Debates of April 26th, 2021

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to split my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the former leader of the Green Party.

I was talking about the strength of leadership that we saw at the national level and in provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Stakeholders came to the table with that team Canada approach and, as a result, Canada is in a much better position to build back better. I referenced the sense of commitment that I know every Liberal member of Parliament in the House of Commons has to ensure that we have a better economy and a better social environment. There are many examples of that.

I am very proud of the Minister of Finance, the first female national Minister of Finance, who did a fabulous job of presenting a plan that is going to take us into the years ahead. It will protect health care. We are investing in science to build domestic vaccine manufacturing capacity, something that we learned we needed. That is one aspect of building back better. We are investing $5 billion to create national standards for long-term and older adult care. We know that is a priority for Canadians. We have seen a good rationale for the arguments presented through the last 12 months. We are improving mental health services. We will continue to push for a national pharmacare program, at the same time recognizing that we need buy-in from the provinces to provide the type of pharmacare program that Canadians expect of all levels of government.

We talk about putting people first. It is something I often reference. We see that in the budget, with an extension of income and business supports such as the CRB and the CEWS through to the fall. I find it amazing that members of the opposition criticize the government because we fulfilled a campaign promise. I am sure many of my colleagues will remember the campaign promise that if Liberals formed government, we would increase OAS for those 75 and over by 10%. That was a campaign promise. We are fulfilling that campaign promise, and the Conservatives are criticizing us for it and asking about other seniors.

In 2015 and 2016, this government lifted hundreds of thousands of seniors out of poverty. It increased the GIS for the poorest seniors in the country. In Winnipeg North alone, hundreds of seniors were lifted out of poverty because of direct action by this government. These are the types of things that are making a difference. It is a way that we are putting people first.

We are giving children a head start and adding value to our economy by reducing the cost of regulated child care by 50% by 2022, with the goal of it costing $10 a day by 2026. What a bold initiative that is. We want the so-called gold standard in Quebec to be applied across Canada. Not only those who have children, but all of society will benefit from that because we will have more value in our economy as a direct result. We are investing close to $30 billion over the next five years to build that permanent national system. We are committed to working with the provinces to make that happen.

I talked about the price of pollution and the lack of leadership from the Conservative Party on that issue. Planning for a green recovery is an important aspect of the budget. We are fighting climate change with a price on pollution, helping more than 200,000 Canadians make their homes greener.

It is a wonderful policy announcement and I hope to see many of my constituents take advantage of it. Building a net-zero economy by investing in world-leading technologies, not to mention the legislation we brought forward and conserving 25% of our lands and oceans by 2025 for future generations, are the types of initiatives that are going to make a difference when we talk about planning for a green recovery.

Jobs are important. Many sectors have been hit hard. Programs such as the emergency wage subsidy program, the emergency rent subsidy program, the emergency business account, the credit availability program and the relief and recovery fund, not to mention the CERB, combined with other programs during this difficult time have put Canada in an excellent position. We are on track to create a million jobs before the end of this year. We are supporting almost 500,000 new training and work opportunities. We are helping small businesses to transform for a digital world.

These are the types of initiatives that are making a difference in the lives of all Canadians. We are in this position today because we have taken seriously the priorities Canadians have had over the last 12-plus months: minimizing the negative impacts of the coronavirus and being there for Canadians during this time.

The Government of Canada, with the support of many, has done just that. It pleases me to say we will have over 44 million doses of vaccines before the end of June, keeping in mind Canada's population is 37.5 million people. We are on the track for brighter days ahead, and a bit more warm weather too.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am getting calls from constituents in Oshawa who remember Pierre Elliott Trudeau and what happened when he left office. I remember it was Jean Chrétien who said, “We left the cupboard bare”. My concern is that we seem to have maxed out our credit card, our kids' credit card and now it seems to be the grandkids' credit card.

When does the government plan to return to a balanced budget?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is what I mean about the Conservatives being like a rudderless ship. There is no leadership coming from their party. One day they are talking about deficit, deficit, deficit and asking why we are spending all this money, and on other days they are saying how good it is and they support legislation that spends the money that we need to borrow money for.

