Debates of April 20th, 2021

Questions on the Order Paper

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from April 19 consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House again to continue to respond to the 2021 budget that was tabled by the federal government yesterday.

As so many parliamentarians, members of the media, stakeholders and even some ordinary Canadians have done, I too have spent hours poring over the contents and the backgrounders, the annexes and other finer details of this budget. Since this is the first budget we have seen in over two years, to be true, a dubious record for Canada, and given the unprecedented health and economic circumstances we are in, I was very eager to receive and review the budget to determine what it would mean for Canadians in the short, medium and long term.

Before I get into the details, let me once again congratulate my colleague the Minister of Finance for making history yesterday as the first female finance minister to table a budget in this House. As I said yesterday, this consequential achievement is long overdue. My four daughters will undoubtedly take inspiration from her.

That said, they certainly will not take inspiration from the budget that the minister has laid before us. This is by far the biggest-spending budget in the history of our nation. It has delivered an avalanche of spending the likes of which our country has never seen before, and yet for many this budget will be a major letdown.

With well over two years since the last budget, the government has had ample time to get this right. For way too long, Canadians have been left without a comprehensive plan for our economy to guide us through what has now become the stormiest season of our lifetime. One would have expected that, with so much time to prepare, the government would have offered Canadians renewed hope and confidence that a secure future would still be theirs. One would have expected a revised and hopefully more effective plan to get Canadians vaccinated in short order. One would have expected a clear plan to safely reopen our economy and get Canadians back to work again. One would have also expected a bold strategy to help struggling small businesses back on their feet again. Finally, one would have expected a responsible government to come forward with a credible plan to manage the massive financial consequences of this COVID pandemic, consequences that future generations of Canadians will be saddled with and have to pay for.

Those who were hoping to see these things in the budget will surely be disappointed. This not a budget that has been developed to fight the pandemic; this budget was developed to help Liberals fight an election. Of that, there can be no doubt.

To be sure, there are a number of positive measures in this budget, some of which we will undoubtedly support and promote, especially those that continue to help Canadians through this very difficult time and also those investments that secure our long-term prosperity. They should expect our support for those.

For example, we are pleased to see that the government listened to us and to the many business organizations across Canada and extended the Canada emergency wage and rent subsidies. We are supportive of a number of important small business measures, such as the new hiring incentive program, the promise of lower credit card processing fees, and supports to help businesses move online in a digital economy.

Sadly, what is completely missing from this budget is emergency support for new businesses, which have somehow fallen through the cracks because in early 2020 they did not yet have the established revenues to qualify for the government's emergency support measures. They are still falling through the cracks.

We also support the introduction of a policy that would allow companies to expense the full value of qualified capital investments in the same fiscal year in order to encourage companies to reinject their corporate savings back into our economy on an expedited basis. We welcome the extension of the student loan interest waiver and the making of additional investments in broadband to improve connectivity within Canada.

Similarly, we welcome additional steps to eliminate the interprovincial trade barriers that measurably undermine our economic growth. We also support the decision to extend sick leave for seriously ill Canadians to 26 weeks. This is precisely the type of spending we are inclined to endorse.

We Conservatives have consistently supported the government in its efforts to help Canadians through the health and economic crisis of our lifetime, and members can be sure we will continue to do so, but there is more to a federal budget than just borrowing and spending. Budgets are about promoting economic growth, including the setting of priorities. They are about exercising fiscal prudence and probity and delivering to future generations a bright and economically sustainable future, and that is what is missing in this budget.

In the lead-up to budget day, we provided both the Prime Minister and his finance minister with a list of must-haves for this budget for the government to win our support. These were measures that we believed were absolutely essential to safely reopen our economy, get Canadians back to work again and provide future generations with the hope and confidence that they can still live out their Canadian dream. As I mentioned, a number of these measures have made their way into the budget. It is amazing what happens when the official opposition does its job by prodding and poking the government from time to time, so I commend the minister for acting upon at least some of our asks.

