Debates of April 26th, 2021

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

Madam Speaker, the issue is health care funding. I know my colleague agrees with the NDP on this.

Health care spending has been cut. For years now, the federal government has been giving less and less, taking into account the increased needs in the health sector. The government needs to immediately bring in measures like a wealth tax in order to adequately fund our health sector.

It is a matter of life and death.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, the people of London have gotten a bad deal through years of Liberal and Conservative governments. Well before the pandemic, many neighbourhoods in London—Fanshawe were left behind by government policies. We would hear about rising GDP and economic prosperity, but many in my community did not see that directly. That is only because the ultra-wealthy, the 1% of Canada, do not live on Hamilton or Southdale Roads, Dundas Street or Jalna Boulevard. Many in my community have been directly impacted, of course, by COVID-19, and the people I have spoken with in London—Fanshawe are worried that they will again be left behind in the recovery.

During the pandemic, the Liberal government offered Canadians the least help possible. The NDP had to force it to do better. This budget is no different. The Prime Minister has chosen to continue to give his rich friends a free ride. He has chosen to continue to fail young people who are facing crushing debt. He has chosen to continue to protect the profits of big pharmaceutical companies and for-profit, long-term care providers, and he has not addressed the housing crisis.

My constituency office staff and I have tried every day to do our best to help the thousands of people who have reached out for help. The challenges and supports offered by the government are inconsistent for different people and are consistently being scaled back. This budget will leave many more still struggling, struggling with rising bills and how unaffordable everything has become, and that includes housing and drug coverage.

For two decades, Canadians struggling with the cost of medication have been promised a pharmacare program. Instead of taking bold action, the Liberals keep breaking their promises and making people wait. Millions of Canadians are without affordable prescription drug coverage. Even more people have lost their jobs and benefits because of COVID-19, including tens of thousands of people in London. At a time when the need is so great, it is inexcusable that the Liberals refuse to give Canadians the affordable, life-saving medicines they so desperately need.

The New Democrats have repeatedly asked the federal government to establish a public drug manufacturer in Canada to address the vaccine shortage, but the Liberals continue to put the interests of multinational pharmaceutical companies and foreign governments ahead of the health of Canadians.

As a third wave of the pandemic rages on, Canadians, including Londoners, are depending on public health care as never before. COVID-19 case counts approach record highs in the London-Middlesex region, with ICUs now setting record case counts. COVID-19 has revealed serious gaps and long-standing problems in our health care system that budget 2021 does not address.

Following the budget, I have heard about the unfair treatment from people living on fixed incomes, specifically seniors and people living with disabilities in my riding. They, too, have been hit by this pandemic financially. They have seen a rise in the cost of prescriptions, food, food delivery and housing.

This summer, seniors received an addition $1.50 as a result of indexing; wow. Now only those over the age of 75 will get a one-time payment of $500 and small increases thereafter. I have constituents aged 65 to 74 telling me that they do not feel the government cares about them, that they do not matter. That is tragic.

People living with disabilities also got nothing. During the debate on Bill C-7, people living with disabilities made it very clear that they were on the brink. They have been ignored for too long, pushed to extreme poverty and disparity and without the choices that others have. Instead of direct assistance, they will also get a task force. Again, my constituents have told me that they cannot pay their bills or buy food with a task force. They cannot afford skyrocketing rent with a task force.

As the NDP's critic for women and gender equality, like so many of my colleagues have, I want to acknowledge that this is the first federal budget presented by a women. This is an excellent step, there is no doubt, and it is about time.

What is also about time is the delivery of a universal, affordable, early-learning and child care system. Of course, after having sat on the Standing Committee for the Status Women and hearing 99% of the witnesses from all different sectors talk about the need for child care; after repeatedly hearing the statistics that women had been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, not being able to return to work in staggering numbers because they could not access safe and affordable child care; and after being a member of a political party who has fought for child care for longer than the Liberals have promised to create it, I was pleased to hear the minister's plans to create that national system. Of course, fool me once, shame on you, fool me for 28 years, that is another story. Suffice it to say that I will watch, with scrutiny, what is presented on child care from this government. However, I am more than willing to work with the government to ensure that the wait it over. We must create that universal and affordable system.