I gave a list of programs that were absolutely critical to support, not to mention things such as $19 billion for a provincial restart and $2 billion toward schools. There is so much money there that was absolutely needed in order to support Canadians. Some days the Conservatives support it, other days—

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

We will take another question.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

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

Madam Speaker, I could not help but smirk when I heard my colleague talk about the promises the government has kept.

What about the government's key promise in 2015 on electoral reform? What about the government's promise to stop giving subsidies to oil companies? What about the government's promise to stop interfering in provincial jurisdictions?

All I see in the budget is the government trying to interfere in provincial jurisdictions and, more importantly, rejecting Quebec's only demand, namely that the federal level increase health transfers to 35% on an ongoing basis.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, unlike members of the Bloc, I believe it is important that, as a federation, the national government work with provinces and territories for the betterment of all citizens from coast to coast to coast. When it comes to health care accords, enhancement of CPP benefits, or the high sense of co-operation to combat the coronavirus, it is absolutely critical that we not only recognize jurisdictional responsibilities, but also recognize that we have a responsibility to work together for the betterment of all of our communities. That has been clearly demonstrated over the last six years—

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

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, while the Liberal government fails to go after the ultra wealthy and those profiteering off the pandemic, it is choosing to go after individuals living in poverty who accepted the CERB payment, often due to lack of clarity by the government when it rolled out the program. This is an action that will result in members of his riding of Winnipeg North and my riding of Winnipeg Centre ending up on the streets.

Does this member support Campaign 2000's call for repayment amnesty for CERB for low-income individuals? It is calling on the government to respect a human rights approach.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can see the headlines the New Democrats are attempting to get: Tax the ultra rich. That is it. They want that to be their slogan. There is a bit of hypocrisy though, as we put a tax on Canada's wealthiest 1% in the first budget we presented, and members may not believe it, but the NDP voted no.

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

Madam Speaker, I speak to colleagues today from the traditional territory of the W_SÁNEC nation. It is a deep honour to be a member of Parliament for such a place. Hych'ka Siem.

I am going to start with a reflection on the historical nature of this budget and with a thought that comes to us from the late Jane Jacobs, one of the most remarkable thinkers in Canada and a great urban planner. In her last book, Dark Age Ahead, she mentioned that we as a society seem to have collective amnesia.

What I am going to say next will probably result in some heckling. I apologize for that. I mean I apologize for possibly provoking heckling, not for heckling, as I have never heckled.

I do find it important, as we look at this budget, which has, finally, a historic commitment to child care, to look at the last chance we had for child care, the last chance we had to actually live up to our Kyoto targets and the last chance we had to make substantial progress toward reconciliation.

I am speaking of the 2005 achievements that were brought to an end. I am not going to refer to the political parties or the leaders at the time, but I will say that those opportunities were snatched from us by our first-past-the-post electoral system. This is why I say that, and I will just preface this by saying I was not a member of any political party at the time. I was the executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada. When I think of November 28, 2005, I could weep. I have wept.

We had a really good plan to reach the Kyoto targets. When I speak of collective amnesia, this include the Liberals, whose plan it was, but who seem to have completely forgotten that this was a historic reality. We had a very detailed budget from Ralph Goodale as finance minister. The minister of environment at the time was Stéphane Dion. It was found that it would have gotten us to within striking distance of 6% below 1990 levels. We now stand, in our last reported emissions, at 21% above 1990 levels.

Ken Dryden was the minister who delivered the child care plan, which was phenomenal. It had something that we do not have now in that it had signed agreements from 10 provinces. It really mattered. Members can ask Martha Friendly. It mattered, and it also had funding.

We also had five major indigenous organizations in this country representing first nations, Métis, Inuit, native women and so on working on a very strong agreement, which was called the Kelowna accord, of $5 billion over five years. It was never enough, but it was a good start. These were all brought to an end because of first past the post and because of looking ahead at what would happen if a minority government was supported again.

