Debates of May 27th, 2021

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I speak to Bill C-30, I want to begin with the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the new Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister, in his mandate letter, instructed the new minister to avoid creating new permanent spending. In other words, he instructed her to not create any additional structural debt, yet the flagship of this budget is a national day care program that does just that.

When the Minister of Finance finally presented the budget, she indicated that the government's national day care program was going to save the day. It was to be the key element in restoring our economy post-COVID by giving every mother the child care they needed at an affordable rate to enable them to return to or get real, paying jobs. The impression made was that every woman's innate desire to be engaged in the workforce, coupled with the national day care program, would enable, empower and enlighten the female portion of our population to do their part to create a healthier GDP for Canada.

It deeply troubles me when the minister for the status of women stands in the House and expresses her dismay that women still carry the burden of raising children in our society. In question period, the previous minister of immigration indicated that we needed to increase our immigration numbers because we have an aging demographic. When evidence suggests that perhaps we could encourage Canadians to have more children, the immigration minister's response was to pause and say that we have an aging demographic.

On May 18, the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario stated that the Liberals' child care plan would result in uncertainty, limited access, the loss of jobs and the closure of many small businesses owned by women. The association also indicated that the Prime Minister knows that this Ottawa-knows-best government approach to child care takes away choice and would ensure that only publicly funded operators would survive, leaving behind small businesses, women and families.

Choice in child care is a high priority for many mothers and fathers, including the option of having family or friends care for their children, or participating in a co-operative. That is an excellent option in my hometown, where many people work at the potash mine and appreciate giving oversight to the care their children receive while they are at work. Under the current government's plan, there is no room for choice. It appears all working parents would be required to use a national government-run child care system as their only option to qualify for federal child care funding while participating in the workforce. Canada's Conservatives believe parents, not the government, know what is best for their children, and parents should have the choice in determining who will care for their children within their communities.

Once COVID no longer fills our news channels 24-7, and families unlearn all the apprehension, confusion and ever-changing recommendations and get back to normal life by working, playing, going to school and, yes, arranging child care, the Liberals' plan would add even more adversity and struggle for Canada's mothers, their children and women entrepreneurs. Why would that be? The Liberals' plan to kick-start our economy with a national day care program assumes partnership in their plan by the provinces. The finance minister claims the funding for the program would become a 50-50 arrangement with the provinces by 2025-2026, with a federal minimum commitment of $9.2 billion per year in ongoing investments in child care, including indigenous early learning and child care. To support this vision, budget 2021 proposes new investments totalling up to $30 billion over the next five years, or approximately $5 billion per year, and $8.3 billion going forward for early learning and child care and indigenous early learning and child care.

The PBO was quick to note that the provinces are at their limit right now and have no capability to buy into such a program. They do not have access to a printing press. Many of their economies were suffering extensively before COVID due to the same Liberal government creating such economic uncertainty that international and domestic investments were already packing up and leaving. A warning, from our national defence, of an ensuing pandemic was ignored. In a matter of weeks, families were thrown into complete chaos as employment declined, schools closed and child care that was previously available became very limited. The question is this: How feasible is the Liberal government's plan, based on its financial commitment as outlined in the 2021 budget?

Cardus is a highly respected independent think tank located here in Ottawa that has spent over 20 years studying the institutions, communities, beliefs, leaders and intricacies of civil society that collectively compose the social architecture of our common life. Its research focuses on education, family, health, religious freedom, social cities, work in economics and spirited citizenship.

In response to the announcement of a national day care initiative, Cardus recently released a report entitled, “Look Before You Leap: The Real Costs and Complexities of National Daycare”. The report studies the actual cost of providing the national day care system proposed by the government by comparing the policies advocated by proponents with the costs of delivering those policies.

The government claims that, by the end of the five-year time frame offered on child care in this budget, it would be contributing half of the child care costs for the provinces and territories, which would administer the programs. Cardus, on the other hand, finds the real annual and ongoing costs of national day care to be $36.3 billion. Since federal costs are fixed at $8.3 billion ongoing, this means that the provinces would need to cover the federal funding shortfall. Here are a few examples. The cost to Alberta would be $3.5 billion annually, to Manitoba $984 million, to Ontario $9.5 billion and to New Brunswick $336 million annually.