I will insist that this system be publicly funded. I also sincerely hope that child care will not share the same fate as electoral reform or pharmacare. We have too often heard promises of task forces, committees or focus groups, or whatever the Liberal term of the day is, and there is an election with more promises. Then there is a new government that will come forward with a new mandate that cannot possibly move ahead with child care.

As a New Democrat, I come to this place with a lot of hope, but as a Canadian woman I have watched for decades and seen the Liberals' shell game in action. If there is a way to make child care a reality, let us work together and get it done because it is about time.

Child care is not the only thing women need to help them recover from the pandemic, so I was happy to see the recognition and funding for gender-based violence organizations. However, again, despite the evidence showing how vital core operational-based funding is, the government has still only provided two years of funding to these organizations and only five years of funding to a secretariat for the national action plan to end gender-based violence and to crisis hotlines for gender-based violence.

I will also note that the Minister for Women and Gender Equality still has not come forward with an actual national action plan to end gender-based violence. I think that is a bit odd, but it has only been six years. It has not been 28, so I suppose women will continue to wait.

Another group I consistently hear from is young people, who have been among the hardest hit by COVID. They had to make fundamental shifts in their education, employment and financial situations. However, instead of helping young people during the first wave of the pandemic, the government rushed to give almost $1 billion to its well connected friends at WE, and the money still has not made it to students.

Despite the second and third waves, the government will not extend the Canada emergency student benefit. During their studies, students are the ones working in the restaurants and the service sector. They hold retail jobs too. However, these businesses are still closed, and because of the poor vaccine rollout, they are unable to open. Students were also unable to collect the hours, although reduced by the government, required to obtain supports like the recovery benefit. This budget could have taken a New Democratic lead, and we could have put forward a very bold plan to ensure that students thrive instead of being buried in debt.

We believe the federal government must work with the provinces and territories to create tuition-free post-secondary education. We want to ensure that the federal government stops profiting from student debt, by permanently removing interest on all federal student loans and by giving new graduates a five-year head start without having to repay any federal student loans. Let us let them get ahead in their careers by cancelling up to $20,000 per student of federal student loan debt.

These are the ways that a federal government can show leadership. They are tangible ways to invest in people, who then invest in the long-term viability of our economy.

There is so much more to say about housing, the environment and the end of the recovery benefit, but I know that I am at the end of my time, so I will conclude with this. Governing is about choices. This budget was about choices, and the government has made some choices that only help some people. However, it is not too late. The choices that bring people together and raise up all people equally are the choices we must make now and together.

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

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned on a couple of occasions the 28-year wait for child care, and she talked about choices. The NDP had a choice 16 years ago to support Paul Martin's budget, which had child care in it, or side with Stephen Harper and bring down the government. The NDP chose the latter and Stephen Harper was elected. The budget that Paul Martin introduced failed and Stephen Harper did nothing for child care. Here we are 16 years later with another choice to make.

What will the member choose this time? Will she choose to vote in favour of the budget and support this government, or will she choose not to and perhaps see history repeat itself?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am always fascinated when the Liberals will not take responsibility for their actions. They insist upon blaming everybody else for their action or inaction.

Yes, the New Democrats made a choice at that time. They chose to try to salvage a budget and make deals with the Liberal government that were going to slash housing and make significant cuts to people. Was it the choice we wanted to make? No. If it were an NDP budget, would we have put forward housing supports and child care? Absolutely. Those are the choices the New Democrats make, because they are for people. The Liberals like to make choices at the expense of people.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I share with my hon. colleague the hope that the ninth time is the charm.

Does she she share the vision of the government that a one-size-fits-all child care policy, where Ottawa knows best, is the proper form, or are parents in a better position to determine the form of child care?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, a universal child care program, when it is truly affordable and provided publicly, can provide those choices to parents, no matter their position. Those parents who have the option of going the private route have always had that option. We need to ensure that the people and those parents who cannot afford the ridiculously high skyrocketing prices of child care have access, so that there is universal access. This will be by ensuring that it is publicly funded and that money does not just funnel into a very specific profitable group of people like it continually does, because of Liberal and Conservative choices. That is where I have problems, but providing parents choices and that affordability is key, and it is the government that needs to play a key role in the leadership to do that.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from London—Fanshawe for her speech. It was a feminist speech, and that is really in keeping with my values.

I have a very specific question for the member. I am disappointed that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP often find themselves on opposite sides. Most of the time, our two parties should be on the same side because we share many of the same values with only the centralization of power in Ottawa being problematic.