Earlier in this House there was a bit of a debate between the member for London—Fanshawe and the member for Kingston and the Islands about the budget that year. Let us be clear. The budget that year did carry. Paul Martin's government did not fall on the budget. The budget, as some of us will remember, was brilliantly rewritten by Jack Layton. The budget included close to $5 billion in increased social spending, money for affordable housing and more money to end global poverty. It actually would have put Canada on track to hold to 0.7%, to meet that target known as the Pearson target. As I said, I could weep.

The budget passed, but then the Conservatives under Stephen Harper engineered the fall of the government by putting forth their own non-confidence motion, with the support of the other two parties in this House today, the Bloc and the NDP. It brought down the government because of first past the post. This is because, if an opposition party is looking forward, it really does not want the Liberals to be all that popular, and it would be popular if it were delivering on Kyoto, delivering on Kelowna and delivering on child care.

If it were not for that fateful vote on November 28, 2005, our emissions would now be measured against 1990 levels, not 2005 levels, and we would not be 21% above 1990 levels. We would be below them. Child care would have been a reality for Canadian working mothers and, I should say, parents, as dads take responsibility too, but as we know, it is mostly moms. Child care would have been a reality for the last 15 years, not five years away, as the new Minister of Finance states. I believe she fully intends and is fully committed to delivering on child care, but as a provincial jurisdictional reality, the money will not be enough without the agreements. We have to hope that child care deal gets done, but we would have had it for a very long time.

Here we are with this budget, and what do we like about it? Again, I have to say that if this budget is back to the future, we will never get those years back. It was a political calculation that it was worth defeating Paul Martin's government to put Stephen Harper in place because everybody, the Bloc, the NDP and the Conservatives, would do better later on.

We will never get those years back, so now where are we?

I am sure that I can speak for the other members of the Green caucus, and we are all very pleased to see the child care funding. We want to see that succeed, and we would love to support that. However, this budget is missing pharmacare. Why are we not moving ahead on pharmacare? The Hoskins report is sitting there gathering dust.

What happened to guaranteed livable income? We heard the Liberal convention and the NDP convention both support having a basic income, and that means a guaranteed livable income. It is not here at all.

What happened to speaking to the opioid crisis that is taking lives across this country? Where is decriminalization? Where are the really significant plans to deal with the opioid crisis? What about those who are really being left behind here. Youth and post-secondary students, and people living with disabilities are being left behind. There is nothing for people who are dealing with low income and renting their places. There is so much missing here.

What of overseas development assistance and that one little promise from 2005? We have not heard anybody in the government talk about 0.7% of GDP to overseas development assistance since. This budget does very little on overseas development assistance, a surprisingly small amount. NGOs and those in the development community have asked for at least put 1% of what industrialized countries are putting into COVID relief to be put into overseas development assistance. This does not come close. It comes to less than half of one per cent, and it is spread over many years. We know the developing world is going to face a food crisis as a result of COVID. There is a need for more help than ever to developing countries, and, yes, there is an increase, but it is not nearly adequate.

There is money for the Canadian water agency, which is terribly important, but years ago, in 1986, when I worked in government, there was the Inland Waters Directorate, which is essentially what the Canada water agency is now being created to replace because it disappeared through cuts through years. It had over 1,250 employees and I think a budget of $16 million, if memory serves. Just a drop in the bucket is going into this new agency. It needs far more than $8.5 million a year for two years. That is just not adequate.

On climate, the budget itself says it will get us to 36% below 2005 levels by 2030. That is debatable. There is a lot of spending in here that is really laudable. I love the green bonds idea. That is great. It is very exciting to see $4.4 billion go into what they are calling “deep home retrofits” to do more with renewable energy, but there is a lot in here that is masquerading under titles like “clean technology”, but it is dirty technology, such as small and medium nuclear reactors. If we are making hydrogen, that is great, but we have to make sure it is 100% from renewable energy, not from fossil fuel sources.