In her testimony to the finance committee, Andrea Mrozek, senior fellow of the Cardus family, commented that every morning she works taking care of her two-year-old and every afternoon she works for Cardus. She stated:

The federal government thinks that only one of these activities is worthy of federal support....[For] those whose primary concern is increasing GDP, only the waged work contributes, but child care is the care of a child, no matter who does it, and for the majority [of parents] there is little to gain and much to lose from plans for national day care.

Andrea has researched child care for 15 years and co-authored the report I mentioned previously. She went on to say:

Our detailed cost assessment phases in spaces for 70% of children under six, over five years, and includes staff, capital, training and maintenance costs. All of our assumptions are based on the work of advocates for national day care; however, there are several things they would desire that we were not able to include, making our estimates low.

Our low-quality and low-cost estimate rings in at $17 billion annually. The more reasonable estimate rings in at $36.3 billion annually.

She highlighted three concerns. Her first point was that the funding levels are woefully inadequate for a high-quality, universal program. This level of funding guarantees only low-quality care, inaccessible care or both. This program would not deliver what it promises.

Her second point was that because it funds only licensed not-for-profit care, most parents would experience a loss of care options, increased child care costs or both.

She then spoke to the per-family funding amounts that could be provided, and noted that this was money allocated to children, instead of to spaces. If the allocated federal funding of $9.2 billion annually was given to parents instead of to spaces, it would truly help with the difficulty of the high cost of child care. The per-child annual amount for children under six would be almost $4,000 annually. If the real costs of national day care were given to parents for each child under six, the per-child amount would be nearly $14,000 annually. She entered her testimony and stated that:

...with the idea that a family’s unpaid time with their child or children is not work, not valuable, or offers no “return.” I think this is a short-sighted, technocratic approach to child care that fails to address Canadian families’ wishes and needs. There are fortunately better and more equitable and more efficient ways to meet those needs, and simultaneously respect Canadian diversity.

I appreciate and support early childhood education and day care programs for those who want them and for those who are vulnerable. Single and low-income parents who need or want to work deserve to have quality day care spaces designed and available specifically for them, if that is the child care they choose. However, it is also true that for one parent, or a combination of both parents, raising their children during their early childhood years is a high calling and deserves recognition as a significant investment in our economy. Stay-at-home parents who choose to earn less during those youngest formative years, and parents who work from home or choose to work part time while taking care of their children, are investing directly in our most valuable and important resource: the next generation of Canadians. The first five years of a child's life is a crucial time for teaching personal beliefs, values and a sense of worth within the family unit, which is a foundational building block of a healthy society.

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

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with the member that many parents choose to stay at home because that is their preference, and I think it is an incredible calling when someone specifically makes a decision to stay at home with their children, but the reality is that there are a lot of people out there who are doing it for economic reasons. They are doing it because it is more beneficial economically to stay home with their children than to put them in day care: At the end of the day, their income is quite often not much further ahead or is even behind if they have to put their children into day care.

Would the member not agree that when people want to pursue those opportunities in the labour force, or pursue entrepreneurial opportunities, they should have the resources to do that?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I certainly am one of those individuals who would have loved to be a stay-at-home mom, but I did not have that opportunity. I needed to work. I know a lot of women are in those circumstances when their children are young.

That being said, the point I am making is that this is not the most efficient way to provide child care to Canadians, nor is it the preferred way for the vast majority to receive child care support. They want the opportunity to have choice, which I appreciated and wanted when I was raising my children.

My concern is that this funding is targeted specifically to one type of child care, when really what we should be doing is providing spaces for those who are in circumstances that need that support and want it, but also providing—

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

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

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

Madam Speaker, the one thing that the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois agree on is that health transfers are not to be found in this budget. Unfortunately, the Liberals are demonstrating once again that they are incapable of hearing or listening to the premiers of Quebec and the provinces.

The Conservatives are telling us that health transfers must be increased, but they are not saying by how much. They tell us every time that they cannot pull an amount out of thin air, as that would be too easy. However, the premiers of Quebec and the provinces have agreed on an amount.

