Debates of Oct. 27th, 2022

Motions in Amendment

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am actually proud to say that, in the very first budget of 2015, we were able to put $700 billion, I know for British Columbia, into the health accord, particularly for mental health services. This was on top of the health transfer.

When it comes time to negotiate with the provinces, which I understand is happening, we will be there. This government has been there every time when it comes to the health care, the dental care and the mental health care of Canadians. We will be there.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise and speak in ths House on behalf of the constituents of Saskatoon West. I thought it would be fair to let members know, right up front, that I am planning to vote against this legislation. I know they are always curious about why we vote the way we do, so I would like them know why I am going to be voting that way.

First, I want to set the stage regarding the rental benefit that is in this legislation. We are in an era of the highest inflation that we have had in 40 years. We have food prices that are at double-digit inflation right now. Our housing costs are among the highest in the world. It is very difficult for people to afford to live right now.

Our energy costs are high. They are higher than they need to be because of all the taxes, including the carbon tax that was put on by the current Liberal government. Home heating is more expensive than ever. In fact, this winter many people in Canada will be paying double or more on their home heating bills than they have paid before. It is partly due to the tripling of the carbon tax that is happening.

These are difficult and challenging times for people with low incomes, seniors and also for those who have fixed incomes. It is very difficult for them to find a way to stretch that money to make it work with the increased expenses that we have.

There is an old proverb that says this: Give a man a fish and feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. I suggest that this plan is in the first category and this is why.

What we need are long-term solutions. We need a way to fix things. This is a short-term band-aid. It is a one-time payment.

The average rent in Canada right now is about $2,000 a month. Take that payment of $500 on a monthly basis and it is a quarter of a month or one week. Realistically, thinking of it over a year, it is $42 a month for a year. The truth is that there probably is not going to be an additional payment of this type during the tenure of the government. If the tenure of the government happens to be four years, which I certainly hope it is not, that would be $10 a month over four years. Ten dollars a month on a $2,000 rent bill makes no difference at all.

Nobody is going to refuse that $500, and I am certain that people need that money. The problem is that it is going to alleviate the problem for today. What about tomorrow, when the next bill comes due? How are they going to do that? This is not a long-term solution.

What is a long-term solution? We could be encouraging more housing and not simply throwing money after housing. I was a home builder for 12 years, so I am well aware of the challenges faced by home builders and housing providers in this country. One of the things that always frustrated me was how our municipalities would slow down the process and gum up the works. When people wanted to get a building permit, for example, it would take months to get one when it should not happen that way. Builders who are experienced and accredited should be able to get building permits quickly.

Members may have heard the term “gatekeepers” used around this place. That is a great example of a gatekeeper. They are some of the municipal systems that are in place to restrict and prevent things from happening in a quick way. That is something that we need to encourage them to fix.

Another thing is reducing red tape in bureaucracy in general. I am thinking of the building codes. We keep having more complicated building codes piled on top of building codes. Every time a new requirement is added to the building code it adds costs to the product they are building, which in this case is a house, and to the time to build it. Building codes are another thing that really reduce and end up restricting the amount of housing supply.

Ultimately, we need lower interest rates because everybody has to pay and it affects the cost to everybody. How can we lower our interest rates? What we need to do to lower our interest rates is build up our economy. Some people may not realize it, but over the last three years, most of the jobs that have been created in this country have been government jobs. They have not been private sector jobs. They have been government jobs that are ultimately paid for, through our taxes, by all of us who are working.

What we really need to do is focus on the natural resources that we have in our country. When we develop, sell and export our natural resources, that produces not only wealth for our country, but also tax revenues for the various levels of government, including the federal government. We have oil and natural gas. They are the third-largest reserves in the world. Canada has the best standards, when it comes to environment and labour, and we pay very well in this country. Compared to almost every other country, we are far ahead in being a better producer and a more environmentally friendly producer of oil and gas. We need to do that.

We need pipelines so that we can get our products to the east and to the west. Right now, we cannot help Europe very much with natural gas, which is a huge need because of the war in Ukraine. It is a shame that we cannot help Europe when we have exactly what it needs.