The big elephant in the room is how we can have a budget that claims to do something about the climate crisis, but that keeps the subsidies in place, the billions of dollars a year, to produce more fossil fuels while promoting and building, as a Canadian Crown corporation, a pipeline to deliver a product that does not have a market, is uneconomical and threatens to destroy ecosystems all along the route it is being built.

It has already been halted because just last week they realized they were cutting down trees and endangering the habitat of migratory birds. They were, in fact, destroying the habitat of migratory birds. Our Crown corporation, which is our tax dollars at work, is building a TMX pipeline that should never be built and which is a direct threat to the climate. The Parliamentary Budget Office says that if this project has any more climate limitations imposed upon it, it will lose billions of dollars, and that was before this budget, which does have new climate limitations.

There is much to like in this budget. There is much that one would want to support, but how do we get around knowing that, if we are serious about holding onto a livable world for our kids, we have to reduce greenhouse gases far more rapidly? We have to reduce them more rapidly than even the new announcement of 40% to 45% below 2005 by 2030 the Prime Minister made at President Biden's climate leaders summit last week. Our fair share is a minimum of 60% below 2005 levels by 2030. This budget, as much as there are good measures in it, and I have mentioned only some of them in relation to climate, there are others that are—

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

I am sorry. I tried to signal that the time was up.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her steadfast dedication to solving the climate crisis that we are currently faced with and her interest in the budget with respect to that matter.

A constituent of mine, Mary Jane Philp, purchased a copy of the book A Good War by Seth Klein and sent copies of it to all 338 members of Parliament. I have just started reading it, and one thing that I find very interesting about the book is that the author starts by comparing the climate crisis to the Second World War and the way that Canada was able to mobilize in response to it.

I find something perplexing. One of the reasons we cannot mobilize as effectively now as we would like to is that we are having a difficult time convincing everybody that we need to mobilize, whereas in the Second World War, Canadians seemed to come together and unite around a common cause so much more effectively and efficiently.

Can the member comment as to why we are having a hard time uniting around this?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to celebrate the member's constituent for sending Seth Klein's excellent book to every member of Parliament.

Part of it is that it does take leadership, and it takes it from the top down. Members will recall that the United States was very slow to realize that it had to step up to deal with the fascist Nazi threat. Leadership does make a difference, and if we say that it must be done and will be done, we can get to the point where we will stop arguing about what is possible and start doing what is necessary.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands on her speech.

I really liked hearing the Greens talk about the environment. It reflects more of their true nature, although they have not always been very critical of pipelines. However, that is another story.

Instead I want to talk about the issue of Quebec and provincial jurisdictions. Earlier we talked about the national child care program, which, I have no doubt, will be largely modelled on the one that has been in place in Quebec for over 25 years and that is working very well.

There is also the issue of unconditional compensation. As we know, the Prime Minister has been rather vague about his intentions on the matter. Will there be conditions attached to the financial compensation for Quebec's withdrawal from the program, yes or no?

I have the same concerns with respect to the eventual implementation of a Canada-wide pharmacare plan.

I would like my colleague to comment on this lack of specific detail and clarity regarding the government's intention to unconditionally compensate Quebec for child care.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.

It is clear: We now have funding for a national child care program. This is extremely important for all families outside Quebec. My colleague is right to point out that Quebec introduced a very good program a few years ago.

However, I think the lack of specifics is due to the fact that negotiations will take place in the future.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the leader of the Green Party for her service. I had the honour of working with her on her bill about Lyme disease, and one thing that has always impressed me is her ability to bring people together.

I was talking to a constituent of mine named Maurice on the phone. He was asking me about seniors, and he wanted to know how this budget was going to affect them. He mentioned that about a month ago, a bill was brought forward in the House that the Bloc, the NDP and the Conservatives supported. It was for an increase in OAS of $110 per month. This budget, unfortunately, instead of bringing people together like the leader of the Green Party has done, is almost like the politics of division. The Liberals are treating seniors over the age of 75 differently from those under 75.

I wonder if the member could comment on this. Is there a way we could fix that?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Oshawa. His comments were terribly kind. I have a small correction, though: I am the former leader of the Green Party of Canada. Annamie Paul is now the leader of the Green Party.

