Debates of May 6th, 2021

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[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]

Mr. Speaker, many progressive measures are within the budget. One that is really quite encouraging is the support for child care throughout Canada. This would add so much value, not only to our economy but to individual families.

Could my colleague comment on that issue?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, a national child care plan will quickly become a foundational pillar of our social safety net, of our social infrastructure. It will, of course, result in a higher participation rate for women, as many of them choose to re-enter the labour force on a quicker basis. It will result in families saving money. In the riding I represent. in the York Region and in the GTA, it will represent a saving of literally thousands of dollars for Canadian families. Obviously that is very beneficial. It will also result in children receiving excellent care from ECEs across the country.

I wish to thank the leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance for bringing forth this initiative for Canadian families from coast to coast to coast.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is constantly doing the right thing in listening to medical health officials. We would like it to do everything they recommend with respect to protocols around COVID-19. However, when it comes to the opioid crisis, the government fails to do the same thing.

Medical health officers across the country have said that the government needs to decriminalize the use of opioids to end the stigma against those who suffer with a health issue, not a criminal issue. We not only have one crisis, the opioid crisis, we have two. We have a political crisis that is killing people. It is standing in the way of doing the right thing and implementing health policy as recommended by medical health officers.

Will my colleague speak to why the government is not decriminalizing the use of opioids, end the stigma against those struggling with addiction and give them the help they need?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the opioid crisis is a crisis in every sense. We have seen way too many lives taken from their families, especially young people in their 20s and 30s who have unfortunately passed due to this crisis. Our government has put in place literally tens of millions of dollars and has partnered with the provinces to try to stop this crisis. It is a very unfortunate crisis and we must do better, not only as a government but as a society.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, on behalf of the residents in my riding of Davenport. The last time I spoke on the budget, I ran out of time and so I will do my very best to be far more succinct today.

The truth is that this is a historic budget with a huge number of measures that will make a big difference in the lives of Canadians. In fact, in 10 minutes, it is virtually impossible to touch on all the reasons we need to pass the budget implementation act and to relay all the things that matter to Davenport, never mind all the important measures it contains for people right across the country. Instead, I will focus on a few key measures that may have been talked about a little less in the House. I will talk about the federal $15 minimum wage, some of the additional measures and funding for immigration, and the huge increase in funding for a new national action plan to end gender-based violence.

However, before I get to those measures, there are two huge game-changing segments of budget 2021 about I am super excited. I truly believe that they are once-in-a generation investments in our future and that they will be key to our future economic prosperity and jobs.

The first is that we are building a national child care program, which aims to bring child care fees down to $10 a day, will be key to the future economic prosperity and jobs in Canada. We are modelling the program on what Quebec currently does. This is a huge announcement for Davenport residents and families in my riding. We are located in the downtown west Toronto where child care costs are among the highest in the country, so I know they are really happy with this announcement.

Christine Lagarde, managing director of the IMF, spoke to our Prime Minister in July 2016. She said that to boost growth, we needed to employ more women. She indicated at the time that the participation rate for women was 82% in 2015, which was well below the 92% level for men. She also indicated that more women received university degrees than men, but their labour participation rate was 7% lower than men. Thus, there is a lot of room to tap into the underutilized female labour force to anchor strong economic growth. I am delighted that national child care will absolutely enable that. It is good for women, it is good for our economy and it is absolutely critical for Canada's success in the future.

The second game-changing element in budget 2021 is a green restart to our economy. Of all the letters and telephone calls that come into my riding of Davenport, if we exclude anything related to COVID, a green recovery and a green restart is top of the list. I am delighted that budget 2021 confirms a green recovery will be a core part of our strategy to create one million jobs.

In addition to the $60 billion that we have already invested in climate action and clean growth since 2015, we have committed an additional $18 billion in budget 2021. These new dollars will be allocated for more investment in renewables, carbon capture and to protect 25% of our land and water. This is in addition to the plan we announced in December 2020, which is outlined in a report entitled, “A Healthy Environment and Healthy Economy”. For the first time in Canadian history, we included a very specific, transparent, costed plan on how we would reach our emissions reduction targets by 2030. I would note that we have become ambitious since that report came out in mid-December. On Earth Day last month, we announced that we would further reduce our emissions targets to 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030.