We have rare earth elements, and in my riding we have potash. We have potash all over the place in Saskatchewan and have a company called Nutrien. It has thousands of employees in Saskatoon, and we lead the world in potash production. The government is trying to push through a reduction in potash use in our agriculture sector, which is simply going to reduce the amount of output and the amount of food that is grown, ultimately raising the price of food.

We cannot do that. We need to encourage non-government jobs and private sector jobs that create wealth for our country and raise tax revenue. Ultimately, this will stop inflation, and if we stop inflation we can stop our deficits and our borrowing and can start to enjoy the benefits of a strong economy. To do that, we especially need a “pay as you go” law so that when new spending is introduced, we find a way to save it somewhere else. The result of that would be low inflation and lower taxes. That would be teaching a man to fish.

I want to talk a bit about the dental benefit. There is a dental health crisis in Canada. Actually, no, there is not. Now that I think about it, it is a mental health crisis. That is what is happening in Canada. I have not heard of a dental health crisis in this country.

What about the mental health crisis? One in five Canadians experiences mental illness. Every day in Canada, an average of 10 people die by suicide. Mental health challenges affect every Canadian in different ways. Some of us struggle with diagnosed conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety. Others struggle in silence with shame, eating disorders, addictions or alcoholism.

Causes are hard to pinpoint. It can be trauma or tragedy of the worst kind in childhood or adulthood. It can be a physiological chemical imbalance. The DNA and genes we inherit from our parents play a role. Learned behaviour growing up at home, in school and in the workplace can also contribute. Add in race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, income bracket and other factors, and treatment, unfortunately, is haphazard. Some mental health disorders are diagnosed by the police and treated by the courts with prison sentences. Other people are fortunate enough to find themselves a physician, psychiatrist or other professional who can help them.

What we do not have in this country is an actual strategy to tackle mental health, particularly the causes, symptoms and treatments, on a national scale. Over two years ago, my Conservative colleague from Cariboo—Prince George proposed a national suicide hotline. Surely we would think this is a no-brainer the Liberal government could support for Canadians. However, if I dialed 988 right now, it would tell me to hang up and call a different number in English only.

What should we do when a francophone experiences a mental health crisis?

We therefore continue to wait. In the last election, the Liberals promised $4.5 billion for mental health, and we continue to wait. Instead, we have $700 million for the dental health crisis.

Why are we looking at this legislation today? We have a problem to be solved. All legislation is like this: There is a problem to be solved and legislation is supposedly going to fix that problem. What are the problems we have today? We have the cost of living. The rental benefit would not fix that; it is a short-term band-aid. We have a mental health crisis, and this dental benefit certainly would not fix that. Why do we have this legislation? Was there research, focus groups or surveys? I doubt there are many people who want a short-term band-aid on our economy. I also doubt there are many people who want to spend more money and put us into more debt.

I suggest this bill is simply the equivalent of a sideshow, a carny trick or a shiny object in the window meant to distract Canadians. It is meant to have Canadians believe that action is being taken to address poverty and affordability issues while nothing is really being done. Bill C-31 is like those fixed games at the carnival. It is flashy and exciting looking, but as we keep playing the NDP-Liberal game and keep losing our hard-earned money with little return, we realize it is a sucker's game. They are taking money away from us in the way of higher taxes. They continue to have Canadians pay more hoping to get that oversized stuffed animal. Then they give us a free play and another free play, except in this one they say we do not have to pay for it. However, it is our grandchildren who are going to be paying for it in the future when our national debt comes due. In the meantime, they give us some scraps. The government is running that kind of game.

There is a better way to run our country. For years, the Conservatives have warned that there are consequences from the Liberal-NDP's actions. The Conservatives call on the government to scour government spending, find savings for proposals like the $35-billion Canada Infrastructure Bank and stop useless spending like the $54-million ArriveCAN app. Finally, the Conservatives call on the Liberals to cancel all planned tax increases, including the payroll tax hikes on January 1 and the tripling of the carbon tax on gas—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member opposite, and I will put something to him that is fairly straightforward.

