Debates of April 20th, 2021

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[William Amos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to budget 2021, which was presented to the House on Monday by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. I will be sharing my time this afternoon with my friend, the hon. member for Kings—Hants.

Budget 2021 addresses two fundamental challenges and includes measures that will benefit my constituents in Pontiac, middle-class Canadians, as well as science, research and innovation in Canada.

The first challenge is definitely to finish the fight against COVID-19. That means buying vaccines and supporting provincial health care systems, among other critical health priorities.

The second challenge will take longer. It is to emerge from the COVID-19 recession. That means healing the economic wounds left by the pandemic and ensuring that lost jobs are recovered as swiftly as possible, so that the hardest-hit businesses can rebound and flourish. It means providing support where COVID-19 has struck hardest, to women, young people and low-wage workers, and to small and medium-sized businesses, especially in sectors like hospitality and tourism.

Our federal support measures, which represent $8 out of every $10 spent by all governments combined on COVID, have protected jobs and helped limit the number of permanent business closures. We will continue to honour this covenant with Canadians until COVID-19 is fully behind us with new measures to support Canadian businesses, workers and families. For example, through budget 2020-21, we will extend both the wage subsidy and the rent subsidy and they will be extended until September 25, 2021, with the possibility of a further extension to November, depending on the economic and public health situation.

We are also introducing the Canada recovery hiring program. This $595-million investment will help businesses pivot to recovery, with incentives to hire back, grow hours or increase wages. We announced a historic $4-billion investment into a digital adoption program to help Canadian small businesses become more competitive, go digital, take advantage of e-commerce and become more competitive in Canada and around the world.

Finally, we are committed to lowering credit card fees by engaging with stakeholders to lower the average overall cost of interchange fees for our small businesses.

We have to revitalize tourism. The impact of COVID-19 on workers and businesses in tourism, arts and culture has been severe. That is especially true in the Outaouais region, where many rural communities depend on tourism and vacationers, especially in the summer.

I am thinking about the Vallée-de-la-Gatineau, Pontiac and Collines-de-l'Outaouais RCMs. I am thinking about businesses such as Le Rabaska in Maniwaki, L'Orée du Bois in Chelsea, the Spruceholme Inn in Fort-Coulonge and the Laspézia restaurant in the Plateau sector of Gatineau.

With the rollout of vaccines under way and going quite well in Quebec, businesses in the tourism sector are getting ready to welcome Canadians back to experience the great places and activities that we have to offer. Canadians are eager to discover or rediscover their country. This is a great opportunity for the Outaouais.

We have to ensure that regions like ours succeed in this context of local, regional and national tourism. That is why, to support this sector, the government is proposing a new package of supports totalling $1 billion over three years thanks to budget 2021. That amount includes $500 million in funding over two years for regional development agencies, to help our hard-hit tourism businesses adapt their products and services and invest in growth.

To attract visitors to our small festivals and local events, Canadian Heritage will also receive $200 million. This will ensure that our events and festivals can continue to celebrate our artistic excellence and unique character. We will be ready for the tourism economy's recovery.

On the issue of science, it has been a privilege to serve Canadians as the parliamentary secretary for science throughout this pandemic. I am so pleased to point out that budget 2021 delivers massive investments in Canadian science, health innovation, research and development, and innovation. We recognize the critical role that science and research will play, both in addressing the current health crisis and in rebuilding our economy and creating good jobs for Canadians. We are investing heavily to grow our life sciences ecosystem and create the biomanufacturing capacity necessary to ensure that we are more resilient in the face of future pandemics.

This includes over $1 billion for biomedical research, clinical trials and the necessary infrastructure at universities and research hospitals to undertake this work. This includes a nearly $60-million investment in the University of Saskatchewan's VIDO-InterVac to support its ongoing COVID vaccine research and expand its facility in Saskatoon.

We are also making targeted investments in critically important health care research, including areas such as women's health, diabetes, pediatric cancer, regenerative medicine, antimicrobial resistance, and in the creation of a national genomics strategy worth $400 million to build on Canada's expertise.

