Debates of May 11th, 2021

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is very timely. I would invite him to look at a report that was published a few days ago. On average, cellphone bills have gone down by 25%. I forget the name of the report right now, but it is online. He just has to google it, and he can read it. There has been a reduction of at least 25% on average.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take a few seconds in the House to commemorate the work of anthropologist, radio host and distinguished author Serge Bouchard. For years, he filled our evenings with his reassuring voice and his profound vision of Quebec and our relations with the first nations. We have lost a great Quebecker. We will all miss him.

I would like to address several topics, because we are talking about the first federal budget in two years, so this is an important event.

The past two years have left their mark and turned life upside down in every one of our communities. Over these two years, we have all had to relearn how to live, work, communicate and get things done. Worse still, we saw businesses suffer and close up shop, workers lose their jobs, and entire sectors get turned upside down, especially the tourism sector, the cultural sector, including our artists, and the restaurant and bar sector.

Then there is the health care system, which had to perform miracles with very limited resources and in difficult working conditions, but I will get back to that later. Thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians fell ill and died in great numbers and are still dying or, even if they recover, can suffer long-term after-effects, known as long COVID.

Does the budget meet people's expectations when it comes to improving the situation and being better prepared for the future? There are some major flaws. There are tons of things missing. One of the first things is, how is it that the budget does not provide for stable and permanent health transfers so that Quebec and the other provinces can treat their employees well, treat their patients properly and face another crisis, another wave or another virus?

Over the years, the federal government has been investing less and less in our public health care system. That is very serious. In the NDP, we share the provincial governments' demand to raise funding to 35% of costs. In recent years, a Conservative government, under Mr. Harper, cut transfer payments to the provinces by reducing the annual increase from 6% to almost 3%. At the time, the Liberals made a big fuss about that, saying that it was a terrible thing that would threaten our public health care system but, when they came to power, they maintained and renewed exactly the same agreement. For that reason, our public health care system is now in dire straits. We need to make difficult choices. Times were hard even before the health crisis, with austerity budgets aimed at cutting corners everywhere. We are now seeing the results of those policies.

We need to give our public health system the means, the tools and the resources it needs. We need to work together to be able to care for our seniors in long-term care facilities. We saw the carnage in the first wave. Some of our seniors, the people who built Quebec by the sweat of their brow, were abandoned, left on the floor, left in their beds, dehydrated, without care and with rotten food, if they had any food at all.

As New Democrats and social democrats, we find this treatment disgraceful. It strips our seniors of their dignity, and we must do something to make sure it never happens again. We are not looking away and saying that it is not our problem. We are asking what we can do to help so that we never find ourselves in that situation again.

It feels like spring is coming, people will be getting vaccinated, and the recovery is on its way, so much the better. These are all good things. We are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel. However, we cannot forget what happened last year. If we do, things will never change. The cycle will start all over again, and the same thing is going to happen.

One of the reasons we did not have the means to ensure a basic level of quality care for our seniors in long-term care facilities is the lack of resources. There were management problems, but the Quebec government is taking care of that, because it is not the federal government's jurisdiction, of course.

If we do not help the provinces provide decent care and look after their health care workers, what happens?

When orderlies earning $14 an hour are forced to work mandatory overtime and insane schedules, and this is compounded by a crisis, where a virus enters the workplace, it creates a vicious cycle. It is no longer worth their while to go to work because it is too dangerous, they are not paid enough and they do not want to take the risk. As a result, workers stay at home, and that exacerbates the problem.

Earlier, a member from Quebec said that this is world health worker week and that tomorrow is International Nurses Day. Let us consider. What are we offering them in exchange for caring for our sick patients and our seniors? What are we offering them to make the work attractive and make sure that they still want to go to work even when it is harder than usual, when there is a crisis and they are at greater risk?

For now, that is not what we are seeing, and the Liberal government's budget does not offer any answers. Sure, the government transferred some money, but only on a one-time basis, in the middle of a crisis. There is no plan for the future, yet we know that we need permanent, stable funding.