The Prime Minister said that the transfers would have “almost” no conditions, which scares us. The national child care program is modelled after Quebec's program, which we are very proud of because it changed many people's lives, including many women's lives, which is important. Will the member pledge to have her party support Quebec unconditionally receiving its fair share of the transfers under this national program as requested by the Bloc Québécois? Does the member pledge to support our request?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, we believe absolutely in working with the provinces and territories equally to ensure the best goes forward, and of course Quebec has been a leader in child care. It is that example we draw from to ensure that those women and parents in Quebec are examples, and that other parents across the country can have that same opportunity as those in Quebec. It is the same with a lot of students. There are models we can take from, but of course, in terms of those health transfers, I know it is key to ensure, as my hon. colleague before me from New Westminster—Burnaby mentioned, equality and fair taxation, and getting the money to make those national supports a reality.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (FedDev Ontario and Official Languages)]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to be speaking today, and I would like to inform members that I will be sharing my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

At the beginning of this crisis, the government took swift action to protect people from a devastating illness. The government members knew their efforts would need to protect not only their physical health, but their economic health. They said it best: “No Canadian should have to choose between protecting their health, putting food on the table, paying for their medication or caring for a family member.”

In the last 13 months, as residents of Orléans have faced an unmatched crisis, I have heard heartbreaking stories of people who have had to make enormous sacrifices to get through this, including some who have lost loved ones. I have admired the resilience of the essential workers, whether they are retail workers, medical professionals, teachers, or beyond, who have had to face every day with bravery, not knowing what risks they may encounter; the business owners who have wondered when they will be able to make a profit again; the students who face rotating waves of in-person and at-home learning; and the parents who often have had to become teachers. Many seniors have gone through a lonely year of only seeing family through a window. All of them worry about what comes next after the pandemic.

That is why I stand here today in favour of budget 2021. When the first female Minister of Finance, the member for University—Rosedale, presented her budget on April 19, she shattered barriers, but she also presented a credible plan for growth and a vision for the future of the Canadian economy that is built from the ground up. I wanted to highlight some of the initiatives that have stood out to my residents.

As a former businesswoman who ran my own business, I can tell you that the many meetings and discussions I have had with business owners in Orléans struck a nerve. I know what it means to take the risk and juggle fixed costs such as rent and salaries while trying to grow a business. Today, I can only admire the strength and tenacity of businesspeople who are doing this under the worst conditions possible.

Business owners have said to me, loud and clear, that budget 2021's proposed extension to the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency rent subsidy is essential to getting them through to the end of the pandemic.

The Canada emergency wage subsidy has allowed them to hold on to the workforce and talent that allowed them to flourish before 2020. They knew they had to do right by their workers, and with Canada's help many were able to do so when they otherwise might have failed. So many of our small businesses, the core of communities like Orléans, continue to keep their workers employed as they endure a rotation of lockdowns that keep customers away from their doors and demand low.

Meanwhile, the Canada emergency rent subsidy has kept our bricks and mortar businesses in place. This means a start-up restaurant can continue to offer delivery, an independent florist can offer curbside pickup or a gym will be able to resume from where it left off as soon as public health measures relax.

With the help of these subsidies, businesses have more freedom to make the moves they need to adjust to health measures and endure lockdowns.

There has rarely been a darker time to run many businesses than right now, but budget 2021 is investing in a brighter future. The Canada recovery hiring program only furthers these efforts. Aimed at helping the businesses that continue to see a decline in revenue, the CRHP encourages them to invest in their workforce and bounce back strong.

The budget also proposes major investments, $1.4 billion in skills training and digital adoption technology. It will allow Canadian private corporations to immediately expense up to $1.5 million of eligible capital investments made between April 19 of this year and 2024. The government is priming Canadian businesses to adjust for the future and it gives them the tools they need to fuel growth. By supporting this budget, we are assuring the very people who keep our economy moving that we have their backs and that we believe in what they do for our communities.

My constituents also make it clear time and time again that the environment and a transition to a green economy is a top priority for Orléans. Canadians are concerned for the future of our planet. They worry about the impacts of climate change and how they will affect life for their children and grandchildren. The Orléans Youth Council, who I meet with every month alongside my provincial and municipal counterparts, echoes this. They will inherit whatever we leave behind today and they cannot wait for their generation to be in power before action is taken. We need to move now.