If members and the Canadians listening to these incredible investments proposed in budget 2021 in science, health innovation and research are dizzied by the sheer size and scale of these investments, then I would not blame them. We are going to be unrelenting in our focus on science and evidence as the driver of policy decisions and strategic investments. I was pleased to note yesterday that the non-profit advocacy group, Evidence for Democracy Canada, commented that in budget 2021, “science underpins targeted investments to drive equitable recovery and long-term prosperity”, and that Evidence for Democracy was “pleased to see strategic investments across the Canadian science ecosystem, including targeted research funding”.

There is so much more, and I know members will appreciate our focus on protecting Canadians as we invest in innovative research and development. Budget 2021 promises strategic investments in emerging technologies to capitalize on areas of Canadian strength.

This includes $360 million over seven years to launch a national quantum strategy, working with great Canadian universities like Université de Sherbrooke, UBC, University of Waterloo and others.

There is $444 million over 10 years to support the next phase of the pan-Canadian artificial intelligence strategy for commercialization, talent retention, research and training, computing capacity and artificial intelligence standards.

It promises $10 million over two years to the Canadian Space Agency to plan for the next generation of earth observation satellites and $80 million over 11 years to replace and expand the aging but critically important ground-based infrastructure to receive satellite data.

There is $90 million over five years to the National Research Council to retool and modernize the Canadian photonics fabrication centre in Ottawa.

This budget builds on the historic investments in fundamental research from budget 2018 and our government's innovation and skills strategy. It sets us up for growth and success, both today and for the future. It focuses on the pandemic today, but also addresses looming threats that require better science, better data and better governance.

My time is running short, so I will not dive deep into our climate innovation, climate research, climate action and low-carbon job-creation investments. We are talking billions of dollars in transformative investments to get us to the net-zero economy, which dovetail wonderfully with our carbon-pricing mechanism that the Supreme Court has, after so many unnecessary years of Conservative knuckle dragging and climate denial, confirmed as being within federal jurisdiction. Yes, we will be establishing and applying a climate lens that ensures climate considerations are integrated throughout federal government decision-making. We are talking about Arctic research and a census of the environment statistical trend-monitoring effort.

I will not delve into our investments in gender-based violence research and knowledge mobilization, with funding for community research—

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

We have to go to questions and comments. The hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague brought up tourism, and I want to talk to him about air travel.

On page 74 of the budget, there is an announcement of $105 million over five years for something known as the “known traveller digital identity pilot project”. A Google search of known traveller digital identity takes us to a World Economic Forum document, where it is called the “known traveller digital identity (KTDI) concept”. It talks about things like attestations of citizenship, educational degrees and so on, including vaccination for viral disease.

I am wondering if my colleague could expand on just what the government is investing tax dollars for on this front?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member's question is important because many Canadians are wondering about travel, the future of travel and what restrictions may or may not be imposed.

The Prime Minister has been very clear on this. Issues related to travel, international travel and discussions around what documentation is going to be necessary are being discussed regularly at an international level. However, the picture is not entirely clear yet.

It would be important for the member to watch closely for what our Minister of Transport and our Minister of Public Safety say about these issues going forward. Obviously the budget does not outline all of the details. The member could expect that further details will follow in the weeks and months to come.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague said in his speech that his government was going to invest and had invested where COVID-19 has struck hardest.

One area that COVID-19 has struck hard and will continue to strike hard for the next 10 years is cancer care. Gastroenterologists, oncologists and hematologists in Quebec have told us that cancer is a chronic illness, and if it is not diagnosed and treated in time, mortality rates, recurrences and treatment costs go up. On top of that, cancer diminishes a patient's quality of life and puts their life in danger. The costs of that are even higher.

Health care costs are going to skyrocket over the next 10 years. We are in the middle of a global health crisis, so how could the government commit the strategic error of not investing and not immediately increasing health transfers on a stable and ongoing basis? After the first wave, the Prime Minister said that the government would invest in health transfers after the pandemic. We are in the third wave. The end of the pandemic will be the fifth wave. How could the government make this mistake, and what does it have to say to the patients who will die because of it?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

This is obviously a very important issue for all Canadians. Health care is currently the main priority. As we announced in March, the federal government plans to increase health transfers to the provinces and territories by $4 billion.

