Debates of Nov. 21st, 2022

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do believe I agree with the Bloc.

We have major problems coming here. To my point about the government needing to have a bit more action and look at the basics, we do have an inflationary problem, and our solution is very simply to create more of the stuff money buys. We create more of the stuff money buys by having workers who can work in businesses.

A report that came out last week said the lack of workers in Quebec is costing the Quebec economy $9 billion, and this was just last year. The reason was that manufacturers, and they are short about 16,000 manufacturers in Quebec, could not fulfill contracts or sign new contracts, and those contracts were worth $5 billion and $2 billion. Obviously, and the Governor of the Bank of Canada is mentioning this, the lack of workers is contributing greatly and mostly to inflation. We need to fix immigration, train more people and get more workers.

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

Madam Speaker, winter is coming, and many Canadians are worried they will not be able to afford to heat their homes.

Conservatives suggest removing the carbon tax from home heating as a way to make life more affordable for Canadians. The New Democrats know that in provinces and territories that have their own carbon pricing, like in British Columbia, and the carbon tax in B.C. was brought in by the right-wing B.C. Liberals, the carbon tax does actually apply to home heating. Removing the GST on home heating would be a better way to offer Canadians financial relief from coast to coast to coast. We have suggested amendments to Conservative motions to this effect, and they have rejected those amendments.

Why are the Conservative gatekeeping mechanisms that would help Canadians heat their homes this winter with their own litmus test on climate policy?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, it sounds like he agrees with us that removing unneeded tax on home heating is one way to alleviate Canadians' struggles, and we certainly have always stated that. We believe that we need to eliminate taxes, which is a great way to help Canadians, and to ensure we stop excessive spending.

At the end of the day, Canadians need to heat their homes. Someone in my riding I talked to on the weekend went from paying $2,500 a month in home heating to $5,000. The triple increase of the carbon tax is going to hurt them, so we are certainly pushing to eliminate that. We will make things more affordable, and then we will fix the other problems when we get to them.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and take part in this conversation. I had the opportunity last week to engage in some of the questions and answers. It was interesting to see emotions rise a little on the Liberal side when I talked about the Trudeau legacy.

In our part of the world, when we talk about the Trudeau legacy, emotions rise as well. Of course I was talking about the Pierre Trudeau legacy, but confusion arose because, when we are talking about incompetent Liberal governments, it is hard to distinguish one from the other. I think that was the difficulty on the Liberal side.

When I made those comments, it was interesting because the Liberal MP to whom I was asking a question actually answered or responded. There are not a lot of answers coming from over there these days. The member responded, clearly reading from the Prime Minister's Office talking points.

I will read a couple of quotes from her answer. She said that Canada is the third-largest triple economy in the world. I am not sure exactly what that means. She referred to the Moody; she said that the Moody has reaffirmed, just after the statement, the AAA rating deficit.

Certainly the government's recent deficits deserve a AAA rating. I think she might have been misreading the PMO talking points she had. However, it is an important point.

Credit ratings are AAA until the time that they are not, and when they are not, governments and countries get in trouble. We saw that with the Trudeau legacy. It is important to talk a little about that legacy, as it seems that many members of the Liberal Party today have virtually no understanding, no recollection, of what happened during those years.

During the 15 years that Pierre Trudeau was the prime minister of this country, Canada ran deficits in 14 of those 15 years. Coming into that time frame, there was almost no debt in Canada, very low debt. The Trudeau government ran deficits in 14 out of 15 years.

Then we came to 1984 and a Conservative government. The Liberals like to point out that the Mulroney deficits were, at the time, the highest in Canadian history, but what they do not point out is that because of rising interest rates, because of inflation similar to what we are seeing right now, the deficits the Mulroney government ran were basically interest on the Trudeau government debt, the debt that Trudeau ran up in 14 of the 15 years he was here.

If we fast-forward about 15 years, we get to another Liberal government, and that is where the lesson on credit ratings comes in. We get to the Chrétien-Martin government in the mid to late 1990s, and suddenly Canada's credit rating was lowered. The government was faced with a really difficult decision. Of course at the time, it had to slash $35 billion from transfers to the provinces for things like health care, social services and education, $35 billion slashed because the Trudeau government had run up deficits or debt in 14 out of its 15 years over time.