To date, I have not received an answer to my question because the Conservatives are vague and answer like politicians. I will ask my question again: Does my colleague believe that the Quebec premier and the provincial premiers are off the mark when they give an actual amount?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I certainly value my premier and the deep-dive work that he has been responsible for throughout the circumstances we have found ourselves in with COVID, much of which I strongly place on the shoulders of the government. Canadians have had to deal with this issue, when really it was the fault of the government right from the beginning in the way that it handled COVID.

That being said, I certainly respect the fact that the government also fails to recognize a lot of jurisdiction of the provinces and tends to try to rule with a heavy hand rather than to collaborate.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the government promised a 50% reduction in the average cost of child care by the end of 2022 and an average cost of $10 a day by 2025 and 2026. As we know, there is tremendous variation regionally and from city to city, so averages do not ensure affordability for all. We know the cost of living varies across the country. The government also did not explicitly tie the federal funding to national standards, which is something that has been called for by child care advocates throughout the country.

Does my hon. colleague believe that we need to put in place national standards and ensure affordable universal child care for all throughout the country?

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

A very short answer from the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question, however if she did listen to my speech, my concern is the fact that this is not realistic. It has been put out there in a very rushed way, and does not respond to the needs of all Canadians. I do not agree that a national day care program—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canada’s balance sheet is in trouble. There is no sugar-coating it. We are $1.1 trillion in debt, and counting. That is more than $33,000 for every Canadian. This year alone, the government is set to spend more than $22 billion on interest payments to service that debt, which is estimated to balloon to $40 billion per year with this budget debt added in.

We are in this hole in large part because of the pandemic, but the Liberals’ overspending long before COVID-19 is why we are looking at the sea of red ink before us today. They left the cupboards bare. By next year, the Prime Minister will have added more debt since 2015 than all other prime ministers who came before, combined. Sadly, the budget has yet to balance itself, and Conservatives have always known that this magical thinking was not the approach of a serious government that cares about the work and the hours that go into Canadians paying their taxes every year.

Putting aside how we got here, my hope for this budget, the first tabled by the government in over two years, was a plan for steady growth, lasting job creation and a more prosperous future for all Canadians. I also hoped it would lay out a clear vision of economic recovery and prosperity, attainable goals that leave no Canadian behind.

What we have before us is not that. No, instead, we get risky and unproven economic schemes, a 700-plus page document with no road map to reopen Canada’s economy, and more than $100 billion in new spending on Liberal partisan priorities disguised as stimulus. The very definition of economic stimulus is spending that facilitates economic activity and growth. There is a difference between stimulus spending and just, well, spending, but the government does not seem to appreciate that difference.

Let us consider just a couple of examples from the so-called stimulus fund. There are $13 billion on pandemic supports. My Conservative colleagues and I have voted for these programs from the outset. Many Canadians faced with unprecedented realities and public health restrictions need the help right now. I will say more on this later, but that is not stimulus.

There is $8.9 billion on the Canada workers benefit, a refundable tax credit for Canadians who make less than the threshold. Again, this is not stimulus. Members should not just take my word for it. The independent, non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer said that only $69 billion of this new spending billed as stimulus is really that, stimulus.

Whatever one wants to call it, the sheer amount of all this new spending is simply not necessary. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer noted that “the size and timing of the planned fiscal stimulus may be mis-calibrated”. Other experts agree. One might hear $100 billion and think, “Great, that is a lot of money. Surely it will kick-start the economy”, but the truth is that government spending does not equal growth.

Between 2010 and 2013, under the more fiscally responsible Conservative government, growth averaged 2.8% annually. We can compare that to the Liberals’ first four years in power, when spending rose sharply and average growth was down to 2.2% per year and was grinding down.

What I really do not understand is how, with over $100 billion in new spending, the Liberals’ budget still does nothing for the long-awaited and much-needed infrastructure projects in the Lower Mainland of my home province of B.C., major projects like the George Massey tunnel replacement and the SkyTrain expansion from Surrey out to Langley, or even smaller projects like reinforcement of the White Rock Pier, damaged almost three years ago now.

Does the government not want to help us in B.C.? Maybe it is waiting for another shipment of steel from China like the one used on the Pattullo Bridge before it commits, instead of using beautiful, high-quality Canadian steel. Much-needed infrastructure projects like this would not only create jobs overnight and stimulate the economy but also make a lasting impact on the ability to transport people, goods and services stretching from the U.S. border through several communities up to Deltaport, the international airport, Vancouver, the north shore and beyond, all key to lasting growth and prosperity.