The Prime Minister has clearly indicated that he is open to discussing health transfers. The federal government has obviously been there from the beginning of the pandemic, investing in the health care system with equipment, vaccines—

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

We have just enough time for one last question. The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question will be specific with regard to persons with disabilities.

In the budget, over three years and $19 million is being set aside for consultation about persons with disabilities. What we do know is persons with disabilities are under-represented in the workforce. Fewer have jobs. What we do know is that they are overrepresented in poverty. We also know, from this Parliament and the previous one, that persons with disabilities are often the last to get any type of assistance whatsoever.

I am trying to find the reason, and perhaps the member could give us some specific details around it, why it is going to take three full years during a pandemic to consult persons with disabilities about the proper supports they need when we know that they are in the highest brackets for risk, have the highest unemployment rates and the highest needs for assistance.

It is going to take the Liberals three years and cost $19 million to tell us persons with disabilities need more support and a more equal society, because we do not have that. What is—

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

I have to get the parliamentary secretary to answer in 10 seconds or less.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will simply say that our government's record in defence of persons with disabilities is unblemished and solid. We have legislated in the matter. We have invested historic amounts and we are going to continue investing historic amounts. Consultation is an ongoing thing, not a one-off matter.

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

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, National Defence; the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, Health; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Women and Gender Equality.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join all of my colleagues here today to talk about a historic budget delivered by our first female Minister of Finance and, of course, our Deputy Prime Minister. Let me take a moment at the start of my remarks to compliment her on her tremendous work. I am very fortunate to have a youth council in my riding of Kings—Hants that has a number of young leaders who happen to be women, and they look up to her. I know that many other women across the country, and I as a man, look up to the work that she has done. Kudos to her.

I only have 10 minutes and there is a lot in this budget, but I am hoping to highlight some of the initiatives that I am most pleased about as a member of Parliament for Kings—Hants and also as chair of the rural Liberal caucus.

Let me start with the extension of the wage subsidies and the programs that we have put in place to support individuals and businesses through the pandemic. For Canadians who are tuning in, September 25 is the deadline that we have put on extending those measures. This matters for small businesses. This matters for individuals. It really matters to ensure that we have certainty and continuity of programs across the country regardless of where our case levels are. Some places, for example my riding, are quite well off. Others are going through real challenges right now, so a tip of the cap to the government on being able to put those measures in place. I have already heard from small businesses in my riding that are supportive of this measure.

Yesterday's announcement on child care was important. It relates to a national child care plan with $27 billion over the course of the next five years and a commitment to ongoing spending in this domain. What is really important to note is that child care has traditionally been viewed in the realm of very well-intended social policy; however, as we have come to understand what it means, it is an economic driver in the same sense. The Minister of Finance said that yesterday. This type of program matters for parents to be able to get back to the workplace. It matters particularly for women, and it is about creating affordable spaces. I was very pleased to see our ongoing consultation with the provinces and territories get us to the point of $10, on average, a day for affordable daycare and early education for Canadian youth. This is going to have long-term impacts across the country and certainly deserves to be noted.

In the context of Nova Scotia, under our former premier, Stephen McNeil, whom I have great respect for, the provincial government ran an agenda on being fiscally conservative and socially progressive. The province adopted pre-primary, which is along the same lines of thinking that this government is taking. It makes sense and the program pays for itself. We have other models across the country that we can lean on, but I am really proud of the work that we have done in my home province as well.

Affordable housing is a national issue, but I want to give the context of my part of the country. Nova Scotia has one of the lowest COVID case counts in the federation. We are one of the safest places in the world. People from around the world and indeed across our country want to move to Nova Scotia for the quality of life and the many benefits that our province offers. That has also put pressure on our housing market. Right now there are challenges for young people trying to find housing. Renters and individuals are trying to find basically a place to put a roof over their heads.

We have invested $1 billion through the rapid housing initiative, but I was very pleased to see an additional $1.5 billion toward that fund and a commitment of $2.5 billion over the next seven years through CMHC to help support affordable housing. This is going to make a difference in the lives of Canadians and certainly to the people that I represent in Kings—Hants as well.