The government’s plan for a green recovery is the kind of action they can believe in. Budget 2021 proposes investing $5 billion over seven years in Canada’s net-zero accelerator to help to decarbonize large emitters. It proposes investing $319 million in the research and development of carbon capture technology and a tax credit to incentivize capital investment in carbon capture projects. It proposes slashing tax rates in half for businesses that manufacture zero-emission technologies, making green jobs and new technology a central focus for our economic recovery.

As someone who saw the devastating impact of flooding in my community in 2017 and 2019, I am relieved to see the budget propose $63.8 million over three years to create updated flood maps for high-risk areas. However, for so many of our homeowners, environment and climate change has also become an everyday pocketbook issue. That is why I am pleased to see that budget 2021 wants to give homeowners interest-free loans of up to $40,000 so they can make energy-efficient home improvements. By replacing old heating systems, drafty windows and doors or inefficient insulation, these loans give residents the power to make an investment in their own property that pays off in reduced costs every month. It addresses a long-overlooked impact of emissions on everyday Canadians, even those who may not yet feel the impact of a climate emergency still bear the burden through their monthly bills.

Interest-free loans for retrofits will provide much-needed relief. Since budget day, my team has already received several inquiries from enthusiastic residents about this incredible incentive. The greatest relief would come from one very important program: the government’s plan to establish a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. For years, this has been raised with me as a top priority among parents, grandparents, educators and anyone with a stake in the well-being of our children. The budget’s plan to provide $10-a-day child care by 2026 would give more parents the flexibility they need to participate in the workforce and massively reduce one of the largest costs that families incur.

We also know that the heavy burden of child care is often borne by women. This plan is a revolutionary step toward the economic empowerment of Canadian mothers.

When I speak to my constituents of all political stripes, they remind me that, above all, the government works for them, both as individuals and as members of the community. I take pride in being able to show them a budget that takes their needs seriously and believes that the government has a stake in ensuring their growth. It is presenting serious investments in small businesses, the green economy and day care, but also in students, housing for veterans, racialized communities, official languages and biomanufacturing.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary, in her speech, said that the government has the backs of Canadians. One group of Canadians that the government has not had the backs of are men and women who have opened new businesses, who have been completely shut out of the government's emergency support programs. These are men and women who invested considerable capital and risk before COVID.

Why has the government continued to allow small businesses that are new businesses to fall through the cracks?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government has been working hard to find the right balance and solution on this. I have to remind my hon. colleague of all the actions this government has taken since early on in this pandemic. Without those measures, many businesses would not have been able to stay afloat. I want to remind the hon. member of all the leadership we took, almost as a team Canada approach, early on. At this point, we may not be there anymore, but I am proud to sit on this side of the House when we are talking to businesses about the supports that this government has brought forward and will continue to go forward with in this budget. They see we do have their backs.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to address two topics.

First of all, until the 1970s, the federal government funded 50% of health care expenses. Today it funds only 22%. Instead of imposing standards, if we could re-establish health transfer payments, the health care systems in Quebec and the other provinces would not always be at the breaking point.

Why does the federal government still refuse to increase health transfer payments?

Second, we know that seniors' purchasing power is declining. In 1975, OAS was equivalent to approximately 20% of the average salary. Today it is equivalent to 13%. If this trend continues, there will be nothing left for millennials.

Why not increase the old age security pension automatically at age 75?

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about these two issues.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to discuss a bit of my history before I entered politics. I worked with seniors for 20 years.

I would like to remind my colleague about the Liberal government's efforts and its commitment to helping seniors in recent years. The budget increases old age security for seniors aged 75 and over by 10%. They will receive a $500 cheque in August. We recognize their importance. They built our economy.

In terms of health, I have worked in the health sector and was also an MPP. I know that our government is concerned about health and that it respects provincial jurisdiction. We will always respect provincial jurisdiction.

That is why, from the very start, we committed billions of dollars, including an additional $3 billion, to come to the table, talk with the provinces, and contribute to health care in collaboration with them. I think that all Canadians agree that the federal—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I have to proceed to the next question.

I will remind the parliamentary secretary to watch for the signal.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for North Island—Powell River with a brief question.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the work that I do with her in the veterans committee. One of the things that really concerns me is that there was nothing in this budget to eliminate the clause about marrying after 60 for veterans and for the RCMP. This was called the “gold-digger” clause. It is extremely outdated and is very sexist.

