage for post-secondary students and post-doctoral fellows who receive federal granting council funding from six months to 12 months. This will help parents to better balance work obligations with family responsibilities, such as child care.

When combined with the government's previous investments in student financial assistance, budget 2019's proposals respond to the reality of rising tuition costs, rising living costs and the changing nature of work faced by today's students and youth, and they go far to help achieve the goal of making higher education more affordable.

Barriers to pursuing post-secondary education and finding good, well-paying work are also certainly a challenge that Canada's indigenous peoples continue to face.

Engaging more indigenous people in the workforce will boost economic outcomes for the nearly 1.5 million indigenous Canadians, as well as spur economic opportunities and raise living standards for all Canadians. That is why budget 2019 proposes to provide distinction-based funding for post-secondary education to help first nations, Inuit and Métis Nation students better access post-secondary education and obtain the skills and experience they need to succeed.

With regard to work placement, experience and apprenticeship, beyond the cost of post-secondary education is another reality that many young Canadians face. After graduation, just having a degree or a diploma is often not enough to secure a good, well-paying job. They want more opportunities to learn while they work and to work while they learn.

This is why our government is committed to helping young Canadians find relevant on-the-job experience and employer-relevant skills that will help to ensure a smooth transition into the workforce.

Budget 2019 supports this commitment by proposing to provide more on-the-job learning opportunities for young Canadians who want relevant, real-world work experience. The government would do this by extending the student work placement program as part of a plan to create up to 84,000 new student work placements per year by 2023-24. This will be a significant step toward ensuring that 10 years from now, every young Canadian who wants a work placement will be able to get one.

At the same time, by providing partnerships with businesses to support work placements through the modernized youth employment strategy, the government will help more young people develop new skills and obtain professional experience earlier. The proposed modernized youth employment strategy will have the aim of ensuring that all young people have access to the supports they need, including enhanced supports for young people facing more serious barriers to joining and staying in the workforce.

Furthermore, in an increasingly global economy and labour market, Canadian youth need to develop a range of skills, many of which are best fostered through international experiences such as travelling, studying and working overseas. Building on the commitment in the 2018 fall economic statement to develop a new international education strategy, budget 2019 proposes to support Canadian post-secondary students and young people pursuing opportunities to travel, study and work abroad.

The government is also acting to attract more top-tier foreign students to Canada by promoting Canadian educational institutions as high-calibre places to study.

In addition, budget 2019 includes measures to encourage more Canadians to pursue volunteer opportunities. Service opportunities give young Canadians the chance to gain valuable work and life experience, build on what they have learned through their formal education and give back to their community in meaningful ways.

To encourage and support more service opportunities, in January 2018 our government launched the design phase of the Canada service corps, a youth service initiative. The expanded Canada service corps proposed in 2019 will help young Canadians serve their communities while gaining valuable skills and leadership experience. This includes supporting the creation of up to 15,000 annual volunteer service placements for young Canadians by 2023-24 and of 1,000 annual individual grants for self-directed service projects.

The investment in the Canada service corps will also address barriers to participation in service that have been identified by under-represented youth by providing new incentives and program supports co-created with young people.

Budget 2019 also proposes to improve access to mentorship, learning resources and start-up financing to help young Canadian entrepreneurs bring their business ideas to life and to market through Futurpreneur Canada.

These initiatives are just some of the many actions our government is taking to help more young Canadians get quality education and valuable experience as they build a future for themselves.

Finally, I would like to speak about the subject that is too often overlooked, and that is the mental health of young Canadians.

People aged 15 to 24 are more likely than those in other age groups to have a mood or anxiety disorder. Suicide is the second most common cause of death among people aged 15 to 24, while it ranks ninth among the general population.

Less than half of young people with depression or suicidal thoughts have sought professional help. That is why budget 2019 is proposing to invest in a new pan-Canadian suicide prevention service. This service would provide people across Canada with access to bilingual 24-7 crisis support from trained responders, using the technology of their choice. This builds on the government's previous investments in mental health supports, such as the $5 billion over 10 years to provincial and territorial governments to ensure long-term support for mental health in communities around the country.

To conclude, young Canadians are the future drivers of Canada's economic growth and are ready to be the champions of a fair, more diverse, more inclusive nation. They deserve opportunities to succeed in and benefit from Canada's growing economy. Our government's investments to make education more affordable, give young people more opportunities to find and keep good, well-paying jobs, and make home ownership more attainable will help young Canadians today and help keep our economy strong and growing for the long term.

With budget 2019, our government is investing in ways to prepare young Canadians for their future, helping them succeed for many years to come.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not restate what has been stated so many times, that of course this budget is again not meeting the Liberals' 2015 campaign commitments to balance, but I am going to target one area that people were interested in but are now a little disappointed about.

I had someone reach out to me and say, “Listen, I am in my thirties. I would really like to get into the housing market. I do not have an RRSP that I can take $35,000 out of. That is number one. Number two, I am in a market where to find something under $500,000 is going to be a very significant challenge.”