There is additional income support for seniors. A large proportion of the population that I represent in my riding is made up of seniors, particularly in the rural areas. The increase of 10% in old age security for those who are over age 75 is certainly a welcome investment, and I am very pleased to see that come through. I know many seniors in my riding are going to be pleased to see that.

With regard to the universal broadband fund, those representatives for rural Canada all knew before the pandemic about the importance of connectivity and broadband, whether for schools and children having the opportunity to do course work and homework online, or for banking or entertainment. We are moving to more of a digital society.

To make sure the gap is closed between rural and urban broadband, our government has made historic investments. We had already committed $1.75 billion to the universal broadband fund, and budget 2020-21 commits another $1 billion. We are on track to meet our goal of having 98% of Canadians connected by 2025. This is a good thing, and I want to contrast this with the last government, which put in 10 times less funding than this government has to try to meet these objectives and outcomes. I am proud that we are a government focused in this regard, and as the rural caucus chair I was very pleased to see the Minister of Rural Economic Development have this in her purview and in her tool kit in the days ahead.

I want to talk about the Canada community revitalization fund. I do not want to say it is a rural issue. It is certainly an issue across the country. We know that community gathering spaces are very important. In my riding they are largely driven by non-profit organizations, such as the Lions Club, the local legion and community halls. These are all run by volunteers who put in additional hours at the end of each week to help make a difference in our communities. They have not been able to run their traditional fundraisers to help keep the lights on or put new roofs on buildings. Normally those are pancake breakfasts and bean suppers, and they have not been happening.

This fund was an initiative that I would say was driven by the rural caucus, among others, to put a fund in place that could help support those community spaces and organizations that do tremendous work. A tip of the cap to the organizations in Kings—Hants. This is the type of fund we want to put in place to help support them. I know it will matter far beyond the boundaries of my riding. It will matter across the country, and I suspect other members have looked at this and said it is good public policy as well.

I want to talk about support for our tourism sector. I am sitting in Hants County in the Annapolis Valley, which is one of the most beautiful areas of the country. I know I am biased as the member of Parliament representing the area, but it is home to the highest tides in the world and a growing wine sector. I would invite all colleagues, when it is safe to do so, to please join me and visit Kings—Hants. Tourism is an important sector. In budget 2020-21, there is $500 million to help support tourism through the regional development agencies. It matters to the businesses in my community and indeed across the country. These were certainly mechanisms that I was happy to see in the budget.

As for heritage, we know what culture and sport mean across the country. Through the RDAs, $200 million will go to help support community festivals, such as the Apple Blossom Festival for example, which has been running in my riding since the 1930s. There are a lot of good events that go on. This type of funding is going to help those organizations get through another year until we can perhaps get back to a new normal on the other side of the pandemic.

There is also $100 million in the budget to help support Destination Canada, which gets Canadians to explore their backyards. My fiancé and I had a great opportunity last summer to explore Nova Scotia and the Atlantic provinces. Businesses benefited from this. Of course, this year international travel is going to be unlikely until the vaccine rollout is completed in late September. That funding will be an important mechanism to help support businesses along the way, not to mention the broad supports for small businesses writ large to digitize. As more consumers move online, those mechanisms are going to help main-street businesses to compete. This will make sure they have the tools to adapt to an increasingly digital economy and society.

I will mention two final points. First, as the youngest member of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons, for young Canadians and students we have delivered $6 billion and a whole host of mechanisms that I am not going to have the time to describe, but that are important. Students have been adversely impacted by the pandemic and I am pleased to see the supports there. Second, as a member of Parliament who represents one of the largest agricultural ridings in Atlantic Canada, there are a number of mechanisms to support our agriculture sector, including transitions to a low-carbon economy and incentives to help support our farmers. They are already doing tremendous work, but our government is going to be there to help support them.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, we understand completely that with COVID we need to have some short-term investments and my colleague has outlined a fair number of them. However, there remain some long-term foundational, structural issues in this economy and in Canada that need to be addressed. These are things like our competitiveness, the flight of foreign capital, our regulatory frameworks, which are holding us back, and our tax structure.

Could my hon. colleague give us some insight into why these foundational, structural changes are missing from the budget? What does he think we should be doing to address them?