The official opposition is consistently concerned with fiscal prudence, and that is a fair concern. However, would the member agree with me that if dental care descends to the point of dental disease or if tooth decay results in things like gum disease for young people, it results in concomitant knock-on costs for our publicly funded health care system? Would it not be better to pre-emptively support care for young people to have their teeth needs addressed so they do not end up imposing a cost on the health care system that we all subsidize already?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I understand that governing is hard and making decisions can be difficult, and many times we have to face trade-offs. However, I would suggest that the mental health crisis we have in our country is the biggest problem we face right now.

Yes, dental health and care for teeth are important, and I do not deny that at all, but I think if we have to pick one first and the other second, I would pick mental health first. We have clear a expense in our country for that, and we are seeing it right now in our health care system every single day. It is not only affecting us in dollars but affecting us in the number of lives that are affected, hurt and lost every day.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my Conservative colleague for his speech.

Earlier, another of my colleagues on the Conservative benches mentioned all of the red tape and the hard time the government has carrying out its regular duties. He wondered whether the government should be taking on new duties, especially in an area that falls outside its jurisdiction, when it has difficulty meeting the public's expectations in matters related to passports, immigration and so on.

I would therefore like to ask my Conservative colleague a question. When the government decides, with good intentions, to implement programs that already exist in some of the provinces, should it not systematically include the possibility of opting out for the provinces that wish to do so? Of course, I am taking about opting out of programs that are implemented by the government with full financial compensation. Would it not be a good way to make things fair and equitable, and to make things easier for the government?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member uncovers a serious problem that I am sure the Liberals will have with this legislation, which is that health care is fundamentally a provincial jurisdiction issue. While the federal government does transfer funds and does dictate certain requirements to the provinces, ultimately the provinces are the ones that carry out these things.

In having money transferred to the provinces to cover things off, certainly the federal government has the ability to suggest that certain things get done, and that is what might happen in this case. However, I really believe that it is the provinces that have to carry out health care. The provinces need more money; that is the bottom line, and I think with the way the government has spent on things other than health care, a lot could have been diverted, and could still be diverted, to the provinces without actually increasing our spending.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it seems that the Conservatives want us to choose between mental health and people ending up in the hospital because of serious dental care issues.

Instead of pitting people together, I want to ask my hon. colleague this. Does he agree with me that instead of placing the onus on people, we need to divest from fossil fuel companies, make corporations pay what they owe and use that money to invest in people instead of big oil and big corporations?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I believe that corporations need to pay their fair share of taxes, absolutely. Also, if the member had listened to my speech, she would have heard me say that we need to fully utilize the gifts we have been given in our country, which are our natural resources, whether they be oil and gas, forestry, minerals, agriculture or potash. There are all kinds of them.

Our country's wealth was built on natural resources and it will continue to be built on natural resources. We can mine them, take them out of the earth and use them in very environmentally friendly and effective ways. We lead the world in that category. That is something we are good at, and we should continue to push ourselves on the world stage because that is where we make our mark. We can actually make the world a better place with the energy and resources in Canada.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I want to recognize that I am speaking from the House of Commons in Ottawa, which is on unceded Algonquin territory. We are speaking today about a bill that is extremely important for those of us in the House, but also for Canadians listening to the debate and Canadians feeling the pressures of affordability right now.

Bill C-31 would address two key facets of affordability in this country, housing and dental care, and the first thing I want to broach is why we are targeting these two particular areas. It does not matter which ridings members represent in this chamber or which part of the country they come from, Canadians are feeling the same sentiment about the cost of living: Prices are escalating and life has simply become too expensive. This is partly a function of the pandemic, partly a function of global conflicts, such as Russia's unjust invasion of Ukraine, and partly a function of supply chains and the need to make them more resilient. What we are doing as a government is listening to those concerns and responding directly to them.

Last week, we provided a doubling of the GST rebate, something I believe all parties in this chamber supported, for which I am thankful and I believe Canadians are thankful. Today we are again talking about targeted relief on two indicia: housing and extending health care to include dental health.

This bill would do two pivotal things. In terms of the housing benefit, it proposes to provide a top-up payment to something called the Canada housing benefit. It is a $1.2-billion investment that would result in a $500 benefit being made available to approximately 1.8 million people in this country who rent, including students and people struggling with the cost of rental housing. The second key facet of the bill, as we have heard in the debate thus far today, is that it proposes to provide dental care for uninsured families with incomes of less than $90,000 annually, targeting dental relief to children under the age of 12.