Could the member speak to why this is still not being addressed after being in multiple mandate letters?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, I too respect my colleague on the veterans committee. I know this is something that she has brought up time and time again. I certainly appreciate her perspective. I would somewhat echo what she is saying. The government needs to come together. We need to find the right balance and the right solution, and I am happy to work with her.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the official opposition on the budget for the last few days, and it is difficult to ascertain, at least for me, if they are Keynesians or proponents of Reaganomics.

They say that they support the emergency measures our government quickly put in place when the pandemic broke, programs that helped so many Canadians, families and businesses, but at the same time they decry the deficit while saying they would not eliminate it, nor do they specify what kind of deficit they could live with and for how long.

International experts are urging governments around the world to stay the course, to maintain the stimulus, urging all governments to learn from the 2008 financial crisis. As we know, governments put the brakes on too soon back then and it took about 10 years for economies to recover.

The government’s economic plan is working. The Bank of Canada predicts our economy will grow by 6.5% this year, an upward revision of its forecast of 4% back in January. What is more, the bank’s optimism outstrips the government’s, which expects the economy to grow by 5.8% in 2021.

We hear a great deal from the opposition about how the government's stimulus, which obviously is contributing to the debt, is hurting future generations. However, let us not forget that a deep recession hobbles the career prospects of those about to enter the job market, not to mention of those already in the job market who have lost their jobs. This career drag can last a lifetime, and when a career gets off to a slow start, this could delay people starting a family. It could also mean lower lifetime contributions to an RRSP, which then translates into a lower future retirement income stream.

Our government is investing in the future at a time when interest rates are low. These investments, including in early learning and child care, will make Canada more productive, more competitive internationally and more prosperous. I will come back to child care in a moment.

The returns from investing in the future will be high, and what better time to invest in high future returns than when the cost of capital is low? That is business 101. Incidentally, we can also expect a better quality of life because, in addition to child care, the government is also investing in the green economy.

I would like to take a moment to bring some perspective to the deficit and debt. At the end of World War II, which preceded a period of great technological innovation and historic economic expansion, the deficit-to-GDP ratio was 21%. For 2020-21, the deficit will be $346 billion or 16.1% of GDP. This is below what was predicted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who forecast a deficit of $382.6 billion, and below what the government itself predicted in the fall economic statement, namely a deficit of $381.6 billion or 17.5% of GDP.

The difference between today’s deficit and the one the Conservatives left us in 1993-94 is that today’s is not structural. In other words, it is not based on long-term commitments that are politically difficult to reverse. Unlike the 1993-94 deficit, today’s will begin to fade quickly. The deficit will drop in 2021-22, to 6.4% of GDP, and then to 2.3% of GDP in 2022-23. What this means is that in 2022-23, the deficit-to-GDP ratio will be one-third of what it was at the end of the Mulroney government.

Some perspective is in order on the debt as well. At the end of World War II, the debt-to-GDP ratio was 100%. The debt-to-GDP ratio in 1993-94 was 71.9%. By contrast, the debt-to-GDP ratio for 2020-21 will be 49%, rising to 51.2% next year, and then declining as the economy grows and the pandemic eases. It is worth noting that Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. This includes combined net debt of all three levels of government: federal, provincial and municipal.

Now, let us turn to inflation. The member for Carleton spoke a great deal about monetary policy and inflation in his budget day speech. First, let us be clear, the government does not control monetary policy. Everyone knows that. Those who suggest that quantitative easing is Liberal government policy are being disingenuous, and it is disingenuous bordering on fearmongering to suggest that the Bank of Canada’s quantitative easing will bring Canada to the brink of German 1930s-style hyperinflation.

The budget forecasts inflation of 2.2% in 2021, 2% in 2022 and 2.1% in 2023, which is closer to a risk of deflation, I would think. The Bank of Canada, for its part, predicts inflation will ease back to 2% over the second half of 2021 and remain there on a sustained basis.

The risk of inflation is low because the money supply does not work the same way as it did in the past. The Conservatives have not caught up with that fact. Today, for example, quantitative easing involves encouraging banks to extend credit, which increases capacity and supply, and that works against inflation.