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague opposite hit on the point of regulatory reform. I do not know if she is aware, but in September 2020 I talked about the importance of regulatory reform as a mechanism in addition to the necessary spending the government is taking on. That is certainly the line of thinking I support. I appreciate her bringing it forward.

There are tax changes in the budget that focus on trying to level the playing field, particularly with digital giants and some of our smaller businesses on main street. I welcome those. There are also investments in the budget to help support innovation through a variety of sectors, so there are a lot of mechanisms in the budget to support that.

I will continue to push on my side of the House for those types of interventions and my colleague can know they certainly resonate with me.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

No doubt there are a lot of fine things in this budget. Everyone has had good things to say, including the Bloc Québécois and the other parties.

The Bloc has made suggestions about the aerospace sector, the electrification of transportation, forestry, social housing and day care. On this last point, we are truly pleased that Quebec is a model for the rest of Canada, and it is a credit to us.

However, what are the Liberals telling seniors? They will receive $500 just before an election is called, plus a 10% increase, but not for another year. What are we to say to the seniors, parents and grandparents we know? Even though the Liberals still have a lot of fiscal room, there is nothing in this budget for seniors.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I am sorry to have to reply in English, but my French is fair to middling.

Regarding support for seniors, I was very pleased to see the 10% increase in old age security for seniors who are over age 75.

I will be honest: I would have liked to see a bit more emphasis on the guaranteed income supplement. That was a mechanism our government used in the last Parliament to bring a lot of seniors out of poverty. As opposed to going across the board on old age security, I think we should be focusing on those seniors who are earning less and focusing on top-ups. I do not necessarily even support the suggestion by the Bloc Québécois that we increase old age security across the board for those who are age 65 and over, but would like to see us be a little more targeted. However, it is going to make a difference for seniors and there are other mechanisms to support—

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

We have time for one last question. The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, 20% of Canadian homeowners live in energy poverty. They live paycheque to paycheque. They cannot afford the upfront costs to do the retrofits needed to make their homes more efficient or take on new debt through loans, yet that is what this budget offers them.

When will the government provide meaningful support for people living in energy poverty that will help them do the retrofits needed and help us in our fight against climate change?

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

Madam Speaker, I would reject the premise that our government has not been doing anything to help individuals suffering from energy poverty or anything along those lines. From day one, we have increased taxes on the 1% and lowered taxes for middle-income and lower-income Canadians. There is the Canada child benefit. I look to this budget for investments to support workers who are working—

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

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Joliette.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the budget presented by the Minister of Finance. It is certainly a historic budget, since this is the first time that a female finance minister has presented a budget in the House of Commons.

The budget is 739 pages long. It is a lot of work to read through it all. The budget contains many new elements, measures and programs. In fact, it contains nearly $150 billion worth of new elements since last fall's economic update.

The Bloc Québécois tries to meet with as many people and business owners in every industry across Quebec as it can. We ask them what their needs are and what they think should be included in the budget. We try to compile that data and present it.

Since budgets are usually presented in March, we shared our expectations with the minister in February. I should also mention all of the work that was done by the Standing Committee on Finance, which also engaged in similar exercise.

Reading through the document, we can see that it reflects many of the Bloc Québécois's demands, and we applaud that. Aerospace is one example. This is probably the first time the government has explicitly recognized the importance of this industry to our economy, and it has included various measures, which we are very proud of. The budget also includes a number of measures for transportation electrification and for the environment.

Because we are going through a pandemic, this budget extends measures to support entrepreneurs who have lost revenue. These measures include the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency rent subsidy.

The budget also includes a stimulus plan with a number of measures that set the stage for future post-pandemic growth.

It also includes measures for the pharmaceutical industry and vaccine production capacity. I would remind the House that Quebec championed this in the 1990s and early 2000s. When Ottawa stopped supporting the industry, one major pharmaceutical company after another basically left Quebec. Now the sector is practically in ruins, but we must find a way to rebuild it.

Another interesting element of this budget is the fight against tax avoidance and evasion. What is being proposed is not revolutionary, but it is the first time that we see a clear indication that the government is going to fight against those who do not pay the taxes they owe. These are often legal, but definitely unethical, schemes. We have much to do to solve the problem, but a step in that direction has been taken. Several interesting measures have been proposed.