For years, Davenport environmentalists have been asking for a clear plan, and that has been delivered. I really want to thank the amazing leadership of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change for ensuring that we are moving urgently and aggressively to net zero by 2050.

Beyond these measures, I would like to speak about a number of others things.

The first is that we are establishing a federal minimum wage of $15 per hours, rising with inflation. There are provisions to ensure that where provincial or territorial minimum wages are higher, those wages will prevail. This $15 federal minimum wage will directly benefit over 26,000 workers who currently make less than $15 an hour in federally regulated private sectors.

It is no secret that the wages of most workers have not been keeping up with the cost of living and that many Canadians are struggling. We know that the $15 hourly federal minimum wage would be very welcomed by many across this country, and there is a lot of support for it from groups across the country.

The budget would make much-needed improvements to our immigration system. I believe that immigration is essential to Canada's economic future and positive economic growth. With our declining birth rates and increasing retirement rates, good immigration policy and funding will be fundamental to Canada's success moving forward.

I am the daughter of immigrants. My parents worked really hard to build a new life here and to contribute to a country that gave them a home and a safe place to raise their children. Indeed, 43% of my riding of Davenport are the first generation of their families in Canada. They were born in other countries, they specifically chose Canada to be their home and they contribute here. My office is a very popular spot for many immigration matters.

What improvements would budget 2021 make? Budget 2021 proposes to invest almost $430 million to deliver a new digital platform that would replace the outdated legacy global case management system. It also proposes $74 million to enhance capacity and service standards within the client support centre of the IRCC to ensure timely support by phone and email for inquiries related to services offered by the department. It also offers $29 million to be shared between IRCC and the Canada Border Services Agency to maintain and enhance processing capacity for temporary resident applications. I pulled out these three examples, but there are a number of other items.

This investment is huge. It is a game-changer, and it is key to ensuring efficient processing of new Canadians and immigrants. Many of our offices are very much offshoots of IRCC. The better the systems are that we have in place to provide the most timely information to new Canadians and new immigrants trying to come to this country, the better it is for everyone, and the faster we will be able to get them here and contributing to our economy.

We are also proposing a number of other measures to support temporary workers who come to Canada. Among these are more dollars to support migrant-worker-centric programs and services, to increase inspections of the sites that employ temporary foreign workers, and to improve the service delivery of open work permits for vulnerable workers, helping migrant workers in situations of abuse to find new jobs. This is important to point out, because we are determined to treat our migrant workers right. They do so much for us, from our agricultural sector to our food processing and health care sectors.

The final thing I want to point out is that we are providing additional legal aid support, which I know is very important to West Toronto Community Legal Services in my riding. It is to make sure that we provide the support that is needed from a legal perspective to refugees and immigrants who might need it.

I am going to use the last minute and a half to talk about another thing I am really excited about, which is our commitment to gender equality. We truly believe in gender equality and have done so much over the last five years, from installing a gender-balanced cabinet, enacting proactive pay legislation and contributing over $100 million to feminist and women's organizations, to tackling gender-based violence. I was delighted that we put in a historic amount of money, over $600 million, to enact a national action plan to end gender-based violence. For us to truly achieve gender equality in Canada, it is absolutely critical that we tackle gender-based violence. I am delighted that we are making this commitment in this budget and putting real resources behind it to make sure that we put a plan in place to have a dedicated secretariat.

In closing, there are so many elements of this budget that are game-changing. It would not only lead to economic growth, more jobs, a green recovery and more equitable and fuller participation in our workforce, it would also support our low-income earners and offer a better immigration system and a real plan to end violence against women. These measures set Canada up to become a more prosperous, more compassionate and more just society. I encourage all my colleagues to support this bill.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech. I am curious as to her thoughts about an increasing challenge to Canadian society, which is inflation. When inflation takes place, generally the only people who benefit are those who are wealthier and who own assets. Regular Canadians, especially those who are middle- and lower-income, are those who most often face the most significant consequences from inflation.

Does the member opposite share those concerns about the circumstances that would see growth in the inflation rate in our country?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the cost of everything is top of mind for everyone. It is definitely top of mind for those who live in my riding. I know the Governor of the Bank of Canada is very much keeping an eye on that. It is important to know that we have leaders keeping an eye out on that.