However, instead of creating a sustainable road map for economic recovery, and I emphasize the word “sustainable”, this budget appears to represent a wasted opportunity to do right by future generations of Canadians. It does not deliver a comprehensive plan to position our economy for long-term success. Spending a loan is not an economic plan. The budget fails to sufficiently address the most important structural weaknesses in our economy, including our declining productivity. Nowhere does it meaningfully address the dramatic flight of foreign capital from our country, nor does it commit to comprehensive regulatory and tax reform.

This budget is notable for its marked pivot away from our natural resource sector, another vote of non-confidence in a sector whose contributions to our national prosperity have been immense over the years. There is no mention of our world-leading and ethical oil and gas sector. There is no critical minerals strategy, just half-hearted measures about consultations, research and a centre of excellence. The government's failure to meaningfully address the skyrocketing cost of housing means that millions of Canadians will see their dream of owning a home slip through their fingers. This is another failure.

Some two billion dollars' worth of trade crosses our common border with the U.S. every day, yet the budget scarcely touches on border security and trade facilitation, and it makes no mention whatsoever of what steps are being taken to plan for an eventual safe reopening of our border. The budget also fails to measurably address the state of Canada's health care and, most importantly, the mental health wall that our country faces. Fortunately, our Conservative leader has identified this significant vulnerability and has committed to addressing this challenge in a future Conservative government.

We had called for the current Liberal government to stop supporting and investing taxpayers' money in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is an institution that delivers no meaningful or measurable benefit to Canadians. With Canada's current bilateral relationship with China in utter disrepair, giving taxpayers' money to this China-led organization is completely futile, indefensible and unacceptable. Did the minister respond to our request? No. For the Liberal government, it is business as usual with the communist regime in Beijing.

We are judging the government's budget not on the quantity but on the quality of its spending. Based on that standard, we have found this budget to be wanting. Notwithstanding the additional benefits that the budget would deliver for Canadians who continue to struggle through this pandemic, measures which we support, it is enormously expensive, as members know, and it would dramatically expand the role of government in the lives of Canadians.

Last year's deficit will be a staggering $354 billion, and the government has no plan whatsoever to eliminate its deficits. Our national debt is expected to reach $1.4 trillion this year, with the government signalling that this debt is likely to hit an eye-popping $1.8 trillion by 2025. That is why the Liberals asked for an increase in the debt ceiling to $1.83 trillion.

Presumably with this in mind, the Prime Minister gave the finance minister a revised mandate letter in which he laid out three clear directives to safeguard our national finances. Those directives were: first, avoid creating new permanent spending; second, review Canada's debt management strategy; and third, present a new fiscal anchor. That is the standard the Prime Minister himself has set, and Canadians should be able to take him at his word. Therefore, we are going to measure this budget against that standard.

How did the Prime Minister and his finance minister do?

Let us look for a moment at permanent spending. Remember that the finance minister was instructed to have no new permanent spending. Instead of complying with the Prime Minister's instructions and mitigating against the immense financial challenge facing our country, the finance minister and her government have triggered a plethora of new permanent spending commitments that will likely hobble the prosperity of generations for years to come and mean massive new taxes under the Liberal government.

Similarly, the minister's half-hearted attempt to present a debt management strategy falls far short of the rigour expected of an accountable and responsive government. Indeed, the budget failed to justify why the minister felt that further economic stimulus in the amount of $100 billion was needed when GDP growth has strongly rebounded. She should be happy about that. Preloaded stimulus is the form of savings is primed for release. American stimulus and infrastructure investments well north of $4 trillion are ready to wash over into our economy.

Then we found out in the budget and from exceedingly frank finance officials that much of the stimulus was not stimulus at all. It was emergency support funding, much of which we support, and it was programming that bore absolutely no relation whatsoever to stimulating the economy. Imagine our surprise when a departmental official opined “Oh well, all government spending is stimulus.” No, it is not. All the minister had to do was be transparent about her $100 billion, as we would likely support a number of the initiatives that this fund would support. However, we know that there is an election around corner, and it is now very clear that this funding of $100 billion is simply intended to stimulate the re-election of the government.