There is another important issue, and that is child care. We can see how accessible child care services help families and young parents in Quebec and how they allow women to rejoin the labour market. It is a good idea in itself, and I do not want to be a killjoy, but this was a flagship proposal in the NDP's 2015 and 2019 election platforms. It is a good idea, but only if it is executed properly. It could really help people, especially since we are in an economic crisis right now that is disproportionately affecting women. Women's participation in the labour market has dropped sharply, and we know that affordable public child care gives women greater access to the labour market, since they have unfortunately inherited traditional societal responsibities, such as caring for children.

It is a good measure that is very fitting under the circumstances. We could be happy, if only the Liberals had a shred of credibility in the matter. As I said earlier, they have been promising a child care program for the past 28 years. The first time was in Jean Chrétien's red book in 1993. That was quite a while ago. Should we believe them?

Let us see their action plan and what they are going to do, and let us watch how they work with the provinces. Perhaps the Liberals will want to act quickly to meet the need, because there is indeed a need. We see it in Quebec, where the minister of families is desperate. Quebec needs 50,000 more child care spaces, and federal money would be welcome. I met with Quebec's minister of families a few months ago. He asked us to try to put pressure on the government for a federal transfer so that he could open more spaces and pay more educators. That would be a good thing for the Liberals to do, but I have my doubts that it will happen.

Let us remember that, in the last budget, the Liberals' big promise for a major social program was public pharmacare. The NDP agrees that we should have a public pharmacare program, as do the Union des consommateurs, the FTQ, the CSN and the CSQ. There are holes in Quebec's system, which is a hybrid system and is not perfect. Such a program would also help many sick people in English Canada reduce the cost of their medication and access the drugs they need. How is it that pharmacare was a priority two years ago, and now it is suddenly off the table? How is it that we were told that other consultations would be held, but now there is no funding for this program and it is over and done with? One year it is pharmacare, and the next it is child care. The government is playing games by going from one to another. The government does not seem very serious about these things.

There is also a lack of funding for housing, even though there is a major housing crisis in Montreal and across Quebec. There is nothing in the budget about making the tax system fair and equitable. Web giants are still not paying taxes in Quebec and Canada. There is probably even a loophole so that Netflix does not have to pay taxes. The government is even playing favourites among the web giants. I think we need to get to a point where companies that make excessive profits, like Amazon, are taxed more and a tax is imposed on wealth over $20 million. These are solutions that the NDP is putting forward so that we can pay for a vibrant, green and prosperous economic recovery that benefits everyone.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that has not been mentioned too much in this debate, at least not at all today, is the benefits in the budget for NGOs and charities.

This does not often show up in a budget, at least not to this great of an extent. There is a community services recovery fund of $400 million; $220 million for the social finance fund, which is exciting and new; $50 million for investment readiness for social financing, which had expired and is now being refunded; the opening up the Canada small business financing to NGOs and charities; and studying an exciting new concept of social bonds.

Does the member support these types of supports for charities and NGOs? I always enjoy listening to the member, so I definitely wanted to comment.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words.

Yes, any support for community groups in our constituencies is a good thing in and of itself, because they have difficult working conditions and extremely limited resources. These groups are often the ones keeping the social fabric intact and holding our communities together, so any additional assistance is good. We know that public services are also underfunded, so there would be disasters and tragedies if these community groups were not there.

They often tell us that they also want the funding they receive to be for their mission, not for their projects. Project-based funding forces these groups to spend a lot of time filling out paperwork and doing a lot of administrative tasks instead of helping our fellow Canadians. I encourage my colleague to look at this approach.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not ask my colleague from Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie too difficult a question.

He mentioned taxing the digital giants. A “Netflix tax” that will not apply to Netflix is incredibly ironic. Actually, if it were not so sad, it would be laughable. I would love to hear my colleague's perspective on the consequences of the government's negligence and lack of courage when it comes to getting the web giants, who are making a fortune on the backs of our creators, to pay their fair share.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his question.

We are talking about fairness and about the resources we need to give ourselves to support our cultural sector and our artists so they can contribute to the production of original Quebec and Canadian content.

How is it that the corner store near my office is forced to pay taxes while the Googles, Facebooks and Netflixes of the world get billions of dollars richer without having to pay a cent in taxes to Canada? These companies do not even want to tell us if they would be willing to pay.

It is absolutely scandalous and, unfortunately, the Liberals have done nothing about it since they took office six years ago. In what they are tentatively promising for next year, we can already see there will be loopholes that Netflix could take advantage of. It is unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his speech, which, once again, had plenty of substance and raised some extremely important issues.