The other thing I would add is that all the measures we have put in place to support Canadians through this pandemic have helped those on the lower end and our most vulnerable Canadians. They have helped give them a sustained quality of life and helped to ensure that they can afford to put food on the table and pay rent. We have been successful in doing so through all the emergency supports that—

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

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech, which I enjoyed. I have a very specific question for her.

It is about something that comes up a lot in my riding. I heard her say something about a fairer and more equitable budget. In the economic update last December, young families heard that the Canada child benefit would be increased.

I assume it was mentioned in the budget as well, but the benefit was supposed to be increased in January, then again in April and July, yet these families have seen no change in their benefits. It is a question that comes up a lot.

When will families see this increase in their child benefit?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are very proud of introducing the Canada child benefit. It has provided wonderful support to families right across the country. My understanding is that it was through Bill C-14, the passage of elements of the fall economic statement, that the Canada child benefit increased. If it has not happened already, my understanding is that it should be happening very shortly.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, members are well aware that over 16,000 Canadians have died as a result of the opioid crisis. In fact, in British Columbia more people have died from overdoses due to fentanyl-poisoned drugs than from COVID-19. We have heard from Moms Stop the Harm, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Dr. Bonnie Henry in British Columbia and many medical health officers right across the country that the keys to tackling the opioid crisis are ending the stigma and decriminalizing them.

The Liberal government states that it listens to medical health professionals when it comes to the COVID-19 crisis. Why is it not listening to the medical health officers and all of these groups? We can save lives by decriminalizing opioids and ending the stigma for a health issue, instead of continuing to take the approach that it is a criminal issue. Why is the government not taking action? Why is it not listening to its own medical health officers?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for being so passionate about this issue. I completely share his passion on this. I know that Canada suffered a 74% increase in opioid-related deaths in the first six months of the pandemic. Budget 2021 proposes an additional $160 million over two years to address the issue. We are working very closely with provinces and territories to not only look at safe supply, but to truly address this issue. On a personal note, I very much believe in treating opioid use as a health issue and not a criminal issue.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with my neighbour from the next riding over, the hon. member for Drummond.

This is the second time that I have been given the honour of speaking on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about the 2021 budget, the first in two years. This time, I am speaking to Bill C-30, which will implement some of the budget's provisions. First of all, I will reiterate that my party will vote in favour of this bill to implement certain measures in the 2021 budget.

We voted against the 2021 budget itself because the federal government did not fulfill our two main requests, namely adequate, recurrent health funding, which was the only formal request made by the Quebec government and echoed by the Canadian provinces, and an increase in old age security for seniors aged 65 and over.

As the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors, I fully support these two requests because they are vital concerns for seniors. Their anger is not going away. I am not the only one saying this. Many seniors' groups, including the Réseau FADOQ, agree. Seniors aged 65 to 74, seniors aged 75 and over, and children and grandchildren under 65 are all feeling frustrated and bewildered. This is happening not only in Quebec, but in Canada as well, since I am also receiving emails in English and comments from anglophones outside Quebec who know that the Bloc Québécois is the party that stands up for all seniors.

I will therefore discuss three aspects of Bill C-30 that relate to my three main roles, namely critic for seniors, critic for women, and the one I am proudest of, member for Shefford. I will also address the extension of certain economic measures, with which we agree.

By refusing to increase health transfers from 22% to 35% in Bill C-30, the federal government is once again ignoring the request made by Quebec, the provinces, the Quebec National Assembly and the House of Commons, which adopted a Bloc Québécois motion on this subject in December, to significantly and permanently increase federal health transfers.

Bill C-30 offers only a one-time increase in health transfers, announced last March. This is certainly not enough to make up for the shortfall that existed well before the pandemic and was exacerbated by the crisis and by population aging. As we have said countless times, we are in a health crisis right now, so now is when we should be taking action, instead of waiting for the crisis to be over.

It is worth noting that the deficit announced in the 2021 budget is lower than anticipated. It is $354 billion instead of the $382 billion announced in the 2020 fall economic statement. By purest chance, the resulting margin happens to be exactly $28 billion, the same amount that Quebec and the provinces are asking for.