A federal budget is supposed to be a plan for the people, for the people of Canada, our neighbours and our constituents. What do I mean by “no Canadian left behind”? What about the commuter who needs the SkyTrain to get from Langley to Surrey so she can get on another train to get to her job in Vancouver?

Why does she live in Langley or further east? It is because there is no way she can afford to live in Vancouver or Richmond or Delta or Surrey or perhaps White Rock. This budget does nothing to help her own her own home. Instead of encouraging home ownership and helping Canadians experience the achievement and pride in owning their own home, it has recently been made harder to qualify for financing, which negatively affects homebuyers and sellers, realtors, builders, developers, construction crews, contractors, building material suppliers and more.

How about the families in B.C. and across the country that continue to be affected by substance abuse? In B.C., there have been more deaths resulting from overdose than from COVID-19 in the last year. This budget does not do enough to address the opioid epidemic. Where is the comprehensive, recovery-oriented substance abuse plan?

How about the 988 suicide prevention hotline? More than five months ago, this House unanimously passed a motion put forward by my Conservative colleague, the member for Caribou—Prince George, to implement this critical three-digit resource. There is no funding for that.

How about the natural resource workers? A friend of mine recently spoke to a greeter at Walmart in Alberta who used to be an energy sector engineer but is now working a minimum-wage job to demonstrate the dignity of work to his children and put food on the table. What about him? Why is this Canadian being left behind?

What about the travel agencies across the country? About 83% are owned by women, who not only have had their incomes devastated, but have had their commissions pulled back when cruises and trips were forced to cancel. Why are these Canadians left behind?

At a $100-billion price tag, one might have thought we would see increased health transfers to the provinces, given the stress our medical system has undergone in the past 15 months and repeated calls for this from the provinces. It is not included.

Of course, budgets should not just be about spending. They should provide a clear plan for the future of our economy and how we are going to get there. This, amidst a pandemic, must include a plan for a data-driven, safe reopening. Conservatives put forward a motion on this in March, but it was voted down.

Every time I meet with small business owners in my riding over Zoom, businesses like Kin Thai in Surrey or Uli's in White Rock, they have the same question: What metrics will be used to evaluate the situation and eventually allow them to reopen to full capacity? When will it be back to business as usual? Even with expanded patio space, they need to make investments just to reopen. They deal in perishables. Businesses need to plan for the future. They need to order inventory and schedule staff. They want reasonable notice, and they want to get back to doing the work they love.

Before politics, I was self-employed in the practice of law, an entirely different business, but anyone who runs a business can appreciate the need to plan three months, six months, nine months out. The government is not giving businesses the certainty they so desperately need right now. Even if the plan had to be adjusted, given unforeseen circumstances, the government should at least set out what Canada can expect and what yardsticks will be used to adjust.

When I speak to owners of new businesses, they have an additional question: Why not us?

To be very clear, my Conservative colleagues and I have supported programs to help Canadians make ends meet during the pandemic from day one. In fact, we have often pointed out ways to improve programs, as we did with the rent subsidy, insisting the funds be paid to tenants, not landlords. I, for one, am glad the government listened.

Another area for improvement that this budget completely ignores is the ability for newer businesses, opened within the last two years, to qualify for the same supports as their peers that have been open longer. I have spoken to the ministers about this and I have written to them. We need to help them out. The investments to start these businesses were made long before the pandemic and their life savings can literally be on the line.

There are some things I like in this long budget. I am pleased to see the regional development agency for B.C. I think that is important, as long as the funds are allocated in the right places throughout the province.

Canadians waited a long time for this budget, 763 days, to be exact, the longest-ever gap between federal budgets. Unfortunately, it was not worth the wait. Too many Canadians have been left behind. They need to secure their future.

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

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of the member's speech, she spoke about the amount of debt that has been taken on in order to help Canadians through this pandemic, and she referenced the amount of debt that would be taken on under this Prime Minister specifically. I am curious if she is aware that she has voted for all of that debt over the last two years in the House and, often through unanimous consent motions, agreed to that spending.

Is she aware that she is just as responsible for that debt being taken on as the other 337 members of Parliament?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question from the member across the way.