As he pointed out, the government is cutting emergency benefits. It refuses to recognize housing as a human right, while the state of social housing in this country is appalling. Meanwhile, Canada has no wealth tax and no excess profits tax on the web giants and the billionaires who hide their money in tax havens. This all adds up to billions of dollars in lost revenue each year.

What will it take for the Liberals to ensure tax fairness and understand that the government really needs to make the ultrarich pay in this country, instead of always making cuts on the backs of ordinary Canadians?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question and his comments.

I only touched on the subject, but we could talk about it at length. We could also talk about the capital gains tax and the tax loopholes that allow the wealthiest Canadians and Bay Street bankers to profit from the sale of certain shares. That money could help fund social housing, public transit, our health care systems, better access to university for students, and more research.

My New Democrat colleague raised a good point about tax havens. We hear about taxing the web giants and the wealthy, but the Liberal government has never done anything about tax havens. According to the Department of Finance, we lose about $16 billion a year to tax havens. As for taxing excess profits, the Parliamentary Budget Officer recently estimated that we could recover $8 billion that way.

The Liberals should truly work for ordinary people, for middle-class workers, not for bankers, as they are doing now.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-30 and to share some of my reflections, not only on the government's budget and its implementation, but also on how the government views its relationship to Canadians.

I have been open in my critique of this budget. There is some good, and there are some things to be optimistic about, but ultimately this long-anticipated budget lacks the courage required to lead this country into a bold, new future. Canadians were not given a clear picture of what concrete steps will be taken to lift us up from our darkest hour. What we all need is leadership.

A leader speaks with clarity. Instead, we often spin our wheels with mixed messaging. The government has clearly indicated that we will be net-zero by 2050, while missing the point entirely that the decade we are currently in is actually the most important to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

A leader speaks with consistency. On the one hand, the government declared a climate emergency in 2019. Then, within the month, it had purchased the Trans Mountain pipeline to shepherd it through construction and more than double oil sands production.

A leader acts with integrity. The government says that no relationship is more important than its relationship with indigenous peoples, yet court injunctions are being enforced on unceded lands across this country in the name of law and order. Reconciliation has lost its meaning.

This budget is just another example of symbolism over substance, where we maintain the status quo under the guise of transformation. I am certain I am not the only one who feels as though the last 14 months have simultaneously trickled by at a snail's pace and disappeared in the blink of an eye.

Last March, the world had to stop. We had to stop travelling, stop going to the office and stop enjoying Sunday dinners with grandparents. We had to adapt. Week by week, month by month, we were tested. We saw COVID sweep through long-term care homes as residents had no access to PPE or rapid testing. We closed our borders as a nation and many provinces chose to do the same. In those early months, there was no certainty about vaccine production timelines. All the while, tremors were shaking the economy, hitting small and medium-sized businesses the hardest.

We now find ourselves 14 months into this pandemic, and the Deputy Prime Minister has tabled a budget said to focus on Canadians and the middle class, and those seeking to join it. This middle-class obsession is yet another way to avoid talking about the widening gap between those experiencing extreme poverty and the wealthy elite.

We are in the throws of a housing crisis from coast to coast to coast. Not only is it becoming more and more difficult for young people to purchase their first home, but people cannot afford apartments as rental market prices are skyrocketing. People across the nation still do not have access to a primary care provider, mental health care professionals or the ability to pay for their medications they require to live.

Research published last month exposed that over half of Canadians, 53% of them, are within $200 of not being able to cover their monthly bills. This includes the 30% who report they are already insolvent with no money left at month's end to cover their payments. This is unacceptable. How have we let income inequality reach this point? How is it that we are unwilling to face it down directly?

Instead, our government would rather reflect wistfully on the middle class, while banks increase their profits and children go hungry. People are having a hard time. The people we work for. They have done their best to manage so far, but I have felt the increased weight of it all in their correspondences to my office over the last month or two.

People's financial reserves are exhausted. Their emotional reserves are exhausted. They do not need insincerity from their government. They need to be seen. When over half of our population is living with the anxiety of maybe not being able to make ends meet, or already being unable to do so, perhaps this middle-class concept is a little more than a relic of a bygone era.