Judging from what members of the official opposition are saying, the Bank of Canada should have kept money tight, yet at the same time they agree that deficits were needed to support Canadians in a time of crisis, so what would a combination of emergency deficits and tight money look like?

Well, it would look a lot like the 1980s, a lot like the era of Reaganomics: namely, deficits with skyrocketing interest rates. What would that have done to Canadians struggling through the worst of the pandemic, lining up at their financial institutions for mortgage relief and loan extensions for their businesses? It would have meant disaster. Unfortunately, that appears to be the economic prescription of the party opposite: Reaganomics 101, to the detriment of the middle class.

I would like to turn to productivity growth and international competitiveness. Namely, I would like to turn to child care. Over the last 40 years, the rising number of women in the workforce has accounted for about a third of Canada’s real GDP per capita growth. Experts agree that our prosperity will depend on greater equality between women and men. RBC Economics has estimated that adding more women to the workforce could boost Canada’s GDP by as much as 4% and even offset expected economic declines associated with an aging population.

Any measure that would help increase women’s participation in the workforce would have a beneficial effect on the economy.

Canada’s strength and beauty lie in its federative structure. It creates a sort of laboratory where each province can implement programs that take its regional values and priorities into account, often with the federal government’s support. If one province has a good idea, the others can follow suit.

Quebec’s child care program is a good example of this type of cross-pollination, if you will. For many years, it was thought that the $7-a-day child care program was a luxury paid for through equalization payments. Thanks to an analysis performed in 2013 by renowned Quebec economist Pierre Fortin, in collaboration with Luc Godbout and Suzie St-Cerny, we now know that this is not true. I will quickly summarize the findings of the analysis, which confirms the merits of the Quebec experience that inspired the proposals in the recent budget.

According to Professor Fortin, the $7-a-day child care program allowed Quebec to increase the participation of women in workforce. In 1996, before the program was implemented, women's participation rate was 2.5% lower than the Canadian average. Fifteen years later, it was 2.5% higher. Professor Fortin’s analysis estimated that, in 2008, approximately 70,000 working mothers were able to work specifically because of the $7-a-day child care program.

It is also estimated that this influx of women into the workforce resulted in an increase of approximately $5.1 billion in Quebec’s GDP that same year. Overall, the program had a positive effect that led to a $919-million budget surplus in 2008 for the Quebec and federal governments, thanks to an increase in individual and corporate income tax, as well as a reduction in government transfer payments in the form of tax credits and deductions for child care expenses.

In short, both the economy and taxpayers will benefit from a child care program based on the Quebec model. This is a progressive budget in terms of social justice that will also benefit Canada’s economy.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments from my hon. colleague where he said that the government deficits are not the problem; inflation is, and as long as inflation is low, then deficits are the right thing to do. He rested his case on inflation being low last year, this year and into future years.

However, I speak to young families in my riding for whom home ownership has always been a dream, and now it has become an impossible dream because house prices are going up so much. For them, inflation is a real problem.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I did not say that inflation is not a problem. What I said was that the current policies are not risking inflation above what really is the target for the Bank of Canada. Yes, house prices are going up, but from what I have read, one of the reasons for this is the new entrants into the market. Those are new families buying homes.

As the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance said last week, the problem when it comes to housing prices, as it is always a question of supply and demand, is the supply of housing. It will be important to increase the supply of housing. I believe that once the pandemic is over and the pace of home construction picks up, the supply will expand.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are in the middle of a serious health crisis, but there is also a social crisis on the horizon.

This morning I spoke with representatives from Réseau SOLIDARITÉ Itinérance du Québec. Homelessness experts predict that the consequences will continue to be felt for years, perhaps as many as five or 10 years. People made vulnerable by the crisis will become homeless.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, funding was announced to deal with the major problem of homelessness. In my riding, a wonderful 24-7, low-barrier shelter called La Halte du coin opened during the pandemic.

Funding was announced in the economic statement and the budget, but no one knows what is going to happen after July 1.

Will these resources continue to exist? The need is there, and it is dire. The government is announcing funding, but it is not meeting expectations.

When will we find out whether these resources will remain open after July 1?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the issue of homelessness is a priority for our government.

We unveiled a housing policy. Over the years, we have added more money. I think we are now at $70 billion or more.

A shelter will also be opening in my riding for youth at risk of homelessness.