Then there is the Prime Minister's directive to present a new fiscal anchor. It was very clear to the finance minister that she present a new fiscal anchor.

The minister referenced that anchor on page 53 of her budget. That is another fail. The closest this anchor comes to being a true anchor is its vague commitment to “reducing the federal debt as a share of the economy over the medium-term.” That is it. That is not a new anchor. That was the government's own anchor, the debt-to-GDP ratio, except that this one, the so-called new one, does not even have a target and will tempt the government to run up further debt in the years to come.

As the Prime Minister blithely stumbles into the fiscal unknown, Canadians should take little comfort in the government's promises to manage our debt and get our deficit situation under control.

Based on the Prime Minister's own mandate instructions to his minister, this budget must be considered a fail.

I began my speech by saying that I was very eager to review the budget to determine what it would mean for Canadians in the short, medium and long term. In the short term, yes, there are a number of investments and programs that will help Canadians make it through this economic and health crisis. We are supportive of many of those measures. However, in the medium and especially the long term, there is very little to get excited about, just endless debt and deficits with not even a pretense of the Liberal government ever wanting to return to a balanced state, even in the long term.

As a responsible official opposition, we are still carefully reviewing and analyzing the budget and we will discuss it with our caucus tomorrow before casting final judgment on it. Suffice it to say that, so far, I am not encouraged.

One thing Canadians can be confident of, absolutely confident of, is that a Conservative government, led by the member for Durham, will implement a true Canada recovery plan that secures our future by getting Canadians back to work, by helping small businesses recover, by restoring Canada's reputation and competitive advantage and by prudently managing the massive financial burden with which the pandemic has left us. The Conservatives have done this before; they will do it again.

I therefore move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word 'That' and substituting the following:

“given that the budget:

(a) adds over half a trillion dollars in new debt that can only be paid through higher job-killing taxes;

(b) contains over $100 billion for a re-election fund while doing nothing to secure the long-term prosperity of Canadian; and

(c) fails to rule out the introduction of capital gains taxes on the principal residences of Canadians, currently being studied by Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as a way to pay for the government's spending;

the House demand that the Liberal government's budget be revised in order to focus on accelerating the vaccination plan to end the dangerous third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and policies that will create jobs and stimulate economic growth

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

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his generous comments toward the finance minister on her remarkable achievement as the first woman in our nation's history to table a budget Canada's House of Commons.

I note that the member has outlined some of the measures he does support, but I find it curious. Over the course of our pandemic response, there are certain rather obvious policies that the Conservatives have come out against. In particular, I note that the Leader of the Opposition has voiced his strong opposition toward CERB, the Canada emergency response benefit, on a number of occasions. Similarly, after everything we have been through with our long-term care facilities, he has indicated he does not want the federal government to make investments to improve the quality of life for residents in long-term care facilities and would rather leave that exclusively to the provinces.

My question for the hon. member, specifically, is whether he supports the historic proposed investment to create Canada's first national early learning and child care strategy which would ensure women have a fair shake at participating fully in Canada's economy and would reduce the cost of child care for parents.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I find it passing strange that the member was not listening carefully as I gave my speech, as our opposition has been articulating its views on a child care strategy. In fact, our letter to the Minister of Finance expressly calls for the government to implement policies that support women, helping them to engage in the workforce. This is critical for our long-term productivity.

What we do not support is an Ottawa-knows-best, one-size-fits-all approach. We know that many families will be left behind, that do not avail themselves of institutionalized day care. They have family, friends and neighbours who help out with that. On top of that, the member's party has been promising this for 30 years.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, during the 2019 election campaign, the Bloc Québécois sounded the alarm about seniors' inadequate incomes. We think the government should address that insecurity by increasing seniors' benefits.