By refusing to provide that money even as it gears up for a colossal spending spree, the government is not making a budgetary choice, but a political choice at the expense of everyone's health. After seniors waited so long, Bill C-30 finally includes the increase to old age security that the Liberals' promised during the 2019 election campaign. However, the increase will only start in 2022, will only apply to seniors aged 75 and over, and will only amount to $766 per year, or $63.80 a month. This increase is insufficient for seniors and for the Bloc Québécois. It totally ignores seniors aged 65 to 74, who account for practically half of all seniors currently receiving old age security.

The Bloc Québécois will continue to demand a substantial increase, namely $110 more a month, for all seniors aged 65 and over. We do not accept the Liberals' argument that financial insecurity begins at age 75. However, we will not oppose the decision to give some seniors the assistance included in Bill C-30, which they need and deserve.

Seniors aged 75 and over will receive a one-time payment of $500 in August 2021, which is consistent with what was announced in the budget. It is merely an election ploy, and seniors know it.

The bill also implements the 10% increase promised to seniors 75 and over. As of the quarter starting July 1, 2022, the full monthly old age security benefit will increase by 10% during the period when a senior turns 75. It is strange that the increase does not start until 2022. Is this another election promise?

The government is not doing as we asked, which is what seniors themselves asked it to do. It is creating two classes of seniors. Why increase old age security only once people turn 75? That is age discrimination, it is ageism. It is not true that only seniors 75 and older are vulnerable.

Once again, we are asking for an additional $110 per month for all seniors 65 and up. Financial insecurity, poverty and rising prices do not wait until people turn 75 to kick in. Old age security is a universal program designed to compensate for loss of income after retirement. The Liberals seem to think that vulnerable people over the age of 65 do not deserve their attention. They seem to think that financial insecurity does not affect people until they turn 75. To top it off, all it would have cost is about $4 billion. As my colleague from Joliette said yesterday, and as economics reporter Gérald Fillion wrote in an article, Canada's record on supporting retirees, compared to other OECD countries, is dismal. We are in 32nd place.

Second, as the Bloc Québécois critic for the status of women and gender equality, I note that the bill provides for a one-time payment of just over $130 million to the Government of Quebec to harmonize the Quebec parental insurance plan, since the eligibility criteria and benefit period for EI have been temporarily modified and increased. Quebec has the right to opt out with financial compensation with respect to the maternity and parental benefits program.

Thus, if the government invests in improving its program, it must pay for the Quebec government to make a matching investment, the same way the government is giving itself the right to compensate any province that wishes to opt out of the federal early learning and child care program. This is a file we have talked about a lot at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. However, the spending authority for this child care program seems to be valid only for the next fiscal year, from April 2021 to March 2022, for a maximum transfer of $3 billion to each province and to Quebec.

The budget document, as opposed to Bill C-30, mentions different program objectives and the possibility of an asymmetrical bilateral agreement with Quebec. There are two things we must watch out or. First, does the fact that Bill C-30 only deals with the 2021–22 fiscal year mean the government is covering the costs of establishing and improving the child care program until asymmetrical agreements are signed?

I should point out that “asymmetrical” does not necessarily mean “unconditional”. It is not the same thing, and it is important to be careful. The budget rightly mentions and praises the Quebec child care system several times, which it claims to be inspired by. The announcement that there will be an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec is a positive sign, but only if this agreement comes with, I repeat, full and unconditional compensation for the total costs and for the program's measures. This is also what the Quebec National Assembly is calling for. The expertise is in Quebec.

Overall, beyond the measures themselves, a new Canada-wide child care program provides another opportunity for federal interference. Family policies and all the associated programs come under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. This is another example of a government that is getting into the habit of sticking its nose where it does not belong, as it is doing with many other measures, such as the national framework for women's health, the national framework for reproductive health, and so on.

Why create these unnecessary conflicts with Quebec and the provinces? Why does the federal government not mind its own business? For a government that claims to be feminist, it is time to stop playing “father knows best”.