It is important to recap for Canadians where we are in this fight to build a more affordable Canada and ease issues related to the cost of living.

What have we been doing on the housing front since I was elected to this place in 2015? About two years into our first mandate as a government, we launched a national housing strategy. At the time it was launched, it was approximately $40 billion deep. That housing strategy has expanded to the tune of $72 billion now, which included a $14-billion investment in housing in budget 2022.

Key for the purposes of this debate is what we are doing now with the national housing strategy. It involves the Canada housing benefit, a $4-billion program within our broader strategy that provides an average of $2,500 in direct assistance to help those who have low incomes with the high cost of rent they are facing.

There are also other aspects of what we have been doing with respect to affordability. We could talk about the Canada workers benefit or something that I am very proud of, the Canada child benefit, which is a means-tested, non-taxable benefit that is targeted directly to families that need the assistance the most. With respect to child care, we can talk about what we have done in just the past 12 months to alleviate the costs of child care for people raising young families around the country, reducing those costs by 50% by the end of this year and to $10 a day by the end of four years.

We have taken significant steps, and what I have found troubling in my time in this chamber as a parliamentarian is the consistent opposition we have faced, particularly from His Majesty's loyal opposition, on many of the programs I just outlined. I was very pleased to see support for the doubling of the GST rebate as recently as last week, but I am still troubled by the fact that an initiative such as the one we are talking about today, which is, again, targeted relief to assist those who need it the most with some of their most basic necessities such as housing and extended health care, are being opposed by some of the members opposite. I would urge them, through the course of their deliberations on this bill, to change their position and vote for it.

I want to dwell a bit on housing and dental care as specific topics. We know that housing has become more expensive in this country in recent times. At the end of September 2022, the average rent for property types across the country saw a monthly increase of 4.3%, an annual increase of 15% and a 21% increase since the market low that was experienced in April 2021.

The city of Toronto consistently ranks as one of the most expensive rental markets in the country, somewhat neck in neck with Vancouver. We know this has become a challenge for the constituents I represent and for the people in Toronto, Vancouver and right across the country, something I am reminded of by my constituents and the stakeholders in my community.

I want to highlight a couple of key stakeholders that have been doing consistent work in the area of affordable housing for many years.

One is the Parkdale Neighbourhood Land Trust, which has taken it upon itself to index the amount of rooming houses that are available as deeply affordable housing in the community of Parkdale. As well, through its land trust initiative, it has collaborated with city and provincial partners to purchase land and keep rooming houses viable in the city of Toronto, in my community, and to keep people who need supportive and affordable housing properly housed. It is a tremendous initiative. It does that in conjunction with the Parkdale Activity Recreation Centre, which manages the property it was able to purchase in 2019.

Another program I want to highlight with respect to housing is what we have been able to do very successfully, as part of the national housing strategy, with the rapid housing initiative. This is an initiative that started out with about $500 million for urban cities, $200 million of which was dedicated to Toronto, and was subsequently doubled in budget 2021 because of the popularity of the program. It provides acute, targeted assistance to those who need it the most and does it quickly, as the name denotes. Within 12 months people are housed very quickly.

What the new totals mean for the rapid housing initiative, as part of this broader suite of housing assistance that we are providing, is that the city of Toronto will be receiving $440 million to create more than 1,000 new homes and do it very quickly. How does this impact Canadians? It impacts my constituents. We have $14 million of that money coming directly to Parkdale to assist with the creation of about 50 modular units on Dunn Avenue. That type of housing policy takes root, takes hold and starts to work quickly.

This bill would help in the same vein. Bill C-31 would provide an additional benefit for those who already receive the Canada housing benefit. When I say targeted, I mean tested. The facts are important to articulate in this chamber. We are talking about a one-time benefit that will go to applicants with incomes of less than $35,000 if they are a family or less than $20,000 as individuals. Certainly, every member in the House can agree with the idea that the people in those low-income brackets deserve our help the most and deserve targeted support on behalf of the Parliament of Canada.