We know that the pandemic has made things even worse. Health consequences and isolation hit seniors first. In July, the government finally gave in to pressure from the Bloc Québécois and gave seniors an extra $300 plus $200 for the guaranteed income supplement. The Bloc Québécois insisted that there should not be two classes of seniors and demanded that the increase be monthly and systematic.

In this budget, the government is creating two classes of seniors, which is exactly what the Bloc Québécois rejected in the first place. We do not understand why the government would increase benefits for those 75 and over but not those aged 65 to 75. That does not—

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

Order. The hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the member has noted, there is some support for seniors in the budget, but before we embark upon any new permanent spending programs, we need to place of all this in the context of the long-term fiscal sustainability of our country. That is why the mandate letter to the Minister of Finance clearly says that there will be no new permanent spending, yet the budget completely breaks her responsibility to follow that directive.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a fellow British Columbian, so he knows very well that my constituents in New Westminster—Burnaby are hard working. They are running small businesses. Families, people with disabilities, seniors and students are all struggling through this pandemic and we have now hit this tragic third wave, which is the worst yet in the pandemic. My constituents are shocked with the fact that the Liberal government will be cutting the supports that people so desperately need during this pandemic and are angered by the profiteering we have seen during this pandemic. Canada's billionaires are adding $78 billion to their wealth at a time when so many people are struggling.

My question for my colleague is very simple. The budget gives a free ride to the ultra-wealthy in the country. Does he feel it is appropriate, at this critical time, that the Liberals are giving a free ride to Canada's ultra-wealthy?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is a question the member has asked me before in the House. I appreciate him repeating it, and I will repeat my answer.

The real way of supporting Canadians and introducing fairness across all sectors of our economy is to generate economic growth. We had gone into this budget saying no new taxes, especially on our hard hit small business sector, and we are pleased that for the most part there is not a dramatic increase in tax burden on those businesses that are still struggling, although there is some.

These businesses are still calling for help from the government, and new businesses are not receiving it because of the reasons I outlined in my speech. I wish this member of the NDP would focus on economic growth and generating wealth within Canada so every family across this country benefits from that prosperity.

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

Madam Speaker, my question is around credit ratings. Last June, Fitch downgraded our national credit rating. At the same time, S&P warned it could downgrade our credit rating over the next couple of years, “should the deterioration in the government's fiscal position become more severe and prolonged than we currently expect.”

My colleague pointed out very aptly that the Prime Minister has now stumbled blithely into the fiscal unknown. Does my colleague think Canada might be in danger of a credit downgrade again, and what effect might that have on our prospects fiscally?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly do. My letter to the Minister of Finance outlined the fact that we had serious concerns that Canada's credit rating was going to be downgraded because of a declining fiscal situation. That is a result of unmanageable debt and deficits and unmanageable stimulus spending, which overheats the economy and leads to inflation. We want to make sure our economy is on sound, solid footing.

When Fitch downgrades us, as it recently did, it should sound alarm bells to all of us to ask what the Liberal government is doing wrong.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the first question from the parliamentary secretary, because the member did not answer it and skated around the answer. He was asked whether he supports the child care initiatives here. What he said was that one size does not fit all and that we have to look for different solutions.

This is a tested program in Quebec. It is a successful program in Quebec that has gotten more women into the workforce. It has done a lot for gender equality in the workforce.

Which is it: Does the member support the initiative or think the model has been a failure in Quebec?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, first, we support the provinces in making their own decisions in these areas. Clearly, Quebec has made its decision to establish this program, and we laud them for that, but there is nothing in the budget I have seen that says the minister is going to adopt the Quebec system. She has praised it, but we have no details in the budget about what this system will look like, other than that it is going to lead to $10-a-day daycare and a reduction in child care costs by 50% over the next few years.