It is important to name things as they are so we can approach them with integrity. I want us to have real conversations about offering stability, health and well-being to Canadians, meeting them where they are at, understanding the urgency and acting. This budget is a missed opportunity to truly offer Canadians a shift to directly improve their quality of life.

I had been hoping that one lesson taught by the pandemic would have been that we were able to act quickly and put in place life-changing programs, such as the Canadian emergency response benefit. In many cases, it kept people quite literally alive. However, even with the CERB, the government demonstrated indifference to the most vulnerable. We determined an amount that would be livable, knowing full well that we were continuing to ask persons with disabilities, seniors and those on social assistance to live on much less.

We had a chance to offer Canadians the stability of a ground floor to ensure that basic needs are met. We could have offered a collective sigh of relief with a guaranteed basic income. Instead, many Canadians are still holding their breath. I will not hold mine while I wait for the promises of the government to come through.

Another lesson I was had hoped to see reflected in the budget was the need to address racism and systemic inequality. We are still waiting for action on missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people. Words will not protect them. Words will not have their cases investigated the way they should be, and words will not root out hate and white supremacy in our society.

The Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat should have a robust plan to reach into every corner of our institutions to confront the vectors of power that have been at play since colonization began. Racism kills. We must adopt Joyce's principle that aims to guarantee that indigenous people have equitable access to all health and social services and to the highest attainable standard without discrimination.

We also need concrete, long-lasting actions for change in the Criminal Code, police enforcement and the carceral system. We know that our society will not be able to thrive until we break down the barriers that prevent people from living their full lives. Until there are real reparations and real justice, we cannot talk about reconciliation.

This budget is supposed to be about building a more resilient Canada, one that is better, fairer, more prosperous and more innovative, but without implementing a guaranteed livable income, I do not see how it will help Canadians to be more prosperous. While refusing to hike the capital gains tax and a reticence to impose a significant wealth tax, this has nothing to do with being better or more fair.

Who will bear the brunt of the deficits anticipated for the next decades? It is one thing to announce long-overdue investments in health care and housing, but these were needed decades ago. Will the government have the courage to implement a tax to target the large corporations that are profiting off this pandemic? As things stand, these corporations are the ones building back better and they are doing it on the backs of Canadians.

The minister also said that this budget is in line with the global shift to a green, clean economy. Everyone here should know without any surprise that I strongly support that vision, but I wish I was able to believe that this statement had value beyond the rhetorical. I see the situation we are facing as a potential opportunity. As the entire world looks to shift away from fossil fuels, we are given an incentive to figure it out now, to invest in innovation that will meet the energy demand with renewable energy or that will reduce our total energy demand.

The economic opportunity of new industries combined with an effort to redirect workers to these sectors holds immense potential. I know that some Canadians, indeed some members of this House, see me as an idealist or perhaps even naive, but my commitment to the rotational workers in my home province and beyond is real. I believe with every fibre of my being that their best futures are not travelling to and from Alberta for dwindling work in a dying industry. Their knowledge and skills can be transferred to benefit the economy of the future, one that is sustainable and renewable, one they can proudly leave to their children and grandchildren. That takes courage to stand one's ground and to do what is right, even when some people do not like it.

I know that with all of my colleagues in this House, we share the common objective of improving the lives of Canadians, but I also know we see different ways of getting there. As a woman, a mother and an educator, I want to put the emphasis on the well-being of people above all. I know that with a healthy and happy society, we can all thrive. What we need is a government with the courage to lead, a government that will share a vision for Canada that inspires us and a resolve to charge forward in that direction with confidence. This is how we will transform our society. This is how we will build the Canada of tomorrow.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Fredericton ended her speech with something that is very interesting: perpetuating the myth that the oil and gas industry is dead. I do not believe that to be true. Canadian oil and gas is more ethical and environmentally friendly than any other gas and oil sector in the world. Therefore, why would we not, as Canadians, do our best to export our oil and gas to countries across the world so that they do not use dirty, environmentally less friendly oil and gas from countries such as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia or Russia?

Why would we not promote our energy sector so that we could lower emissions around the world instead of perpetuating the myth that Canadian oil and gas is dead?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's passion and support for the oil and gas industry. To be clear, I said the oil and gas industry was dying, not that it was dead.