As a final point, I really want to commend the resilience of our businesses and the strong entrepreneurial spirit that defines Shefford. They have been hit hard during the crisis, which is why we are asking that the income stabilization programs be maintained as long as necessary. It is clear that many sectors, including tourism and cultural and artistic events, will not resume normal operations until well after November 2021. These sectors are so important to the economic life of my riding, and they need to know that they can count on assistance as long as they need it. They have talked about the importance of predictability and flexibility. The Canada emergency wage subsidy, which has been used by many companies, including some in Granby's industrial park in my riding, will be extended to September 25, 2021, and that is great.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that our vote in favour of Bill C-30, which implements certain provisions of the budget, does not mean that we are giving the government a blank cheque. We will be watching closely to see how certain programs are implemented, especially for the hardest-hit sectors, including culture and media, which I am sure my dashing colleague from Drummond will talk about more fully in his speech.

As the member for Beloeil—Chambly often says, the devil is in the details, and there are certainly plenty of details in this budget. However, out of respect for everyone's health, and out of respect for our elders, who have the right to age with dignity by enjoying life, not merely surviving, we must act now.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about my colleague from the Bloc's comments on day care and how the federal government continues to intrude into areas of provincial jurisdiction. This Ottawa-knows-best approach that the federal government seems to have is something that I think should be concerning. I think we can all acknowledge the fact that there is an issue with the availability of spaces and the cost of day care. However, the idea that provinces cannot have their own models and compete against other provinces in terms of improving their services, improving their costs and improving whatever is next, I think, shows conformity rather than competition within the provinces.

Can the member comment on that and other issues she has with the Ottawa-knows-best approach being proposed by the government?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks.

In the budget, the federal government's attempts to interfere are clear. This is the mistake the government has made in reacting to a crisis. It really wants to intrude in our jurisdictions and interfere in everything.

My colleague gave the example of day care. I repeat that it was Quebec that developed this expertise. It does not need Ottawa trying to play the wise old grandfather or father and offering advice, because Quebec knows what to do. In my opinion, the important thing is to have the ability to opt out and do what we have to do based on our needs.

I will repeat that the provincial governments and the Quebec government are in the best position to set their own priorities, especially with respect to education and day care.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for mentioning the situation about continuing shortfalls and health funding transfers. That is something that the Bloc and the NDP agree on.

While Canadians are struggling with the health and economic impacts of the pandemic, big companies can continue to hide their profits in offshore tax havens. Could the member talk about how unfair that is, how those who profited from this pandemic just are not paying their fair share?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have to give a nod to my colleague from Joliette, because I know he would answer that there is still far too much tax evasion and tax avoidance going on and that we should be doing more about it.

Of course, that is where we could find some money, just as we could get money by taxing the web giants. We could also look for money elsewhere. Some major corporations are evading and avoiding taxes by illegal and sometimes even unethical means. We must recover this money and reinvest it, perhaps in health, where it is desperately needed.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is always passionate and eloquent.

My colleague is right. The fact that the government does not want to improve the old age pension is causing a lot of frustration. Everyone agrees on that. We owe seniors so much more than this.

We have seen a rather odd phenomenon playing out at our constituency offices over the past few weeks, ever since the budget was brought down. It is not necessarily the people concerned, in other words seniors, who are getting in touch to express their dissatisfaction. The surprising thing is that it is their children and grandchildren.

How does my colleague explain the fact that the Liberal government is refusing to give even a tiny amount of money to seniors? The bottom line is that we are talking about 1% of the deficit. Can my colleague elaborate on this?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for his hard work. I know that he works hard for the seniors in his riding, as do all of the other Bloc Québécois members.

I do not think there is any question that seniors have been in a precarious financial situation for a long time now. This was an issue before the crisis, and this crisis has only exacerbated the problem. Seniors are not the only ones feeling it. Their grandchildren can see it as well. One young man wrote to me about presenting a petition out of respect for his grandparents, because he thought the situation was unacceptable.

I even hear from seniors who are 76 years old and who say that they do not have more expenses than before and that their financial situation is not necessarily worse than that of their 73- or 74-year-old neighbour. They are insulted. They could not care less about the $500 cheque if their 73-year-old neighbour is not getting it as well. They think that is unfair. The youngest and the oldest citizens recognize that it is unfair to leave out seniors aged 65 to 74.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Shefford for her brilliant speech and for her work on behalf of seniors. Her work can be felt in my own riding, Drummond, which neighbours hers. The work she is doing for seniors is so brilliant and so serious that seniors in my riding recognize that the hon. member for Shefford is doing an outstanding job. I want to commend her.