Any increase in OAS is very welcomed. It is true, as the hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned just a moment ago in debate, that this was what the Liberals ran on in their campaign. I would rather that it were not defined based on the dividing line of over 75 or under 75. Perhaps we can make improvements in the budget before we vote for it, but I doubt that we are going to have time to see the Liberals change their budget much—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for La Prairie.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Manicouagan.

We could talk at length about this budget, but I will focus on a few aspects and elaborate on those.

The deficit for 2021 is $354.2 billion. It is astronomical. This is the biggest deficit in Canadian history. The projected deficit for 2022 is $154 billion. If someone had told us this two or three years ago, not knowing that we would go through a pandemic and all its consequences, we would have said that it was impossible, that it would never happen. It just goes to show that we must never say never, because it did happen. Looking at all this, it may seem like it is the end of world for public finances for the Government of Canada and that we will never be able to catch up, especially with a government that has historically been considered a big spender.

In the press release issued with his “Fiscal Sustainability Report 2020”, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said, “Federal finances [are] sustainable over the long term—but most provinces and territories are not”. Despite this major hiccup, the Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us not to worry, that in the long run, things will turn out all right for the federal government. The reason is simple: the fiscal imbalance, which is the fundamental problem with the current federation.

Some people will say that the fiscal imbalance was invented by separatists complaining about the big bad federal government. However, this term was used in the 2002-03 annual management report tabled in November 2003 by Yves Séguin, a true Liberal. I have nothing against the Liberals, but in the interest of calling a spade a spade, I wanted to point out that Mr. Séguin is not a member of the Parti Québécois. He is a Liberal, just as Liberal as Mr. Gerretsen, but that is okay. Mr. Séguin mentioned the fiscal imbalance in his report.

This is yet another example of how Quebeckers are pioneers and trailblazers. If the rest of Canada wants to know what will happen in 20 years, it should just look at Quebec. In this case, the rest of Canada wants to copy Quebec's day care model, which has been around for 25 years. The Liberals noticed that Quebec's day care system was working well, so they woke up. That is how it goes. There are many ways in which Quebec has been a trailblazer.

When Quebec started talking about the fiscal imbalance, the other provinces figured that if Quebec had a fiscal imbalance, they must be in the same boat, because we all live in the same country, unfortunately. The provinces started digging and realized that they had a fiscal imbalance as well. It took them long enough.

However, what is the cause? Was it what the Liberals did in the 1970s or the 1990s? Neither. The cause dates back to 1867 and Confederation. Even then, there was already something amiss, as the Constitution of 1867 created a fiscal imbalance. The responsibilities and spending were assigned to the provinces and Quebec, but the tax base favoured the federal government. Furthermore, under the Constitution, the federal government was given very large fiscal powers, but it could also go get money in any way it liked. That was the federal government's grounds for interfering in income taxes. When it noted that this seemed to be a paying proposition for the provinces, it took over that responsibility from them and Quebec and grabbed the cash cow for itself.

Getting back to the fiscal imbalance and its cause, let us look at health spending. In Quebec, my country and the area I know best, health care takes up 50% of the operating budget. Half of what the Government of Quebec spends goes to health care.

I see that my Conservative colleagues are wondering whether that is also the case in their provinces. It probably is, but I did not check the numbers. However, it is probably close to that.

I am going to ask my colleagues to do some math. To keep the health care system afloat, taking into account inflation, demographics, the aging population and the modernization of equipment, Quebec needs to spend 5.2% a year.

There is a correlation between the revenues of the Government of Quebec and nominal GDP. I looked into it and we are talking about somewhere around 3.8%. That means that Quebec is bringing in 3.8% in revenue and spending 5.2% on health care. Who is paying the difference? There are two options. Either Quebec makes cuts elsewhere or it runs a deficit in order to keep the system afloat. That is when a structural deficit occurs.

The federal government says that it contributes to health care. People are saying that it should contribute 50%, but it actually contributes 21.7%.