Last, I want to turn to the idea of dental care. We know it is part and parcel of health care as we conceive it in our country. Members heard my intervention with respect to the previous speaker. We have heard from entities the Canadian Association of Public Health Dentistry talk about people who do not receive the dental care they need because of the costs associated with it. In fact, 55% of dental care right now is delivered by those who have private insurance, 40% of Canadians pay out of pocket for their dental care, and some just do not access it because they simply cannot afford to. That creates a knock-on impact to our health care system. People who do not receive the primary health care they need pre-emptively to prevent problems from mushrooming end up in our emergency rooms in our hospitals, which are publicly funded, and that has a knock-on cost for our health care system. Let us avoid that cost by providing something as simple as basic dental care for people who need it the most.

I would dare to say that it is hard to argue with the needs of children with respect to their growth and development. Addressing their extended health care needs by providing free of charge something as basic as visits to the dentist is an important thing to do, and we try to do that through this legislation.

Targeting housing and extended health care benefits through the lens of dental care is critical to dealing with the affordability challenges being faced by Canadians right now. That is why I support the bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it really interesting that the member and other members of the government have acknowledged the challenges related to affordability, yet I think back to the spring sitting of this place. Time and time again, the Conservatives brought these things forward and the Liberals voted against them.

I have a specific question for the member. There is a very clear delineation between different levels of government in our country. I am concerned, and I have heard these concerns from stakeholders across the country, that this program is being brought forward without appropriate consultation with the provincial bodies that are responsible for providing dental care.

I am curious why the government is pushing this forward without working with the level the government that is responsible for ensuring that Canadians have health care.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will very politely but firmly point out that health care and health care delivery is a matter of shared jurisdiction, not exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

I will point to several examples: the Canada Health Act, the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. We already provide the Canada health and social transfer. If we are going to be criticized for actually attaching conditions to the financial resources that we are putting on the table for provinces to deliver, I will readily wear that criticism. Those conditions are necessary, because the prioritization needs to be, in this context, the delivery of dental care services so that it does not pose a knock-on impact on the overall costs of our health case system.

I would further add that his colleague's comments with respect to the need for prioritizing mental health are well put. Similarly when we provide funding for mental health, it needs to be dedicated to mental health, thus necessitating the attachment of another condition.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his speech. Cleary, dental care is a concern of his. That is all to his credit.

Perhaps he is not aware, but since health care is under provincial jurisdiction, Quebec has already implemented its own dental care system in which children under the age of 10 are covered.

The cheque system that the Liberals are implementing—because it is not really a dental care program, it is more like cheques sent to people who may need dental care—is such that Quebeckers will receive 13% of the money although they represent 23% of the population.

Does my colleague think it is okay for us to be so poorly served by a new federal incentive?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I can point out to my colleague is that we are already in contact with all the provinces on how to provide health care here in Canada. We already have agreements with Quebec, as with all the other provinces.

When we provide funds to care for the citizens of Canada, whether in Quebec or outside Quebec, it is always based on criteria and conditions. This is already the case with the Canada health transfer and the Canada social transfer.

We will keep the same approach when a very specific objective is being pursued. In this case, it is dental care.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, one critical issue the member has raised is affordability in housing, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

Part of the problem is with respect to the financialization of housing, where housing is being treated as a commodity instead of what it is, which is a basic human right. Would the member agree that we need to take action to address the financialization of housing and begin putting a moratorium on it?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her advocacy on this issue.

I would agree that the commodification of housing in recent times has become a problem in Canada. It is resulting in housing shortages and also housing becoming increasingly less affordable. One of the important aspects we can tackle initially is real estate investment trusts, which formed part of campaign platform. That is one thing that I prioritize.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, today we are discussing Bill C-31, known colloquially as the rental and dental bill. Before discussing the substance of the legislation, it is important to give some context as to the position we are in.

The bill is largely in response to the economic conditions that were created by the Liberal government. After seven years in power, we have seen a dramatic rise in the cost of living and the pain for Canadians has risen exponentially over those past seven years.

Let us take a bit of walk in history. When the government was elected in 2015, the then candidate, now Prime Minister, said that there would be a tiny deficit, so small that one could not even see it. It appears that maybe he was a little off in that math calculation. We know that the NDP are not well renowned for their math abilities. It is perhaps not surprising where we are with the NDP-Liberal coalition. Under the previous finance minister, there was a $100 billion deficit spending before COVID even touched our land. That is $100 billion of reduced fiscal firepower that the government could have used to help Canadians. Instead, it piled on to the deficit.