I am very pleased to speak today to Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget. As my colleague said a little earlier, the Bloc welcomes this bill. Needless to say, it contains urgent measures; we all agree on that.

I would like to commend the government for its initiative to remove certain technical barriers that have limited access to media assistance. These include deductions for subscription fees for individuals and the wage subsidy for media outlets. This will be well received by our print media, although there is no telling when the Liberals will realize how much our regional media, especially our weeklies, need legislation to solve the problems of the GAFAM. Even today, the GAFAM makes millions of dollars in profits on the backs of the content of our media and cultural creators.

Division 17 of part 4 of the bill amends the Telecommunications Act, in particular by facilitating the exchange of information between levels of government. This will better coordinate Quebec's efforts to provide access to telecommunications services in remote areas. We very much welcome the fact that the government is taking away the right to review CRTC decisions in funding matters for underserved regions. This adds a layer of protection against the government's often ill-advised decisions related to high-speed Internet in the regions. Everyone agrees that the government has clearly shown that this is not its great strength. We have come to expect the Liberals to promise nice things without delivering on them. That is their signature.

Take, for example, the measures announced in the budget for tourism and culture. When the budget was introduced a few weeks ago, the cultural industry's spontaneous reaction was very positive. I had the same type of reaction.

The government announced approximately $1.3 billion in assistance over three years, including $400 million for large and small festivals; $300 million over two years to create a recovery fund for arts, culture, heritage and sports sectors; $500 million for a tourism relief fund; $70 million over three years for the Canada music fund; $105 million over three years for Telefilm Canada; and $39.3 million over two years to support the book industry.

These provisions proved that the government recognized and understood the importance of helping the cultural industry. Many sectors of the industry were in a precarious situation before the pandemic for various reasons, one of which was the fact that the Department of Canadian Heritage's budget had not been increased since 2008. For 10 years, there were no investments in culture. The Liberals can lay some of the blame for that on the Conservatives because they undermined our industry by making $45 million in cuts in 2008.

I would like to quote the Prime Minister, the chief expert in empty rhetoric. Yesterday in the House of Commons, he said, “when it comes to culture, Canadians are certainly not going to believe the Conservatives. That is for sure. As a government, we have always been there for creators”.

As the philosopher Plato would say, that is an absurdity. The government has always been there in word. That is true. However, in practice, the Department of Canadian Heritage's budget did not increase from 2015 to early 2020. Why did the Liberals turn a deaf ear to the industry's repeated requests? The industry has been calling for an increase in funding for a long time.

I will not spend time talking about what the Liberals have not done because I only have 10 minutes. As an eternal optimist, I will focus on the future and tell myself that a little pressure and good collaboration might convince the Liberals to reconsider.

I was happy about all those measures I just listed, all those measures to help the tourism and cultural sectors, but I was deeply disappointed that the government opted not to include those measures in Bill C-30.

Festival season is coming, but the crowds will not be as big as they were two years ago because now we have public health rules to follow. Organizers are already busy preparing for this summer. As I said, they are happy with the funding set aside to help them. They now know that money will show up at some point, but they do not know when.

Arts and entertainment, festivals and tourism need predictability to survive, so I do not understand why the Liberals chose not to act fast to help the creators and artists they claim to stand up for.

Unfortunately, there are other flaws. Let us talk about the so-called digital services tax, or DST, which is a strange name, in my opinion. The chapter of the budget on the digital services tax starts off by saying, “The government is committed to ensuring that corporations in all sectors, including digital corporations, pay their fair share of tax on the money they earn by doing business in Canada.” It is there in black and white. However, this tax will not apply to companies like Spotify, Amazon Prime, Disney Plus, Apple Music and Netflix, who draw their income from user subscription fees.

This tax, nicknamed the “Netflix tax”, will not apply to Netflix. This week in the House, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage questions about this digital services tax. To summarize, I asked why the government continued to give multinational web giants a free ride. The minister replied that I had it all wrong. He then declared that web giants would be taxed.