We clearly still have a need for Canadian oil and gas and I absolutely want to highlight the ethical standards that we have here in this country, but it is about the transition. It is about using that oil to lead us into the future. We know that petroleum products are still in use and are going to be in use for some time to come, but we can make a conscious effort to change some of the ways that we use them to lead us into the green economy future.

It is not about it being dead now, it is about preparing for that day to come and acknowledging that we need to shift. We cannot wait.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the answer that the member just gave to that last question. Conservatives seem to have this narrative that when it comes to oil it is all or nothing, and people either support it or they do not. I appreciate the position that the member is taking on it, realizing that we have to use oil in the short term, but ultimately we would like to get to something that is less dependent on oil.

What does the member think that means for the future? She has young children. I have young children. We both care about what the future holds for them. How does she perceive this transition benefiting future generations?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly appreciative of that question as well, especially in light of being a mother. Any decision that we make as a government must be made with the foresight of future generations and how they are going to benefit. Certainly, oil and gas contributes to building wind turbines, solar panels and the renewable energy that we know is ready, available and affordable for Canadians now. That is very much how I see this transition and how this will happen in Canada.

I also really want to highlight the need to reduce our energy demands. There are so many ways that we can retrofit commercial buildings and residential buildings. Look at all the personal decisions that we make on a daily basis as far as energy consumption goes. There are ways that we can reduce it while meeting the demand that we currently have with renewables.

I just have a comment as well that I do not believe we need to emphasize a broader future of nuclear energy. I really think it is about reducing the demand for energy first and then utilizing the amazing renewable technology we have now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really liked my colleague's speech, especially the part about her concerns for the most vulnerable. I certainly have the same concerns.

This morning, there was a newspaper article about the very sad situation of a single mother of three children who was the victim of domestic violence. She is having a hard time finding housing that she can afford. In Longueuil, rent for a two- or three-bedroom apartment is between $1,500 and $1,700. That is outrageous.

The government launched a housing strategy in 2017. However, Quebec received no money for years because negotiations failed. There could have been housing for this woman if the Government of Canada had signed an agreement and not insisted on putting up flags everywhere. In Montreal, encampments for the homeless have been dismantled. People are calling for social housing.

Does my colleague believe that the government is doing enough to help the most vulnerable, especially with respect to housing?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, we are in a housing crisis that is playing out in multiple ways: we see the impacts of victims of domestic violence who are not able to turn to a safe place and put a roof over their head with their children; and we see some of the tent cities that we are seeing in our big city centres. It is devastating. This is Canada. It is a beautiful, prosperous country where everyone should have the right to affordable housing. We are just not there yet.

I really would have appreciated seeing stronger steps taken to address this. Some more investments have been made in housing, but we know the rapid housing initiative was so oversubscribed. We have to do so much more.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if I could get the member's thoughts. This budget implementation act provides for the legislative framework for setting up child care, yet in an earlier attempt by the NDP to set up a legislative framework for pharmacare, the Liberals voted against.

Can the member comment the different approaches the Liberals have on child care, which is arguably very good, and on pharmacare, which certainly needs more work?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, it was nice and encouraging to see the plan to implement a national child care strategy, but without the groundwork for conversations with provinces and territories to get on board. That was the largest criticism we have as far as the NDP motion that was tabled for a national pharmacare program. There is a little bit of a cognitive dissonance there. Really, we just need to put our heads together, get the job done, deliver for Canadians, and do the groundwork that is required to make sure that happens while respecting provincial jurisdictions.

I am ready to do that work and I know that my colleagues in the NDP are also willing to do that. Let us get the rest of this House on board to do it as well.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in the debate on the budget implementation act today. This is the first time I have responded to a federal budget as a member of the opposition. For eight years, I was a member of the government in Saskatchewan and replied to some budget speeches as a member of the government, so this is a new experience.

In listening to the responses from the opposition members, they never talk about anything positive, so for the member for Kingston and the Islands I will talk about some of the positive steps that have happened in Saskatchewan, but I will point out some areas of criticism as well.

As is my tradition, I have some thanks to give. First and foremost, none of us could do this job without our spouses and the support from back home. My wife Larissa is back home with our three kids Jameson, Claire and Nickson. It is Nickson's birthday on May 15, so I have to get home for that.