There is no detail attached to this proposal, so this member is asking me to judge something I have not even seen in its entirety. I will repeat that what we want to see is a system that creates new child care spaces but also incorporates flexibility for families that have other models of child care they want to access. We believe in the rights of parents to choose for their children. I wish this member would.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois stands in solidarity with the people of all Canadian provinces, and especially Ontario, who are dealing with a resurgence of the pandemic, which has become alarming in many respects. Quebec seems to be managing a little better for the moment. Let us hope we can get out of this situation as soon as possible.

Quebec and Canada, like the rest of the world, have been hammered by a devastating and unexpected pandemic, the scale, scope and devastation of which no one anticipated. This was followed by a serious, significant economic crisis that has rocked key sectors of our economy, including everything from self-employed workers and small, local businesses to big multinationals and the greedy giants that the airlines have become.

The government has done the right thing in one respect, specifically, taking advantage of its huge borrowing capacity, which compares favourably with most other OECD countries, to be able to inject significant amounts of money into the Quebec and Canadian economies. It is the right thing to do. Some $50 billion will be spent this year, followed by $100 billion over the next three years, to invest in the actual economic recovery. That is something the government can do, and it is certainly what needs to be done.

In some ways, it listened to the Bloc Québécois—not just the Bloc, that is not what I am saying—when it came to addressing the interests and needs of Quebec and what Quebec was calling for. The government did listen, to some extent. In some cases, there was more talk than action, but the government did pick up on some of the themes that we, together with the National Assembly of Quebec, deemed to be absolutely essential for stimulating economic activity.

I am thinking about the aerospace sector, which appears in a Canadian budget for the very first time. I am thinking about the biopharmaceutical industry, which is now gaining prominence under the current circumstances after being neglected in recent years. Canada and Quebec in particular, were a hub of pharmaceutical research until the sector was decimated after years of neglect.

I am thinking about the electrification of transportation. Let me say from the outset that this is very much a Quebec issue, subject, and expertise. Quebec is an undisputed leader in this area just as it is in the aerospace industry.

I am thinking about the forest-based bioeconomy. I suspect, and I will say it with a smile, that it would not be in the budget if not for the very eloquent and strongly worded statement, addressing the reality of the Quebec regions, made by what we call the Bloc Québécois “caucus du bois” at the initiative of the member for Jonquière and the member for Lac-Saint-Jean. We agree that it is not huge. More money has been allocated before, for example to fight the spruce budworm. However, it is a good start that some funding will be invested in forest-based bioeconomy and that intent is what we were looking for. We will see later whether it is significant or not.

I have to admit that there is some concern associated with that. Where will this money be invested? For example, had the federal government decided in 2021, as it did in 2009-10, to inject a massive amount of money into the automobile industry, we would not expect it to go to Drummondville or Val-d'Or. We would expect it to go to Ontario. If the government injects substantial amounts of money in aerospace, we expect that half this funding will go where half the aerospace industry is located, that is, in Quebec, which is a world leader in that sector.

The pharmaceutical industry was seriously gutted. The expertise was Quebec-based and research capacity is still Quebec-based, not exclusively, but for the most part. Initiatives were brought in during the pandemic by Quebec businesses and corporations.

The electrification of transportation is more than just an economic sector in Quebec. It is our identity. Quebec cannot take full credit. Its geography and history have made it a place where clean hydro-electricity, drawn from its rivers, has shaped our province as a leader in clean energy and everything that follows, including the electrification of transportation. It seems only natural that such leadership would be recognized.

Buying Quebec products, such as charging stations by AddÉnergie Technologies, and installing them across Canada would be a good way to recognize our production capacity and technology. There are several other companies such as Elmec in Shawinigan.

However, we would have reservations and concerns if the plan is to take our expertise and move it somewhere else, diluting the competence and expertise that Quebec is renowned for, to benefit Canadian provinces with our own money. That goes for the forest-based bioeconomy as well, although there is obviously a large forestry industry in British Columbia and a little in New Brunswick and Ontario. This expertise must not be moved, because that would undermine Quebec's competitive edge in key economic sectors. We will have to be very vigilant.