According to the Canadian Constitution, given that the federal government has more revenue and does not have many expenditures, it needs to contribute to the provinces, ideally with no strings attached. The provinces are responsible for areas under their jurisdiction. I am not the one that said that.

The member for Outremont said that it is disgraceful to hand out blank cheques. Why would she say that? It is written in the Constitution. Her country is governed by a constitution. As the Constitution says, she should just hand over a blank cheque with no strings attached.

The Liberals know nothing about this field. Even in areas they are familiar with, it is frightening to see them at work. It is not hard to imagine what will happen if they get involved in something they know nothing about. They should give us the money. It would put an end to all of this, with no hard feelings.

As I was saying, the federal government contributes 21.7%. The Liberals are saying that is going to increase. If we look at the figures more closely, we see that health care spending represents 5.2%, but the federal government contributes an average of 3.7% or 3.8%. The federal government is not paying its fair share.

Will the current 21.7% increase or decrease? It is going to decrease. What will happen? Who will pay the difference? If the federal government does not give 5.2%, if it gives less, who will have to make up the difference? It is the provincial and Quebec governments.

Health care is costing the provinces and Quebec a lot of money, which means there is a deficit. There is also an additional deficit because the federal government is not contributing as much as it could. That much is obvious.

The solution put forward by the provinces and Quebec is for the federal government to contribute 35% instead of the original 50%. That would add $26 billion for the provinces, including $6 billion for Quebec. That would help us make up the difference.

It is about as easy for the federal government to understand that fact as it is to eat an apple through a tennis racquet. It makes no sense to the federal government, but it is perfectly obvious to everyone else. Something has to be done because the fiscal imbalance is not going away. It is going to get worse. Basically, there is nothing for Quebec and the provinces in the budget. The fiscal imbalance is going to get even worse.

Last year, the deficit was $354 billion, and this year, it is $154 billion. The Liberals budgeted nothing for this. They say they are going to wait until the pandemic is over. For every $100 the federal government spent during the pandemic, $1 went to the provinces and Quebec to help them with health care costs. That is a fact.

We cannot support this budget, because the government is condemning Quebec and the provinces to an endless deficit spiral as a result of its failure to assume its responsibilities.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree that Quebec inspires us. I am inspired by Quebec. I think Canada is a better place because of Quebec. I truly love the fact that Quebec is a part of Canada. In fact, my family and I spend a lot of time in Quebec during the summer months and ski there in the winter. We have a place in Lac-Sainte-Marie and love that Quebec is part of Canada.

The member talks about the deficit and the amount of debt that has been added. If Quebec had been an independent country, it would have had to put its own measures in place, spend its own money and run deficits to support its citizens during this time.

Does he not see that by unifying together and being one united force throughout the country, we are in a much better place? We can weather this storm together, collectively, as opposed to independently, as provinces would have to do otherwise.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, we might as well unify with the United States and the entire world while we are at it. There are limits. We need to have a country that reflects who we are, with needs that we understand and that we can defend.

Unfortunately, the money we send to Ottawa does not necessarily go to health care. It goes to the oil companies in the west, to shipyards in the rest of Canada and so on, but not back to us. It goes to government policies that apply more to Ontario and the west, not to Quebec. All of that money is our money. It is 22% ours. Ottawa should let us keep it, because we know how to manage it.

I do really like Canada. It is a beautiful place to visit, but we are nothing like Canada. It simply does not reflect who we are. Canada is like a boring party. There just needs to be one guest there, and the rest will follow. Once Quebec up and leaves, we will see what the other guests do—

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

Order. The hon. Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade.

Bill C-12—Notice of time allocation motion

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of the second reading stage of Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

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

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke an awful lot during his intervention about health care transfers, and I agree with him that more money needs to be going to the provinces for health care. One of the areas that the NDP has been working very hard on is pharmacare. I was incredibly disappointed that the Liberals failed to live up to their promise on pharmacare. It would save all Canadians a lot of money if we had a national pharmacare program, and I know that many people in Quebec would like to see it.

What would he say about a national pharmacare program?