All I can tell my colleague is that it is a priority for the government. I am certain that the government will meet expectations.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the ultra rich are becoming richer, while the people who need help continue to struggle. Budget 2021 failed to bring in a pandemic profiteering tax or a wealth tax. It continues to subsidize the oil and gas industry.

My question to the member is this. When will the government do the right thing, stop the expansion of the TMX pipeline, stop the subsidies for the oil and gas industry, and bring in a wealth tax and profiteering tax for the ultra rich?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the TMX is well on its way. That decision has been made, so it has been dealt with. There are people who work in the oil industry in Alberta and other places. Many are without jobs. They are suffering and that is creating social problems in certain parts of the country.

In terms of a profiteering tax, over a number of years the government has brought in measures to reduce home speculation and so on. Anyway, we are on it.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with my colleague, the member for Lethbridge.

I am honoured and pleased to rise today, albeit virtually, on behalf of the good people of Simcoe—Grey to share their concerns about this budget. I have to say that after waiting two years, there were great expectations for what it would perhaps contain, but I am sad to report that the budget has not been received very positively here in my riding. It is unbelievable how lukewarm the response to this budget has been so far. Of every person I have talked to, every person who has called my office and every person who has emailed me, not one has given glowing reviews so far.

Some are relieved that some of the COVID support programs are being continued, but residents of Simcoe—Grey would have preferred to see a plan to reopen our country. However, this would mean that the government has a plan for rapid testing and increased vaccine procurement. We know that, unfortunately, this is not the case, so we have to make do with the existing programs that support lockdowns and not having a plan to reopen our country.

In addition to being underwhelming, this budget contains some real problems.

Let us start with a very important issue for many here in Simcoe—Grey: support for our seniors, a group that has faced huge challenges during this pandemic. A 10% increase in OAS is something, at least. It is about $62 a month. A $500 one-time payment is certainly better than nothing. It is more than the current Liberal government provided seniors all this past year, but it is certainly less than what the House of Commons called for on March 8, when it passed the member for Shefford's motion calling on the government to increase OAS for every senior by $100 per month.

When the Minister of Seniors voted against that motion, I honestly had hopes that the government was planning a bigger increase. Like the seniors in Simcoe—Grey, I was disappointed to learn this was not in the government's plan, but I was astonished to learn that the government's mediocre plan does not even include all seniors.

Everyone knows by now that the Liberal government is making the wedging of provinces against each other a priority. In fact, the Prime Minister spent much of the last campaign, un-prime ministerially, slagging Ontario and Alberta to desperately gain votes. Who would have thought he would stoop so low as to wedge seniors against one another? The Liberals have created two tiers of seniors in this country: seniors who get the additional 10% OAS support and the $500, and those who do not. In effect, we have created two classes, junior seniors and senior seniors.

Marlee Workman from Wasaga Beach felt so betrayed by the current government, she told me she thinks the Prime Minister's plan for seniors is to hope that the vaccine failures ensure that no seniors will hit the age of 75. Imagine feeling that betrayed by one's own government. It is rare to hear seniors hope to get older, but that seems to be their only hope to get help from the current Liberal government.

My constituent Lloyd Lancaster told me about his friend who called him the other day, all excited to tell him that the government was finally doing something for seniors. Lloyd said, “Read the fine print.” After reading it, he certainly was not very excited.

Another constituent, Annette MacDonald, told me she voted twice for this Prime Minister, but then shared with me a copy of a letter she wrote to him after reading the budget: “To add insult to injury, your new Budget contains nothing for me. Somehow seniors aged 65-74 are not considered seniors anymore! This is the final insult!”

It is just so puzzling to make this distinction. Why create two tiers of seniors? I wonder whether the Minister of Seniors even speaks up at the cabinet table, because the Liberals seem to have money for everyone and every group—in fact, the Liberals even announced $1.4 billion in new funding for developing countries—but they cannot spare a penny for those aged 65 to 74 here in Canada. The budget even explicitly states on page 114, “We owe our elders a great debt.” I must have missed the asterisk that says it is only applicable to those 75 and over. The legacy of this minister will be of one who created Canada's two-tier system for seniors, and that should not be anyone's legacy.

What about farmers, the ones who feed us? Farmers in Simcoe—Grey were looking forward to this budget for a long time, but they are disappointed too. There is no exemption on the punitive carbon tax, which so many of them were calling for. Many local farmers have called my office frustrated with the Liberal carbon tax. I had a farmer tell me that the rebate is an absolute joke and it does not even come close to covering the additional cost.