Naturally, if I were a Canadian outside Quebec, I would be pleased with the key measure in this budget, subsidized child care. Quebec implemented this family policy more than 20 years ago. It is more comprehensive than what is in the budget, and it works very well. It allows women to have a much higher labour force participation rate than before and higher than that of other provinces. It is a feminist policy that will stimulate the economy. I want to once again acknowledge Pauline Marois's initiative. She worked very hard to implement this measure in Quebec. It shows that having female finance ministers can lead to the implementation of very useful policies.

Earlier I was talking about our budget demands, which we submitted in February. There was nothing terribly surprising in there, but we did make two key requests. Much like the Government of Quebec, we called on Ottawa to fund health care according to the means it has available, in other words by covering a bit more than a third of the cost, or 35%.

The federal government is currently funding just 22% of health care expenses. If nothing changes, that will go down to 17% or 18%. We are in the middle of a health crisis. Health is more important than ever. This is the ideal time to correct this imbalance. Despite our calls for funding, we find nothing in this budget to fund health care. The only stop-gap measure is in Bill C-25. There are also standards for long-term care facilities in Quebec that will come with an envelope in a few years.

The budget is also missing everything we requested to protect the dignity of seniors. Over the past few years, there have been many policies to support every segment of the population except for seniors, who rely heavily on old age security. This pension has not been indexed for a very long time and it is time to make up ground. Many seniors live in poverty, and four out of ten seniors get the guaranteed income supplement. In other words, they do not have money to spare and rely on public supports.

We wanted there to be just one class of seniors, namely people aged 65 and older. In the budget, however, the government has created two classes of seniors, those 65 to 74 and those 75 and over. We do not agree with this. We wanted old age security to be increased by $110 a month to keep up with inflation and restore seniors' purchasing power.

We know what seniors are worried about because we went to visit them before the pandemic. We cannot wait to see them again. In the meantime, we speak with them over the phone or, sometimes, on a tablet or similar device.

Seniors do not complain, but rent prices are skyrocketing, whether in seniors’ homes or elsewhere. Seniors' purchasing power makes it difficult for them to make ends meet. The cost of food, utilities and basic necessities is increasing and we need to restore the balance. This is what we have been calling for, but the budget sadly does not have much in it, as my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles pointed out.

Upon reading the budget, we see that, in August, a one-time payment will be made to seniors aged 75 and up. That gives us a good idea of when the government plans to call an election, if that is what the Prime Minister wants. The government will therefore make a payment in August and then call an election.

The budget also provides for a 10% increase in old age security benefits for those aged 75 and up. However, this increase will be implemented in a future bill and will come into effect not this summer but the summer after, as though this is something that can easily be put off until later. In my opinion, that problem should be dealt with right now, but that is not what is set out in the budget. Also, I would like to once again remind members that these measures should apply as of age 65.

In that regard, an economic analyst for Radio-Canada, Gérald Fillion, wrote a very interesting article that was published this morning on the Radio-Canada website. It said, and I quote: “Two questions come to mind. First, why not increase old age security by 10% as of this year? Second, why do these measures apply only to seniors aged 75 and over? Why not those aged 65 and over?” Those are very legitimate questions that we too want to ask the government. The FADOQ network and seniors' groups in Quebec also spoke out against this approach.

Gérald Fillion made a number of points. He noted that, in Canada, people's income drops precipitously when they retire. The technical term is net pension replacement rate, which was 50.7% of pre-retirement income in Canada in 2018. Across the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, the rate is seven percentage points higher. In the European Union, it is 63%.

These data are from a study of 49 countries, among which Canada ranks 32nd, well behind countries such as Italy, India, France and Denmark, and just slightly above the United States, where inequality is surging. These statistics are alarming, so we must take action. Seniors were the first victims of the pandemic, but there was already inequality before the pandemic.

In his conclusion, Gérald Fillion said that, considering Canada's poor showing in the OECD ranking, it would have made sense for the 10% increase to begin this year and apply as of age 65 and for this issue to be free from electioneering. I could not have put it better myself.