I know that the minister has a lot on his plate these days with all the questions about the environment. I will be happy to help him understand culture and communications a little better. The tax the Minister of Canadian Heritage was talking about was the GST, which is paid by consumers, not companies. Companies collect it and hand it over to the government.

Page 733 of the budget says that the digital services tax would not apply to companies that stream digital audiovisual content. The Bloc Québécois wants the digital services tax to apply to companies that stream this kind of content. The idea is that this money would be given to our cultural and media industries as compensation, as they have unfairly suffered from the arrival of the Web giants. The government, however, would rather put that money in the consolidated revenue fund than use it to help those that urgently need it.

Netflix streams audiovisual content, and Netflix and the others have a significant impact on our cultural sector, so Netflix is not subject to the Netflix tax. That speaks volumes about the government's understanding of the issues. The government does not need to thank me for my insights; if it has any more questions, it knows where to find me. Seriously, though, I am astounded that the Liberals do not appear to have a concept of fairness. The government seriously lacks courage in dealing with foreign companies.

I now want to talk about a topic that my colleague from Shefford raised earlier. This topic affects us all and considerably affects my constituents in Drummond. With Bill C-30, the Liberal government is finally getting to its 2019 election promise to increase old age security, but only as of the age of 75 and only by $766 a year. As members know, this increase will not even happen until 2022. I think the House is well aware of the Bloc Québécois's position on this subject, but I want to give a voice to those who have been forgotten and who are affected by this.

This week, Mr. Bibeau called my office to share his disappointment with my team. He did not understand why the government made this choice to increase OAS at 75 only. He said, “I am retired. I receive the old age pension too and I think it is unfair that I am not getting that increase. My needs are no different from those 75 and older. I have to buy groceries and I have bills and rent to pay, just like them. I am not saying that I am jealous. I am happy that they are getting that money, but I do not understand this choice by the Liberals. I do not know if I am still going to be here when I am 75. I want to fully enjoy my retirement, spoil myself a bit and it seems that it would be a show of respect for the government to give this increase starting at 65 for all the years I worked and contributed, right?”

I understand and I share Mr. Bibeau's dissatisfaction, concerns and dismay. There are others like him: Mrs. Gaudreault, Mrs. Tellier, Mr. Paradis, Mrs. Guérin. Many people share Mr. Bibeau's point of view.

In Quebec, 19% of the population is over 65. In Canada, two million people are between the ages of 65 and 74, or two million people have been ignored by a government that made the choice to increase the pension at 75 as though the pandemic and the cost of living did not affect people 65 to 74. I think this deserves some serious thought.

I would now be happy to answer my colleague's questions.

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

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of talk, in particular from the Bloc, about the age of 65 versus the age of 75, and the increase that is being proposed in this budget. There is data out there to suggest and to support that the older people get, the more they burn through their retirement savings, the more health costs they incur and, generally speaking, the more expensive life becomes, compared to what they have as they get older.

Is it the Bloc's preference that, rather than giving more to those over 75, less is given to everybody over 65? That is another option. We could take that amount that we were going to give to those who really need it, those who are over 75, and spread it out between everybody over 65. Is that the preference of the Bloc?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find it peculiar that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands would suggest that the opposition should have to make the tough decisions. What a ridiculous thing to say.

People have paid into their pension plans for their entire careers and their whole lives, knowing that they would retire at 65. That is often the choice people make when starting their careers, or at least it was a few years ago. They are entitled to their pensions. They have the same expenses, the same needs and the same cost of living increases to deal with. Health care costs may be higher or more of a burden at age 75 and above, but that does not make it any more equitable to allocate these increases only to those aged 75 and older.

If the member would bother to listen to his own constituents, he might see that this is not just a suggestion from the Bloc Québécois, but a concern of all seniors across Canada.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was going to ask about telecom, but I will carry on with this discussion. It is interesting that the parliamentary secretary's first response was to cut people back, whereas we know that people aged 65 and over are entering into or staying in the workforce longer because their pensions do not make—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe I was the one speaking, not a parliamentary secretary.

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

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has a point. He is not a parliamentary secretary.

The hon. member for Windsor West.