I said in my speech, if the member was listening, that in fact Conservatives did vote for supports and help for Canadians throughout the pandemic. We have been very supportive of the need to help people who are in unprecedented times and unprecedented want. However, I also pointed out that the reckless spending by the government before we even knew about a pandemic left us in a very precarious position, and now the debt has run away from us. With this new budget, there is nothing here to show us a plan to get our house in order.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, like the member for South Surrey—White Rock, we support a number of things in this budget, including the $15 minimum wage.

However, we are concerned about young people, who have been dramatically affected by this pandemic, particularly students. We have called for the elimination of federal student debt of up to $20,000 and a moratorium on and elimination of interest on student loan debt. Do the member and her party support such measures to make it more possible for young people not to be affected for their whole lives by the consequence of this pandemic on their futures?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing that is very concerning to me is that there is not enough in this budget for youth, or for seniors, for that matter.

Being a mother of four children who have all pursued university education, two of whom had to do it all through Zoom in lockdown, with student loans, which I myself took out, I have a great deal of sympathy for them, and also because they are coming out into a very uncertain job market.

This is why I say that we need watermarks, benchmarks, so that Canadians of all ages, particularly youth, who want to figure out where they are going, when and how, can have a much clearer idea of how that can be accomplished.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the next-door riding of South Surrey—White Rock for mentioning a very important infrastructure project, the SkyTrain extension into my riding of Langley.

I wonder if the member would comment on the important interplay between transit, particularly transit-oriented residential development, and tackling the housing affordability crisis in the Lower Mainland.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is little doubt that my colleague and I know about the lack of affordability in B.C., particularly in the Lower Mainland. It is a very expensive place to live, a very beautiful place.

What we need in order to encourage growth, development and home ownership is better transportation south of the Fraser River. We need to be able to get people from community to community, to their jobs or to whatever it is they need to travel for. We need easy access for goods and services, as I mentioned in my speech, not just within the communities but up the highway to Deltaport, to the international airport, to Vancouver and beyond. This infrastructure is vital to us, and we do not understand why it is not being given the attention it deserves.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to finally have an opportunity to speak on the federal budget. It has been long overdue, as the first one presented to this Parliament.

While we are looking at what the budget offers to Canadians, as well as the late timing, it is important for all of us to remember that the theme of the Liberal government is that the key to happiness is low expectations. It is also worth reminding the Liberal government that if it is going to keep people waiting or ask for an extension on a deadline, it had better make sure the final product is worth the wait by making it impressive.

However, it was not worth the wait. The large number of pages only makes it a bigger disappointment. It was disappointing that the Liberal government, unlike the provinces, did not even bother to present one at all for the last year. Speaking of the provinces, if the federal government really wanted to prioritize a pandemic response, we should have expected it to focus on the requested increase of health transfers. Whatever happened to those?

Apparently, for the Liberal government, giving fuller consideration to the future of Canadians, their grandchildren and their children's future was not worth the effort. Canadians were also not shown basic respect for their rights, time, money or trouble during the past year. What might be the worst part of the government's disregard is that it really shows up in this budget.

Today, I want to focus on where the lack of leadership is taking us as a country. In particular, I want to speak of the rural-urban divide. Especially at the federal level, we should always be trying to promote national unity in the face of any number of divisions. Regional differences have always been a source of tension and they continue to come up. It is getting more common, again, to hear and talk about the idea of western alienation, for example, as having the potential of turning into separatism.

As a western Canadian MP, I definitely believe that this is a growing social problem that needs to be addressed for the benefit of all Canadians. Sadly, we have already reached a point where it is obvious that the Liberal government does not care for western Canada. It is hardly a surprise to anybody, and with this budget, the Liberals are not even trying to pretend much more either.

While saying this, I also think we would be missing an another essential part of the larger issue if we do not consider the problems common to rural Canada, regardless of region. The rural-urban divide in Canada is one of the greatest divides experienced today, whether it is in the Prairies, the Atlantic, Ontario, the north, B.C. or Quebec.

Before getting into some of the details of how the Liberal budget will affect real Canadians or, more accurately, how it will leave them behind, we can get a general sense of the Liberal government's stated priorities from its own words. The nice thing about having a budget in front of us right now is that, for better or worse, it forces the Liberals to clarify on the record where they choose to place their priorities. Even though they have avoided and delayed this important measure of accountability and transparency, we now have a better idea of what they say they care about and what they apparently do not care about.