Because the Liberals want to charge farmers more to produce our food, the average farmer is left with two choices. First, they can eat the thousands of dollars in additional costs, which means less money for their families, less money going to RESPs for their kids, or having to work a few extra years before retirement, and that is not fair.

The other option is to pass these costs along to Canadians. This is the option that most farmers will be forced to choose.

We know the Prime Minister will not care about a few extra bucks here and there, but do members know who will end up feeling the pinch? It will be the average working families living in the suburbs and our small towns. They cannot leave their condo to stroll to the market, nor can they take a subway to work. Their carbon rebate does not cover what they pay already, and when the increased cost of food is factored in, they will be further alienated from the government.

We need to ensure that our Canadian farmers will continue to be prosperous and ensure that their children, and the next generations, will be able to follow in their footsteps and continue to make sure that we have food security here in Canada. This budget does not do that.

What about small businesses? Small businesses across my riding have been struggling for over a year now. While many were able to get assistance, it took months of pressure from this side of the House and from Canadians from coast to coast to coast to force the government to make programs easier to access and available to most. Even now, there are many small business owners who still cannot get assistance.

The government's failure to procure vaccines means that these lockdowns need to continue across Canada. Our businesses are forced to stay closed while those around the world begin to reopen.

My constituent Laura-Lee Gambee of Mountain Men's Barbershop in Collingwood had saved her money, signed her lease in February 2020 and opened in August. She has had to temporarily close a number of times since then, and if members can believe it, she is not eligible for any supports. I have raised this problem, which she and others like her are facing, regularly in the House of Commons. My colleagues have all done the same.

I, along with Laura-Lee and others, had hoped that the government would correct this glaring flaw in this budget, but the government has failed her and others like her. “I feel abandoned by my own government”, she told me. “What do we have to do to get help?” It is not fair that new businesses are not eligible for any supports, and quite frankly, the government should not be picking which businesses will succeed or fail based on the date they opened.

While COVID has put a hit on businesses across Simcoe—Grey, it is not like this was a pro-small business government before this pandemic hit. We all know this government thinks that small business owners are tax cheats.

We know we need to reduce taxes for small businesses. Businesses that will be lucky enough to reopen when Canada finally gets back to normal will have missed over a year of regular sales. A targeted reduction on taxes for small businesses would have been a boost to the bottom line and an expression of confidence that things will be getting back to normal soon, but the government gave small business owners neither. They gave them no tax reductions, and they have given them no confidence that businesses will be back to normal any time soon.

Mike and Terri Jerry own two small clothing stores in my riding. Mike told me that while they have been able to squeak by with limited openings and the Liberal government assistance, getting their sales back to normal will take time. He was hoping for targeted tax relief. He told me that every 1% or 2% makes a huge difference, and that it all adds up. It sure would have been welcomed after the year that they have had.

What worries most of my constituents is what will happen to the tax levels if the Liberals win a majority government. There are no increases in taxation in this budget per se, as the Liberals would not put a tax increase in a budget that they want to campaign on, but despite what members have heard, we all know that budgets do not balance themselves. While the Liberals made promises that taxes are not going up, can we really believe that?

Carbon taxes were not going up either. Do members remember that? It is terrifying to think what the government would do if it had a majority government. With every, man, woman and child in this country now owing $33,000 in federal debt, how long will it be before the Liberal tax collector comes calling?

The Prime Minister likes to say that he took on debt for Canada so that families did not have to, but servicing the debt surely will not be coming out of his trust fund. It will be coming out of our pockets, our kids' pockets and their kids' pockets. That is how bad our debt is now.

No one begrudges the spending made to fight COVID and to provide supports, but the Liberals foolishly ran billions of dollars in deficits before COVID, so when COVID came, we were ill prepared as a country. Now we are worse off with absolutely no plan at all to return to balanced budgets or to get the economy back on track. Supporting Canadians is essential, but if the government had its act together, we would be getting back to work, not in our latest and, so far, worst lockdown.

This is nothing more than an election budget that caters to the Liberals' targeted electoral groups and leaves the rest of us behind. I, like so many other Canadians, am disappointed—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time has expired. He will have time during questions and comments to add to this debate.

The hon. member for Kings—Hants.