In the aerospace sector, for example, the federal government had no problem retroactively passing a bill allowing Aveos jobs to be transferred from Montreal to Manitoba. If that is where this is going, we are not interested.

When the government decided it was interested in the electrification of transportation, it initially announced $500 million for a Ford plant in Ontario. That does not mean there will not be any plants in Quebec, but we in Quebec obviously know that Ontario is not a hub for transportation electrification.

I remind members that the government made investments to combat spruce budworm in the Maritimes but not in Quebec, which was also having problems with that pest.

Glaring omissions like this have happened repeatedly in the past. Here is another example from this budget: the Davie shipyard, one of Quebec City's economic powerhouses that represents 2% to 3% of a budget merrily hovering around $120 billion, even though it accounts for half of Canada's shipbuilding capacity. The government says it is because Irving is failing to deliver, so bureaucrats will be hired to go support Irving, which will keep on failing to deliver. There is nothing here for Davie, which makes no sense.

This tendency to cherry-pick Quebec's expertise and use our own money to generously distribute that expertise across Canada could turn into an issue. Are these amounts enough? Bioforestry is a special case.

We certainly applaud the fact that something that has been good for Quebec is being applied to the rest of Canada. Quebec has been innovative and has gained international recognition for the child care policy my premier, Ms. Marois, implemented. According to every economic analysis, not just Quebec-based ones, that policy massively increased women's presence in the workforce. The fact that Canada has at long last decided to implement a similar model is worth applauding.

Now, as I have said elsewhere, students do not tell teachers how to correct their work. The federal government will not tell Quebec how to run a child care system. Instead, it should express an interest in learning how Quebec runs its system. There can be exchanges of ideas and free consent to improvements. Generally speaking, the concept of free consent should be the basic principle underlying Quebec-Canada relations.

If the strange notion of an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec means something other than a simple transfer of Quebec's share of the funding for child care with no strings attached, then that is unacceptable.

This morning, the Quebec finance minister, Mr. Girard, was very clear. He does not intend to negotiate. Quebec just wants its share of the funding. That is the way it should be, even though, yesterday, the Minister of Finance was unable to resist saying that the money should be invested the way she says it should. To put it bluntly, it is none of her damn business.

Quebec does what it wants with Quebec's money. Quebeckers have a Quebec government and a National Assembly that deal with such issues. The other Parliament, where we are currently, has no right to tell the National Assembly what to do with its money. That is a bad habit that the federal government has gotten into and is having a hard time overcoming. It is almost genetic. In this case, we are informing the federal government that we will take the money, but we will not be told what to do with it.

The same thing is happening when it comes to long-term care centres for seniors. It is the only federal contribution in health. This is something much larger than an elephant in the room. We are coming out of a pandemic. It is a health issue. Who are the primary victims of the pandemic? Seniors are. We saw that. The loss of life has been dramatic, especially among seniors. What is the budget missing? It is missing help for health care and help for seniors.

I scratched my head. I even thought that in terms of electoral opportunism, a skill this government has mastered, I would have done something. However, there is nothing and it is a slap in the face to Quebec and all of Canada's premiers who are being told that they will not be getting their health transfers. Quebeckers and people elsewhere in Canada might take note and get fed up with this lack of respect. As for the rest of the budget, anyone could have come up with it. The right decisions were easy to make. However, the bad decisions are shocking.

I was talking about CHSLDs, or their equivalent across Canada. The federal government said it would invest $3 billion over five years, which should mean roughly $120 million a year for Quebec. In the context of long-term care, that is not a lot of money. On top of that, the federal government said the money would have conditions attached, because it is Canada, which is intrinsically superior to Quebec's jurisdictions.