The word “environment” is mentioned 234 times in this document. The phrase “natural resources” is mentioned only 19 times. From those 19 times, I will point out some examples, and it becomes quickly apparent that the Liberals use the phrase “natural resources” in relation to anything but energy workers, especially those in the oil and gas industries.

There is $22.3 million for Natural Resources Canada to create an atomic workers recognition program, and $63.8 million over three years to create new flood maps for high-risk areas. To bring it even closer to home, these energy workers are mentioned once, one time, in the 724-page document. It is not even in the context of seriously proposing anything close to a full solution for this hard-hit sector of the economy. That single mention is in the context of how climate action could present opportunities for them.

Years before COVID first arrived in Canada, and even more during a restricted economy during the last year, thousands and thousands of these workers lost their jobs. Without any support and political certainty, many more Canadians will be joining them soon. This industry and these workers will comprise a large chunk of our nation's workforce and an even larger share of the national GDP. Again, they are mentioned once in 724 pages.

During the last six years of Liberal government, energy workers have come to understand that when they are mentioned as part of new climate opportunities, it actually means that they are going to lose their job. Meanwhile, all the talk about creating futuristic jobs with big spending provides no real certainty without any detailed practical planning.

What about pipelines? There is a reference to a pipeline of innovation, a pipeline of vaccines and a pipeline of talent, but there is not a single mention of energy pipelines. This is unaddressed in a year when nearly half of Ontario and Quebec's energy supply from Enbridge Line 5 is in danger of getting stopped by the Governor of Michigan. Western workers and investors are living with the fact that the dream project of Keystone XL is cancelled and fading away.

With Keystone XL, it is especially shameful because of who some of those investors are. It is very different from big corporations dreaming of profits. These are the dreams of real people. I especially feel the need to bring up the dreams of the Nekaneet First Nation and their Chief Alvin Francis, whose company owns a part share in Keystone XL. They were planning on using the profits to help the people of his community. When I met with him during the winter, before the cancellation of the project, he laid out quite clearly the plans for economic development and jobs beyond working on the pipeline.

These opportunities will no longer be happening thanks to the lack of effort of the current government.

The reality of indigenous participation is too often ignored. It is a reconciliation issue and we need to think of it that way. In my riding, which has an abundance of natural gas, there are mineral rights owned by first nations from across the province of Saskatchewan that are at risk of losing their biggest source of income because of the anti-energy policies of the Prime Minister, income that will not be replaced, income that lifted entire communities out of poverty. They do not have the luxury of waiting for the government to figure out an energy transition over 10 years or more, pushing it along without a plan. To these indigenous communities and all Canadians in all of Canada's energy sector, the silence is deafening.

The Liberal government has some stated priorities, but its record can easily lead anyone to question if it will deliver on what it says it is going to do. People who live in rural Canada, as my constituents and I do, are used to hearing a lot of empty promises, if we are lucky enough to hear anything from it at all.

Most recently, we have had to wait for it to begin rolling out the universal broadband fund, UBF. It has increased the UBF to $2.75 billion, up from last year's announcement of $1 billion, but the deadlines for the first billion dollars have been continually shifting, with almost nothing to show for it. Municipalities in my riding have been waiting for help to get broadband rolled out to their communities or even just increasing the amount of broadband available and are still waiting without so much as a peep from the government. Listing huge dollar amounts does not mean these problems will be solved. It also does not mean the Liberals will get around to finishing the job any time soon.

I have to say the more time I work in Parliament the more it becomes obvious how much Ottawa needs to regain more of a rural perspective. The best example for this debate might be the environment. If the Liberals want to mention the environment 234 times, they can go right ahead. Yes, let us protect and conserve the environment in every way. The economy can grow at the same time if we do it the right way, and we can all agree here on that, but do members know who already sets the bar high for doing this? It is rural Canadians, the people who work the land, enjoy it for sport and live out in the country surrounded by its beauty. They care about the environment. After all, farmers, ranchers, fishermen, energy workers and others live off the land. They do it the best, acting as if their way of life depends on it, quite simply, because it does.