Then let us go to COVID, and let us put the record straight. The Conservatives supported COVID benefit supports. People were in difficult situations so we supported many of the programs to help them through it. What the Conservatives did not support was the wasteful spending. Over $200 billion, according to the government's Parliamentary Budget Officer, were not used for COVID. Therefore, we have $100 billion and $200 billion of non-COVID-related deficit spending.

Let us look at the government's track record. It has racked up more debt than all the previous governments combined, from Sir John A. Macdonald to Brian Mulroney to Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

History, it has been said, repeats itself. In this case, we are certainly seeing that. In Pierre Elliott Trudeau's time we saw record spending, record deficits and record debt. What followed that? Inflation.

I was watching the finance committee when the Leader of the Opposition, then just the member for Carleton, talk about the fact that if we printed money, we would get inflation. The response from the Governor of the Bank of Canada was, no, that we would not have inflation. The response from the deputy prime minister and current finance minister was that inflation was not an issue; it would be deflation.

If doctor is completely off with his or her diagnosis that has consequences. If an economist is completely off in his or her predictions that has consequences. Unfortunately, for the government, it is going to very much fulfill the definition of insanity and keep doing the same things over and over again.

Let us talk a bit about the pain that inflation is causing Canadians. Food inflation is now at over 11.4%. For the members in the House, it is not fun to go to the grocery store, but for the most vulnerable in our society, it is downright devastating. When they go to the grocery store, when they look at their bank accounts on their apps or count the cash in their wallets, they realize they simply do not have enough to feed the whole family. There are literally moms out there who are watering down milk. In 2022, over 20% of Canadians went to food banks. This reached a record high in Canada in March of 2022, with 1.46 million Canadians going to the food banks. Fully one-third of the clients of food banks are children. This is a desperate situation.

Seven years in, I love how the government seems to think inflation is something that just came in, and that this affordability crisis is something that was out of its control. It has had seven years to control the economy and take the steps necessary to make life more affordable for Canadians. Instead, it has done the exact opposite. It continues to tax and spend, and tax and spend.

Conservatives definitely believe that all Canadians should pay their fair share, yet there has been no nation on this earth ever in the history of humanity that has taxed itself into prosperity. Once again, the Liberal government seems to be finding this out the hard way.

When we look at the costs of living, one of the primary drivers of our everyday costs is the cost of energy. The government has done nothing but drive up the cost of energy. Some will even say that is perhaps on purpose, as it continues to reduce our ability to extract and explore great clean and sustainable Canadian energy. At the same time, it is piling on its carbon tax. The carbon tax is set to triple, which will increase the cost of home heating, groceries and everything.

When we look across G7 countries, every single one has attempted to reduce the cost of fuel. The Liberal government has not. It is going to go ahead and triple the carbon tax. It just does not see the suffering of the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South and the rest of Canada, as they go to work every day trying to put gas in their cars and feed their families while inflation continues to increase year after year after year.

What is the government's next step? If we look at the workers of this country, we are dealing with a labour shortage, and what is the government's response? On the affordability crisis, we have seen its response is to make things more expensive. It does not make much sense to me, but I do not know. Its response to a labour shortage is to disincentivize work. The average employee earning $65,000 a year will pay $750 more in payroll tax because of the government's efforts to increase taxes over and over again on our workers.

We have the best workers in the world. We should be incentivizing and celebrating their work going forward, not continuing to add additional layers of taxes and regulation that do nothing but suffocate workers and business owners. We need to have an environment where we encourage, celebrate and incentivize work.

Once again, the government's response to an affordability crisis is to increase expenses. It is to raise the inflation tax and raise the carbon tax. Its response to a labour shortage is to disincentivize work through incredibly high amounts of taxation. There are people who are earning $50,000 or $60,000 a year who are being taxed at a cumulative rate of taxation of 30%, 40% or even 50% after we add clawbacks, and provincial and municipal taxation. It is simply not leaving enough in their pockets.