However, this fails to acknowledge that the underfunding of the health care system is largely to blame for what happened. In fact, Ottawa has not been paying its fair share for quite some time now. The average age is higher in Quebec than elsewhere.

The federal government likes to take a moral stance and tell others how things work, even when it has no experience in the matter. The federal government has never run a health care facility, but it knows everything because it is the federal government, and they are the Liberals so they are, by definition, superior. This constant tendency to meddle in Quebec's affairs makes no sense, especially considering that Ottawa can barely manage its own jurisdictions, such as border control.

Word choice is a problem here. The federal government uses words like “aeronautics”, “forests”, “health” and “electric transportation”, but the measures themselves are quite vague. In reality, we will debate the budget for a number of days, after which we will vote on this budget, with all of the consequences that entails. We will then move on to the budget implementation bill and other things.

I want to get back to the very important topic of seniors. The Liberal government, that eternal warrior against all forms of discrimination, be they imaginary or real, decided to invent a new form of discrimination, distinguishing between real seniors, aged 75 and older, and phony seniors. If I were a senior 75 and over, I would not be having a big celebration, thinking that I was going to get something. In reality, I would get a $500 cheque in July, which is less than $50 a month over the year. That is insulting enough as it is, but seniors aged 65 to 75 do not even get a little something. They get nothing at all.

I do not know what planet the Prime Minister is living on, but since yesterday, we have all been getting messages at our riding offices and on social media from people aged 65 to 75, who are furious, or even pissed off, if I may say so. They are feeling disrespected.

Because we are good people, as everyone knows, we will urge the government to make things right.

The government's economic statement last November predicted a deficit of $380 billion, a figure that ended up being $350 billion. The $30 billion difference is the same amount that it would cost to implement the provinces' demand to increase health transfers from approximately 22% to 35% in one year. It absolutely would not get the government in trouble. This is something it could do.

If the government accepts our amendment, the Bloc Québécois proposal would increase old age security for those 65 and over by $110 a month. That is a significant sum that would total approximately $4 billion a year. That is just a little more than 1% of last year's deficit for the group of people who were most affected by the pandemic.

We should be able to talk to one another. If our amendment were adopted, we could be in a situation where this summer's disappointing $500 would be accessible to everyone 65 and over pending the adoption of implementing legislation for next year. In this context, there would be legislation next year because we would work together to bring in this law.

We will not be headed to the polls as early as the government would have liked, but we will presumably still be on the campaign trail come fall. Therefore, there will be no legislation to increase old age security before next summer. It will not happen. We could accelerate things if our amendment were accepted because it would create fairness compared to the profound unfairness of the current version.

We are therefore tabling an amendment to the Conservatives' amendment. I have the pleasure of reading it.

That the amendment be amended by deleting paragraphs (a) and (b) and substituting the following:

“(a) does not include any increase to the Canada health transfers;

(b) abandons seniors between the ages of 65 and 75; and”

and by adding after the words “economic growth” the following:

“, support health care systems by increasing the Canada health transfers to 35% of health care costs and contribute to the quality of life of seniors aged 65 and over by increasing Old Age Security as of age 65 and dropping the age for the one-time payment of $500 for the summer of 2021 to age 65.”

The door is wide open for the government securing the Bloc Québécois vote for this budget and significant appreciation by the simple application of Quebec's basic rules of fairness.

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

The amendment to the amendment is in order.

Questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council.

[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, the Prime Minister and government members have recognized the true value of having an national child care system that supports parents being in the workforce. We look at the Province of Quebec and its success. It is something that should be applauded. We can look at a system and ways to incorporate that nationally.

The member makes reference to long-term care. The constituents of Winnipeg North and I, and I believe Canadians in general, see the need for national standards. We have seen this throughout the pandemic.