While I am on the topic of birthdays, this is a special day. I grew up on a farm in Rush Lake, Saskatchewan. My dad and uncle farmed together. We celebrate two birthdays on May 11, my cousin Jason Steinley's, whom I wish a happy birthday, and one of my childhood heroes, my big brother Quinton's. He turns substantially older than me today. It is an honour for me to wish him a happy birthday from the House of Commons. I am sorry we cannot see each other face to face, but hopefully we can have a celebration sometime in the near future.

Moving forward to the budget debate on the implementation act we are talking about today, there are some positives for the people of Saskatchewan. We have a fantastic facility called VIDO at the University of Saskatchewan and this budget has a $40-million to $45-million investment for VIDO, which we appreciate. Not only will it help us get out of this pandemic, it will prepare us for anything that is coming in the future. Investments in science and technology and the health care sector are very important. We appreciate that investment into the University of Saskatchewan. That is something we have talked about for a long time and we wish it had happened a bit sooner, but like we always say, it is better late than never coming from the current government.

We are also seeing a return to bigger government and bigger spending. That is something we have seen throughout this budget. I think it is on track to be 30% more permanent spending by 2026, which is $100 billion more added to the annual budget of the Government of Canada. When it comes down to it, the question we on the opposition side is this. How are we going to continue to pay for that?

We have heard that the Liberals expect this to be a stimulus budget. There is $101.4 billion earmarked for stimulus spending and the opposition is asking if that is true. Some comments have been made by some people that that may not be the facts exactly of the stimulus spending.

I am going to quote the PBO, who stated:

Parliament's spending watchdog says the federal Liberals' budget overestimates how much of an impact its stimulus measures will have on Canada's economy.

The budget last month outlined what the government said was $101.4 billion in new spending over three years aimed at helping the country climb out of the economic hole caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

But the budget officer's report on Wednesday estimated that only $69 billion of that spending could be considered stimulus, such as the extension of emergency supports that were outlined prior to the budget.

Yves Giroux said his estimates of stimulus spending would boost economic growth by one per cent next year and create 74,000 jobs, compared with the budget's estimates, respectively, of two per cent and 334,000 jobs.

He went on to say that the higher deficits and debt in the coming years could limit the ability of a government to introduce any new, permanent programs without spending cuts or tax increases.

The crux of the argument today in this House of Commons and in my presentation is that the overestimations by the government have continued to hurt our economy. I do not have any doubt, and I do not think anyone in my constituency of Regina—Lewvan has any doubt, that the Liberals know how to spend money. They have full faith that the Liberals have not met a dollar they do not want to spend on insiders, friends and family. What are they going to deliver for average Canadians? When are they going to deliver jobs for average Canadians?

We just saw a report that, once again, 200,000 Canadians lost their jobs last month. The question is, out of this spending, if the Liberals are saying 334,000 Canadians are going to go back to work, why is the PBO saying it is only going to be 74,000? That is an important question that needs to be answered. Are they saying that Canadians need to trust what they put on paper or what the non-partisan PBO has put on paper? I think I know who Canadians are going to trust more.

There are also comments, from other sectors and from the CFIB, that they would like to see a plan to reopen. When I have talked to small businesses in Saskatchewan, a lot of them do not want to be dependent on government programs or government cheques. They would rather see clients and customers coming in their doors. They would rather have their doors open and be able to earn that money than wait for a government cheque.

What we would also like to see is what is going on in Saskatchewan. I am quite proud of our provincial government and the plan it has rolled out as to how to safely reopen. There is a three-phase plan, where on May 30—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member's microphone is off. We will just see if we can get it back working again.

Let us go back to the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government under Premier Moe has laid out a very concise plan to reopen its economy in three phases. The first phase starts with having over 70% of 40-year-olds vaccinated. They are actually there already, so phase one is going to reopen on May 30. Three weeks after that, if 70% of people 30 and over are vaccinated, they can go to phase two, where there will be more opportunities and businesses can open and have more clients and customers coming through their doors. If we get 70% of people 18 and over vaccinated, hopefully in mid-July, we can get back to a little of the normal life we all are hoping to get back to this summer, sooner rather than later.