This is exactly the situation we are facing right now. If I were to talk about the Trudeau legacy of an inflation crisis, a housing crisis, an energy crisis, there would be lots of confusion. Lots of members on the other side would stand up and say, “Quit talking about us.” I would be talking about the Pierre Trudeau government when I am talking about the Trudeau legacy; however, it is almost indistinguishable from the Liberal government we have right now.

Let us take a look at the interest right now on our debt. We are going to spend almost $20 billion more in interest alone in 2023-24 than we were spending in 2021-22, just two years earlier. It is almost $20 billion more. We are going to be spending almost as much on interest as we spend on the Canada health transfer, and we all know the challenges the health system is having in Canada. We cannot afford to be spending that much on interest, but we are going to be because of decisions the government has taken over the past few years.

We stand up in question period day after day and talk about the fiscal crisis facing the country. What we get in terms of responses is absolutely meaningless language, mind-numbing references to having Canadians' backs as Liberals talk about spending money as though the current Prime Minister is writing cheques from his own personal bank account. However, that is not the case. That money all comes from Canadians. It does not just come from Canadians now; it is actually coming from Canadians in the future. There is a mind-numbing reference to that.

There is a reference to tax refunds and tax rebates, which is basically that the government is collecting tax and then it is blessing Canadians by giving back to them their own tax dollars that the Liberals have spent.

There are references and a lot of criticism from the other side. When we talk about the amount of spending the government is doing and the lack of fiscal responsibility, there is a lot of criticism from the other side. The Liberals will list off yet another new spend the government is doing and then demand why Conservatives cannot support it.

I will tell them why Conservatives cannot support that. It is because, right now, in 2022, if we look back seven years and talk to our constituents, and I am sure those on the other side who were here in 2015 talk to their constituents as well, it is very rare, almost non-existent, to have a conversation with a constituent who says, “My life is better off today than it was in 2015 from a financial standpoint.”

We are facing crisis after crisis, and when we take a look at program expenditures from the government, in 2022-23, post-COVID, which is our hope, at least post-COVID massive spending, we are going to be looking at 72% more in program expenditures than the 2014-15 budget put forward by our Conservative government, a budget in which we balanced the finances of the country. Now we are spending 70% more and we are obtaining fewer results. Conservatives are just not going to give a blank cheque to this government to spend even more with the results it has gotten over time.

I am really looking forward to hearing questions from the other side. It is questions and comments, so maybe folks might decide to comment on how they have come to a realization. Maybe they will make a commitment to go back and take a look at the record of the Pierre Trudeau government of the 1970s and 1980s. Maybe they will go back and ask their government, with all of the spending they are doing and the fiscal situation we are in right now, how they cannot even find the $4.5 billion the Liberals promised in their election campaign for a Canada mental health transfer. Where is that $4.5 billion? With all of this spending, the Liberals cannot even find the money to pay for things they promised in their election platform a year ago.

I will conclude with that. I really look forward to hearing some thoughtful questions from the government side, hopefully.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. member's remarks, and he talked about history.

The Harper government began with a surplus. The previous Liberal government left, I think, $13 billion at the time. Therefore, it started off really well with a surplus to manage. Also, I checked the record. Under Harper, for the nine years that the Conservatives were in government, not a single year's unemployment rate went below 6%. However, we saw the constant dropping of the unemployment rate under the Trudeau government prior to the pandemic, and now we are seeing five point something per cent as a new norm for Canada. I think we have done quite well.

By the way, the real debt-to-GDP ratio for the federal government is 31%, which was just released in the public accounts.

Which program is the hon. member proposing to cut, perhaps in an amendment, that he thinks is a waste of money—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will let the member answer because I have to put more questions through.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I love the opportunity to stand up and talk about the Harper legacy, if we want to talk about that.

First of all, we cut virtually every tax Canadians could pay. I think over 60 different taxes were cut under our government. We dealt with a global economic meltdown in a world-leading way—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member had an opportunity to ask a question, and I do not think he needs to try to answer it. I would also remind the hon. parliamentary secretary as well that I did not recognize him, so at this point he should wait if he has questions and comments.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I get as equally excited as they do talking about the Harper record.