The other thing we wanted to see in the budget, which Quebec also requested, as I was saying, is health care funding. It is not there, and that is plainly a political choice. It is not for lack of money.

In the budget, the government announced a $354-billion deficit for a slew of programs. It was entirely possible to get the money needed to fund health care properly out of that amount, so it is a political choice not to have done that. In the fall economic statement, the deficit was $382 billion. In the budget, it is $354 billion, which is a difference of $28 billion. That is the exact amount Quebec and the provinces are asking for in increased health transfers this year. That shows that it was entirely possible to do that, and it is a political choice not to.

As far as the debt is concerned, let us not forget that the federal government's financial situation is temporarily weakened right now because of the pandemic. We have astronomical numbers in front of us, but we see that the ratio will improve fairly quickly. For example, in the last years of the budget, in 2025-26, the ratio should return to 1.1% of GDP. The analysis does not go any further.

However, a Conference Board of Canada study found that the federal government's deficit would be cut in half by 2030-31. That is a significant decrease, but the Conference Board of Canada also points out that the opposite will happen to the provinces, which is troubling. The Conference Board of Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the finance ministers and the premiers are all saying there is an urgent need to act.

Ottawa is running a huge deficit during the pandemic, but it will recover quickly. However, the exact opposite is true at the provincial level, because of the explosion in health spending and costs. This is putting the provinces in an untenable situation, and there is an urgent need to act.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Conference Board of Canada and others have calculated that health transfers must be increased to 35% to balance the cost burden with projected tax revenues. It is simply a matter of increasing transfers to 35%. It has to be done. That was deliberately left out of the budget.

This omission is deplorable and completely unacceptable, but I believe it is part of a deliberate logic. When we read the budget, listen to the speeches and look at where the government is headed, everything points in that direction.

Ottawa seems to delight in ultimately putting the provinces in a position of dependency and ensuring that their position becomes increasingly insupportable.

At the same time, we see Ottawa saying that it will fund, support and back the provinces, but it will impose standards and have the final say over how things are done. The federal government is telling the provinces and Quebec that they will no longer have the flexibility to follow through on policies, but that it will. This means that if the provinces want to receive cash from Ottawa, they will have to yield to its way of doing things. They will become Ottawa's subcontractors, and Ottawa will determine the priorities. That is what is happening to long-term care facilities.

With regard to the child care system, Quebec is being told that there will be no conditions, but how long will that last? There were no conditions for health care, but now we have conditions and are getting peanuts. Gaétan Barrette, Quebec's Liberal health minister, once accused the government of “predatory federalism”, which is a serious thing to say.

What is in the budget? The budget contains a number of measures that create an infrastructure and enable the government to interfere in provincial jurisdictions. It contains a framework for mental health care, a framework for women's health and a framework for reproductive health. These things are all the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. There is also a framework for the extraction of the minerals critical to the green transition. Moreover, the government has once again brought up Canada-wide securities regulation, against the wishes of Quebec. The budget also talks about a federal office for recognizing foreign credentials, which is something that Quebec and the provinces have done. There is also mention of a Canada water agency that would be responsible for water management, as well as a federal framework for skills training. People talk about how good Quebec's skills training program is all the time. The Quebec National Assembly implemented a program modelled on what was done in Germany and other European countries. This is one example to learn from. As the leader of the Bloc Québécois said earlier today, students do not tell teachers how to correct their work, which is what the government appears to be trying to do.

This is all very troubling. All of these measures, frameworks and policies do not represent significant amounts in the budget, but they reflect the government's intention to set up the infrastructure to keep moving in this direction. The government's vision is to control specific areas that, according to the Constitution, fall under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has the power to spend, and that enables it to stick its nose into everybody's business, but as a result, we are becoming less and less of a federation with provincial autonomy and more and more of a centralized country where everything happens in Ottawa. The federal government could not care less about the provincial autonomy that Quebec holds so dear. It is draining resources away from the provinces. Given the increase in health care spending, the provinces have no more room to manoeuvre. If they want some breathing room, they need to turn to Ottawa, which will tell them how to do things. That is very troubling.