The most important question he asked, which I could not answer, was, “Number three, if I enter this new program, is it an interest-free loan, or is the government going to have equity in my home? If so, is it going to take the equity out at the end?”

I could not answer that question. I am hoping my colleague can, because it is one of the important measures that Liberals are heralding in this budget.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for her interest in our youth, in this country and, in particular, in the housing market.

This is something incredibly important that we have heard from young people across this country. In relation to the member's question about the affordability, or having funds in an RSP, we have heard that, but what we have also heard is that the issues facing young people getting into the housing market are not one-size-fits-all. The Conservatives did nothing on this file for 10 years, and allowed the housing market to explode.

We are addressing the concerns of people who are able to afford more in their RSPs. We are also increasing rental units. We are also creating the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation's new incentive, which is an incentive that is actually going to reduce individuals' monthly housing costs. The Conservatives left our economy in such a state, and we saw that household debt was continuing to increase.

In terms of the specific details of the CMHC plan, those packages will be developed very soon, and as it says in the budget, those details will be forthcoming.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

It is important to point out that, today, we are debating what is likely to be this government's last budget implementation bill. This was the government's last chance, but it still proposed what is essentially a budget of half-measures. These measures do not do as much as Canadians expected from this government, particularly when it comes to the environment. The March 19 budget statement also made very little mention of the environment, climate change or the energy transition. There are a few half-measures that were, of course, well received, but they certainly do not go far enough to make the changes required to save our planet.

The universal pharmacare program is another half-measure that the government announced to buy time until the upcoming election. This bill gave the government one last chance to implement such a system and to introduce a flagship piece of legislation, but the Liberals put it off until later, as usual.

Why is the parliamentary secretary once again asking Canadians to wait?

Why are the Liberals only making promises that ask people to put their trust in them for another term when they did not even have the courage to keep their promises and make those changes during their first four-year term?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not asking Canadians to wait. In fact, we are acting. It would have been very difficult for the NDP, which promised to balance the budget at all costs and adopt the same economic plan as the Conservatives, to do these things. We are moving forward. This is a transformational investment to establish a national pharmacare plan.

We are moving forward to a national pharmacare plan with the best expertise and recommendations to build a foundation, which is what this budget does. This budget sets the foundation to establish a national negotiator. It also deals with some of the most difficult issues in terms of drugs for rare diseases. We have to work in partnership with the provinces and territories.

We cannot ram things through like the Conservatives used to. We have to use a smart approach based on facts and evidence, but we are doing it. We are setting in place the foundation to create a national pharmacare plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member about the Canada student loan provisions in division 22 of part 4 of this omnibus bill. Why would we be continuing to charge interest on student loans at all, given that when they were brought into this place under the government of Lester B. Pearson, there were no interest payments on student loans? We should actually be eliminating both tuition and student loans.

Now that the question of pharmacare has been raised, I have to say it is quite galling to hear that we need more evidence despite the reports that have been done by experts, not just within this Parliament but, for instance, by the Pharmacare 2020 report. That report was a collaboration of the leading experts across Canada, who pointed out that we would save $7 billion a year by moving to universal pharmacare.

I would suggest to the hon. member that it is not ramming anything down anyone's throat for the federal government to create a bulk-buying agency that would buy pharmaceutical drugs along a formulary that meets the needs of Canadians and not those of big pharma, that would bring down the prices, and that would then allow the provinces to decide if they want to buy drugs more cheaply through a federal government universal plan or to go out on their own if they would like to and pay more. There is nothing that keeps the price of drugs down when individual provinces go to large pharmaceutical companies and pay far more than any other jurisdiction around the world.

I would caution hon. members on the government side not to oversell the inadequate measures toward pharmacare in this budget.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I actually think the hon. member and I and our government's plan are on the exact same page and the same path forward. The evidence I speak about is the fact that we have an advisory council that is advising us on the best way to implement this and the areas in which we need to act.

This budget builds that foundation, in terms of drug purchasing, to create one negotiator. This in itself will help deal with the issue of multiple provinces and territories, as well as multiple people, negotiating with drug companies. By having one negotiator, we set the foundation in place to then move forward in other areas.

I also spoke about drugs for rare diseases, which can be incredibly difficult to deal with, especially in smaller provinces or provinces with smaller populations. This will allow the federal government to help in that area. Again, this is building on the foundation that will be based on the advisory council's advice. The next report will be coming soon.

However, we were not going to wait for all of the reports. We wanted to build on their recommendations and advice as soon as we could, and that is exactly what this budget does.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going back to the first part that the parliamentary secretary was talking about, specifically about home ownership for younger Canadians.

We know that more and more millennials do not realize that they may have the potential of home ownership. They start looking at renting as something they will do forever. It is so important that we start to move toward home ownership and get millennials in a position where they can actually benefit.

Can the parliamentary secretary comment on the long-term benefit of home ownership for millennials?