Can my friend across the way indicate if he thinks we should support what the government is being called upon to do and look at national standards for long-term care? It such an important issue, and it seems to me to that people in all regions of the country want to see that happen.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a suggestion for my esteemed colleague. Rather than apply Canadian standards to Quebec, which has been doing this for 20 years while Canada has not done it at all, the government could apply Quebec's standards to Canada, and everything will be fine. I do not see why it should be done otherwise. Then Quebec can thank the feds when it gets its cheque and say how pleased it is to have helped women in Canada.

Quebec did not wait for the federal government's go-ahead to become a more feminist state. We have had plenty of budgets tabled by female finance ministers, such as Ms. Marois and Ms. Jérôme-Forget.

I am very happy to see this change. I really feel for people in Toronto who pay $1,300 per month per child for care. That is absolutely crazy. Kudos to Canada for following Quebec's lead. I just want to make it clear that the federal government will not be forcing its policies on us just because it was inspired by us.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the child care promise in the context of the history of the government not being able to keep its promises. The Liberals promised to balance the budget by 2019. They promised electoral reform, elimination of boil water advisories, reduction of cellular fees by 25% and many, many other things.

How much faith does the member have that the Liberal government will be able to keep this promise?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a big question. I do not even know where to start.

If we had to list all of the government's broken promises, we would be here all night, so instead I will name just a few. There is often a direct correlation between the probability that a promise is kept and the proximity of an election, so there is reason to be skeptical.

Quebeckers have an advantage when it comes to child care because we already have a system in place. At best, the Quebec government will receive additional funding and will do what it likes with it.

However, with all of the hype on this issue, I hope that the federal government will follow through on this commitment, that the entire House will agree on the principle of an early child care program and that such a program will be implemented, no matter what the future may bring. Quebec will always be willing to co-operate.

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

Madam Speaker, I commend the leader of the Bloc Québécois on his speech.

He quite rightly spoke about the failures of this budget, which include insufficient funding for health care and a lack of support for seniors. It is clear that the budget fails to properly address these two issues.

Another failure is the Liberal Party's refusal to make the wealthy pay. During this pandemic, billionaires grew $78 billion richer. We know that we are losing $25 billion per year to tax havens. We also know that 20% of Quebeckers want a tax on wealth.

How does the leader of the Bloc Québécois explain the Liberal government's refusal to make the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am tempted to use chemistry terms like centralization versus decentralization.

The Liberals have a compulsive habit of trying to centralize everything. The government is trying to set conditions on programs that should exist regardless. This creates delays, adds complexity and does not provide people with the help they need.

Now, making the rich and the ultra-rich pay is something we can get behind. I will use the example often highlighted by my esteemed colleague from Joliette, namely, tax evasion and tax havens. The federal government is losing out on $900 million a year that it could be going after.

I am being about as subtle as a freight train—and who knows whether trains between Montreal and Quebec City will even survive—but a single tax return would allow us to decentralize power to Quebec, which tends to honour its commitments, something the federal government does not do. Right now the federal government is leaving $900 million lying around in champagne-soaked, sunny tax havens, while Quebeckers are in lockdown in a post-pandemic economic crisis.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, the main things missing from the budget are of course health transfers and support for seniors.

In my view, another important omission is the print media. For over a year now, we have been calling on the government to support the print media industry, especially regional media venues, which are going through an unprecedented crisis. The budget would have been a great opportunity to do something for that industry, but there was nothing.

I want to ask my colleague, who is also my party leader, to comment on the fact that this was missing from the federal budget.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, the federal government announced that it planned to impose a suitable tax on web giants, which are creating a lot of unfair competition in the communications, arts and media sector.

Imagine being on a flight to Europe with enough fuel to get to Greenland. It stops halfway there. The government taxes 3% of its revenue. However, that is only a temporary measure while waiting for something else for which there is no deadline, and also, the money is going into the consolidated revenue fund. The government criticizes Quebec for taking the money from child care services and putting it into the consolidated revenue fund, but it is taking money from arts, culture and the media and putting it in the consolidated revenue fund, which is unacceptable. That money needs to go to the media and the arts, which desperately need it.