Some of how to safely reopen our economy is missing from the budget, and that is what we look at from an economic development point of view. One thing that I have seen, and once again this is a positive thing for the member for Kingston and the Islands, is that in the Regina area we have had almost a billion dollars' worth of private investment over the last month. That is great news for agriculture and manufacturing. Viterra has said it is going to bring one of the largest canola-crushing plants on earth to Regina. That is fantastic. We just spoke with a person from Cargill. That company is investing in having a canola-crushing plant come to Regina. Federated Co-operatives Limited just bought True North Renewable Fuels, and it is going to be expanding and setting up a renewable diesel refinery in the Regina area.

There is good news on the horizon in Regina, but there has not been much from the federal government side. It has been private business. The Government of Saskatchewan has set up an economic atmosphere of success, and that is what I want to talk about toward the end of my comments. We need to create more opportunities in our major industries. One of the industries that continually gets left behind by the government is the oil and gas sector. Through the economic downturn in 2008, what brought us back faster than any other G7 country were our oil and gas sector, our manufacturing sector and our agriculture sector.

I want to talk about that, being a member of the agriculture standing committee. We just finished work on how to increase processing capacity across the nation, and the government had lost out on a major processing facility from Maple Leaf Foods. Actually, the chair of the agriculture committee, who is a Liberal member, asked a VP from Maple Leaf Foods why the company did not build in Canada instead of building its new processing plant in Indiana. The VP of Maple Leaf Foods said it was because of the uncertainty in regulations and the changing atmosphere of the regulatory system in Canada. He said that it seems like whenever someone is going to be investing big private capital in Canada, the goalposts keep moving.

It was there in black and white in the Hansard, and it is happening on way too many occasions with the current government. It continues to change the goalposts when it comes to regulatory guidelines and what it needs from people when they invest in Canada. It happened to Teck Frontier, and it happened again here with Maple Leaf Foods. What we need to see from the Liberal government is more certainty, and that is why I will be voting against the budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by extending a happy birthday to the member's brother, and on his behalf, I would perhaps raise a point of order. I doubt his brother is that much older than him despite the fact the member indicated that.

In all seriousness, going to his speech, we heard the member talk about how the government needs to be doing more to establish a plan to reopen. We know the Conservatives brought forward a motion demanding a plan to reopen about a month ago, but then the member went on to talk about how the premier of Manitoba had developed a plan himself.

This is what we have been saying from the beginning. It is not the federal government's job to determine how a province is going to reopen, just like it is not the federal government's responsibility to determine what lockdowns are happening from time to time. I am just glad to hear the member finally admit that it is the provincial government's responsibility to determine when the economies need to reopen in those provinces.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order as well, as it was the premier of Saskatchewan and not Manitoba. That is my home province.

What escapes the member for Kingston and the Islands is that there also has to be federal leadership from his government to show the way when it comes to reopening. Obviously the provincial governments across the country have a lot to do with the reopening plans, but they have to know there is certainty in vaccination.

As the member said, and as we saw in his comments, we would not be standing in this place right now if the government had gotten the vaccine rollout right in January and February. I admire his honesty in saying that the federal Liberals made a mistake. They screwed up and did not get the vaccines here in January and February, and that is why we are in the position we are. There is leadership coming from the provinces. I just wish a little more would be coming from the federal government.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Saskatchewan, which was one of the first provinces to bring in a public universal health care system.

In terms of vision and leadership, does my colleague agree that to support the economy and our health care sector the government should immediately honour its commitment to transfer the necessary funding through the Canada health transfer to cover 35% of expenses, as Quebec and the provinces have been calling for?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there needs to be more collaboration between the provinces and the federal government. Coming from the provincial government, I know there are always conversations between federal and provincial health ministers. Those conversations need to be taken very seriously, and there needs to be more collaboration between health ministers. We saw in this pandemic that there needed to be co-operation as our vital food supply chains and vital systems could be shut down. There needs to be a collaborative approach with the federal government and all provincial and territorial governments across the country.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot from the Conservatives about the need to take the COVID crisis more seriously, and I agree. We have seen the deadly toll COVID has taken, especially in long-term care homes. So many elders and seniors have been lost during this COVID crisis. They should not have been.

We in the NDP have made it clear that we need to ensure the long-term care system is in public hands. However, the Conservative leader does not seem to have an issue with for-profit long-term care.

Why is it that the Conservative leader and the Conservative Party cannot seem to recognize the deadly impacts of for-profit, privatized long-term elder care in our country?