When the world dealt with the global economic meltdown, we laid out a seven-year plan, we followed that plan to a tee, and by 2015, we balanced the budget. In contrast, as this government faced a significant global challenge, what it did was bring out the chequebook and responded by just cutting cheques with no eye toward and no signal in any way that we would ever talk about getting back to balance. In fact, the Prime Minister talked about it being an opportunity, and the Liberals have experimented with all sorts of new things that they never ran on as we went through that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

It is interesting to talk about the economy, and we can see that next year will be full of uncertainty. The Bloc Québécois is concerned that this is being used as an excuse to bring in austerity measures in essential sectors. I am talking here about the Bloc Québécois' three priorities.

First there are the health transfers, which are not negotiable. Budget cuts by the Liberals and the Conservatives are what got us into this situation in the first place. More than ever, the government needs to reinvest in our health care system, despite the year of uncertainty that lies ahead.

Then, we are calling for a major reform of employment insurance. During times of crisis, that is how we protect people who lose their jobs. This reform is important, because far too few people are eligible for EI. In fact, most people cannot access the program.

I will end with help for seniors. They are directly affected by inflation, because they are on a fixed income. They are deeply concerned about next year.

What does my colleague think of these three priorities and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of comments. First of all, during the Harper era, we increased health transfers by about 6% per year for almost every year that we were in government.

In the plan that our leader has laid out, he has simply said that, after a 70% increase in program spending over the last eight years, and an endless succession of spending plans and massive deficits, we would have a sensible plan that, for every dollar spent, we would find a dollar of savings.

We did that when we were in government. I sat on a cabinet committee charged with looking at ways we could find efficiencies so we could get back to balance in 2015, and that is a sensible way for a government to approach fiscal planning.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, with regard to the Harper era, I had an independent study done by the Library of Parliament on the bringing in of the HST. It was $6 billion in expenditures. That was required for a couple of provinces. If it were to be paid over 10 years, it would actually cost $10 billion.

I would like the member's thoughts about that. Was that a good idea, in the sense that we are still paying debt on bringing in the HST?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with the specific study the member is talking about. I would be glad to talk to him afterward.

I would reiterate that, during our time in government, we cut virtually every tax that Canadians pay, and I think that is a plan that is prudent for this country, as we take a look at responsible spending moving forward.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today, as we get to the dying minutes of debate on the bill, to critique the fall economic statement. We have a lot of concerns about the fall economic statement because the Liberal-NDP coalition government failed to address the concerns of Canadians, who are asking how we are going to control the cost of living, how we are going to get inflation under control and how we are going to get government spending under control. We did not see any of that in the fall economic update, and that is why we will not be supporting this bill.

We know that the government, under the Prime Minister, has run up more deficits than every prime minister before him. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, as finance minister, have increased our national debt by over half a trillion dollars. Today's national debt sits at over $1.1 trillion. In my opinion, that is child abuse of the next generation. Our kids and grandkids and our great-grandkids are going to be saddled with a debt because of the orgy of spending we have witnessed from the government.

We know that, whenever we run high deficits, inflation gets out of control because there is too much money in circulation. The Bank of Canada then has to intercede. Of course, what does it do? It jacks up interest rates. We are seeing interest rates from the Bank of Canada go up, which is impacting mortgage rates and lending rates, so it is impacting every Canadian, whether they own a business, own a home or are trying to get a job, because the cost of government continues to accelerate the cost of living crisis right across the country. We have not seen this type of inflation since the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I have always wondered why Liberal times are tough times for Canadians, but I think, like father, like son.

We have the tripling of the carbon tax, which will impact every Canadian's life in a negative way because everyone has to eat. We continue to witness the cost of food escalating out of control. With respect to the net cost of the carbon tax, in my riding in Manitoba, they are going to be paying $1,145 per year per Manitoban more than what they get back in rebate cheques from the government.

Not everyone has the opportunity to take a train or jump on a bus, and this is because they live in rural parts of the country. They have to drive to get to work. Maybe they are retired, living on a fixed income, and need to drive to see their doctor in the city. Maybe they want to retire out at the lake. I have in my riding the beautiful shores of Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba. Canadians, and especially people in Winnipeg, want to move out there and enjoy their retirement time.