Earlier, I quoted what Gérald Fillion had to say about that. I would now like to quote Antoine Robitaille. This morning, he wrote a very interesting column in Le Journal de Montréal, where he said the following, and I quote:

However, as is often the case in Canada, when something seems necessary and desirable, the federal big brother ignores the constitutional rules and takes the lead.

A Canada-wide child care program obviously infringes on an area of provincial jurisdiction.

As I said, for now, Ottawa says it will not impose any rules on Quebec. We wonder how long that will last.

A little further on, Antoine Robitaille referred to the dissenting opinion of Supreme Court Justice Malcolm Rowe in last month's decision on the constitutionality of the carbon tax. Rowe was quoting constitutional expert Peter Hogg.

According to the latter, if in a federal nation paramount central power “completely overlapped regional power”, then that nation stops being federal.

In such a system, the provinces can exercise their jurisdiction as they please—“as long as they do so in a manner that the federal legislation authorizes”!

It is hard for a nation like Quebec to continue evolving in accordance with its own choices when this kind of dynamic prevails.

Antoine Robitaille uses the subsidized child care program as an example to expose the government's attitude and how it likes to do things here in the House. This is very worrisome for Quebec, which wants to have autonomy and do things its own way. I introduced a bill in the House a few weeks ago regarding a single tax return administered by Quebec. In committee, the Liberals told us that it was out of the question, that they could accommodate Quebec if they wanted, but it was too complicated and everything would be managed here, because that is how it works. Quebec will become a subcontractor. This is an unacceptable approach. Several aspects of the budget set the stage for continuing to move towards a country that is less a federation and more a central state. Obviously, for Quebec, this is completely unacceptable.

In closing, I just want to say that this is a difficult time for autonomists.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on what has been mentioned by a number of members from the opposition regarding the issue of seniors who are 75. I see the announcement in the budget as a very strong positive. In the last federal election, we made a commitment to do exactly what we are doing in this budget. We are fulfilling an election promise in which we said that we were going to do this for seniors 75 and up. Now we have opposition members criticizing us for fulfilling an election commitment.

I would remind my colleagues to reflect on the first few years of this government, when we actually increased the guaranteed income supplement for all seniors 65 and over. We literally took hundreds of seniors out of poverty from Winnipeg North, not to mention the thousands across the country.

I wonder if the member might reflect on whether he believes it was important for us to fulfill that commitment that we made to seniors 75 and over. We said that is what we would do, and it is exactly what we did.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment and question.

Indeed his party made that promise, but it is not enough. Our view and that of seniors in our ridings is that it is unacceptable to create two classes of seniors, in other words people 65 to 74 and people 75 and older.

Again I refer to Gérald Fillion, who said that many seniors live in poverty and that “nearly four out of ten people 65 and older in Quebec...have to use the guaranteed income supplement to meet their needs in retirement”. He is not just talking about people 75 and older, but all seniors 65 and older. To us in the Bloc Québécois, creating two classes of seniors is unacceptable.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Indeed, I agree with his comments on certain points. There are many things that we, the Conservatives, asked the federal government for and that are in the budget.

There is one thing that surprises me and I will make a connection between the two issues. First, we spoke about the fact that people 75 and older will be entitled to $500 in July, but that there is absolutely nothing in this budget for those between the ages of 65 and 74.

The other issue that we feel strongly about is EI sickness benefits, which will increase from the current 15 weeks to a maximum of 26 weeks in 2022. Until then, people could become sick, have a serious illness and lack resources for at least 10 to 15 weeks. The House had even adopted a motion calling for the benefit period to be increased to 50 weeks.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable for his questions and comments. I completely agree with the points he raised.

First, people over the age of 75 will get $500 right before the election is called. This cheap election ploy is revolting and unacceptable. Then, the increase to old age security for people 75 and over will be included in a bill, which, if I understand correctly, will not be introduced until after the election. This will be the second election campaign on that same promise, and it will all depend on whether the Liberal government is re-elected, which is far from a sure thing, given how much things can change during an election.

I want to talk about how the House adopted a motion to extend EI sickness benefits to 50 weeks. We, legislators, gave the government an instruction, but the government has not complied. The House voted in favour of 50 weeks, but the government is currently offering just 15 weeks and will ultimately increase that number to just 26 weeks. That is unacceptable.