However, they are not seeing a responsible approach to these issues; instead, they see a government that is more interested in pursuing out-of-touch radical ideas and pet projects. The Liberal government could learn a lot from rural people if it would start listening to them and their concerns. The Liberals need to start respecting the fact that farmers and ranchers are the true stewards of the environment. When we look at all the different ways the government is trying to focus on rural people, it is more or less trying to split them off into separate groups, treating them as if they are special interest groups, patting them on the head and offering them pretty words without actually doing anything to address the real concerns that are facing rural Canadians these days.

Canadians are looking for stability and trust following times of uncertainty. They are getting neither from the Liberal government, which has decided to offer a campaign platform in place of a budget.

This budget continues to miss the mark for rural Canadians. Looking further into some of the items in the budget, it talks about boosting rural transit. We are looking at announcements from companies like Greyhound, which has now basically all but removed itself from the Canadian picture. The Liberals treat that as if there is rural infrastructure that already exists for things like transit, but the fact is it is now completely gone and there is no alternative. I look at people who have to drive four, five, six hours sometimes to find the services they need. Literally, there is not even an option for them regarding transit, yet the government has chosen to use policies that are going to disproportionately impact rural Canadians. Its own assessment of these issues shows that it knows that, but it continues to choose to ignore it.

This budget would have been a good opportunity for the government to really signal to the people in rural Canada that it understands the struggles they face, but it has done absolutely nothing to address those issues.

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

Madam Speaker, unfortunately there are parliamentarians who feel the best way to get ahead is to blame Ottawa, feed into western alienation and spread misinformation in order to advance their own personal political agenda, whether for them or the Conservative spin. I often see that with the Conservative members from the Prairies. I was born and raised in the Prairies. I have lived in all three Prairie provinces. The misinformation that is given is sad to see.

My question to the member is related to that. How can he say that Ottawa has done nothing when in fact it has done more for the Prairies in the last six years than Harper ever did in the last 10 years, even on the issues the member has made reference to, such as rural Internet expansion and Trans Mountain? We are the government that brought a commitment to resources to the coastline, unlike the Conservatives. We have done so much more on infrastructure, financial dollars in the pockets—

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

I have to give the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands an opportunity to answer.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member's back must be sore, because he is patting himself pretty hard on the back. I want to highlight something. I spent 10 years working for an Internet company here in Saskatchewan. It was under the Harper government where funding came into the province to help set up Internet, broadband services and land line services on reserve for indigenous people to be able to have the same Internet access that people living in urban areas had. That was under the Harper Conservatives. I do not see any expansion of those services happening now. The dollars have been announced for the universal broadband fund, but we are still waiting. It has been years that the government has been talking about it and it is still not happening and still not getting done.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I represent rural natural resource workers. I sit here day after day and listen to this false conspiracy theory from the Conservatives that if we do not give them another couple billion dollars to build yet another pipeline, they are going to break up the country. They are willing to misrepresent facts time and time again.

It is not a conspiracy that the energy markets are changing. All of the major hedge fund investors said they were pulling out of Alberta and Saskatchewan because the right-wing governments there believe they are still in the 19th century. Let us look at Jason Kenney trying to blow the tops off the Rocky Mountains to get at coal. We can look at the transition that is happening with the four major oil companies taken over by shareholder revolts driven by the hedge fund operators because they are sick and tired of a nation, that includes Canada and the provinces, not taking the environment crisis seriously.

When I listen to this member trying to portray it as a rural versus urban divide, it is the failure of Conservatives to be honest about the need to get ready for a transition that is coming whether they like it or not. It is the 21st century; wake up.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that rhetoric. To put it quite simply, let us look at the Trans Mountain pipeline. It was a private investment. It was fully funded privately and the government chased that investment away and ended up spending that money on its own. The private sector was investing in that with its own dollars; that is it.

I will remind the member that he voted against our motion yesterday to support oil and gas workers. It was a very simpl, very well-thought-out motion. He voted against it, so when he is saying he is standing up for natural resource workers, he needs to take a look in the mirror to understand where he is actually putting his support.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention today. I appreciated the content of it. I just wanted to clarify, given some of the questions the member received.

How important does he think it is for Canada to play a major role in supplying natural resources to the rest of the world because of the way that we extract in a very ethical and environmentally friendly fashion? Should we not be looking at gaining market share, rather than depleting market share?

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

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has 15 seconds to respond.