The government's response to this affordability crisis, in addition to increasing taxes and making life less affordable for Canadians, is to virtue signal to make it look like it is doing something. There is a rental bill that would offer a $500 one-time payment. In my riding, in communities such as Port Hope, Cobourg, Orono, Cramahe, Campbellford and Brighton, the average rent is more than $2,000, if one can find a place. That $500 would be a mere drop in the bucket in helping our residents.

What the government needs to do is give itself a look in the mirror and reverse the policies that have caused the conditions Canadians are currently in. A simple $500 one-time cheque, more of the same tax and spend, will not solve the issues that plague this country. We need to celebrate workers. We need to empower businesses, and we need to make life more affordable by getting this inflation machine under control.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. He had a lot of stuff in there. I was listening to find one positive thing the member would say that our government did in the last seven years. I did not hear one, so I think it was somewhat biased.

That being said, the big difference between the opposition and our government is that we look at investing in Canadians rather than what the Conservatives call “spending money”. What areas does he think we should withdraw from? We have invested in the child care benefit, which continues to help families. In my riding alone, it is $5.2 million per month. That is $60 million a year going to my riding. It is also going to his riding and every riding across this country. That is one big one.

Would he cut that? Would he cut the child care down to 50% in his riding? Can he tell that to the people in his constituency? I would like to hear if there are a couple of good programs we have invested in that Canadians are benefiting from in his constituency.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, have not been able to identify one thing in seven years that the government has done right. We share that and have something in common.

I would cut $50 million from the arrive scam app. I would cut $50 million going to Mastercard. I would cut $12 billion going to Loblaws. I would have looked at the $200 billion in non-COVID-related spending or the $100 billion of pre-COVID deficit spending that has led to the inflation crisis and will cause children to go hungry tonight because the government cannot get its spending under control.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us be serious and talk about housing.

When they talk about housing, my Conservative friends are quick to criticize the Liberals, but they are not so quick to come up with solutions. They keep saying that the government should not be spending money. They think that we should let the market decide.

The housing crisis—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I must interrupt the hon. member because there is a problem with the interpretation.

I am told it is working now.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert may start over.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that, essentially, my Conservative friends are quick to criticize the government, and rightly so, because there is a huge housing crisis right now. Bill C‑31 does absolutely nothing to address the issue, and I just wanted to point that out today in the House. However, we do not hear a lot of solutions coming from my Conservative friends. They keep saying that we should let the market decide and that the government does not need to get involved.

I spoke with an economist from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation two or three weeks ago. He said that in Quebec alone, if we allow market forces to run their course for the next 10 years, 500,000 housing units will be built, including houses and condominiums and so on. However, given the current problems with availability and affordability, 1.1 million housing units would need to be built to meet demand. That is a shortfall of 600,000.

How can we get these 600,000 housing units built? That is my question for my colleague.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a bit of a mischaracterization that the Conservatives want to leave this up to the free market. We want to leave it up to Canadians because we believe in Canadians. We do not believe that the best decisions are made here in Ottawa. We believe they are made in Port Hope, in Quebec and everywhere else in this country.

Secondly, we would get the gatekeepers out of the way. It is governments that are the problem. They are stopping houses. We will sell off a percentage of federally held properties, as the government is the largest landlord in all of Canada, and we will get those properties to people. We need the government out of the way so we can get people into homes.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about global inflation and the reality is that Canada is the worst in the world. If we look at our ports, the Port of Vancouver is the worst in the world. Toronto Pearson International Airport is the worst airport in the world. People are waiting in line for passports for days. These are the failure of the Liberal-NDP government.

I want my colleague to comment on health care. In my riding, when I go out to doors, my residents are pleading with me. They say, “Scot, I would love to have a doctor.”

We are spending a billion dollars on this dental care program, and people are saying they do not have a doctor. People are waiting months and months for a specialist. Could my colleague comment on that?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it appears as though over the last seven years, more things in Canada are not working. More things are broken in our country. Whether it be getting a passport in a reasonable amount of time, getting a ship built in a reasonable amount of time, or delivering the most basic of government essentials, it seems like there is delay, and failure after failure. It is time for a change. The Leader of the Opposition will finally put people first.