It is going to cost them more just to commute back and forth to the city, to visit their doctors and do their shopping, and the government seems to callously not care. This is hurting those seniors. It is hurting rural Canadians who are driving around to get their kids to hockey, soccer or other sporting events. Sometimes they want a drive to school. It is not like they can just jump on a bus to get there. They have to drive since there is no other option.

There is also the idea that everybody is going to be able to switch to electric vehicles, which still have not been tested in the severe climate we have during the winter months in Canada. They have not actually taken a hard look at how we would go long distances, especially in rural areas where they do not have rapid charge stations, or how the electricity to charge these vehicles would be generated. Would it be clean hydro, like we have in Manitoba, or would it come from thermal-fired generation plants, using either natural gas or, even worse, coal? We have to look at the overall carbon footprint that it would be creating.

No one is getting hurt more by this, though, than farmers producing food, and the cost is impacting food inflation. I have to remind Liberals of this all the time, but they put a carbon tax on the price of growing that food. Thankfully, we just recently passed a bill from the Conservatives that would reduce the carbon tax being paid by farmers, especially on heating their buildings and drying their grain, but still, after that food is grown on the farm, it has to go on a truck and hauled to a processing facility. Often it gets put on a train after that, and every time they haul it, there is carbon tax.

That will continue to increase the cost of production. It will increase the price of that food stock. Whether it is bread, beer or vegetables, every time it goes through an energy system of transportation or processing, the cost of food will increase disproportionately.

I want to talk a little about national defence. As the shadow minister of national defence, I am concerned that some of the spending in the fall economic statement does not recognize the threat environment we are currently in, not just because of the war of Ukraine, with Russian's aggression and its genocidal war atrocities being committed by Putin's war machine in Ukraine, but also because we are seeing a lot of sabre-rattling coming out of China these days, out of Beijing, with President Xi talking about Taiwan and trying to take Taiwan into that system by force. We need to make sure that Canada, through our Canadian Armed Forces, is prepared to protect Canada, in our Arctic, on the Pacific and on the Atlantic.

We are seeing, again, this year, that the Liberals are allowing defence spending to lapse. At over $2.5 billion, this is the biggest lapse of spending we have seen since they took office. Last year, it was $1.24 billion. Since they introduced their defence policy, SSE, they have allowed over $6.8 billion to lapse.

They said that they would never allow a cent to lapse, but here is money that should be invested, in an expedient manner, in our Canadian Armed Forces to buy equipment and deal with the recruitment crisis, yet we are not seeing that turn into assets for our forces to use to defend Canada and protect our interests around the world while we fight beside our allies against adversaries, as we are witnessing happening in Ukraine today. Because of their slow investment and inability to invest in the proper procurement, we do not have our surface combatants yet, or even the design finalized.

We are not seeing NORAD modernization done in an expedient manner. We know that NORAD is critical to continental security. It is critical to our relationship with the United States and we still have not seen how we are going to update our North Warning System. We are not seeing how we are going to make sure that we have submarines that can go under the ice and other monitoring systems, whether they are unmanned vehicles or not, to monitor what is happening in our Arctic sea.

We are not seeing the investment in that continental security, not only in the Arctic but also in making sure that we are getting more of our assets to our borders to help with our continental security.

The case in point is that, in this economic statement, they announced they are going to extend the lease on the auxiliary offshore replenishment ship we have, the Asterix, which is privately owned with federal leasing, but it ends in 2025. We still do not have our first joint supply ship in the water. Why would we only want to have one vessel when we are trying to project our abilities beyond our shores?

If we want to have a blue water fleet, then we better have offshore oil replenishment capabilities in the Atlantic and in the Pacific. We need to make sure that we have the ability to also deal with things like maintenance on those vessels once they are out to sea. Having one on each coast is not enough. We need to have at least one more ship to deal with the need to provide that scheduled maintenance, which happens throughout their life cycle. We need to have that extra ship to sail, and we have to think long term on why we need another AOR.

We still have not signed the lease on our F-35s. The government has been sitting on its hands instead of signing the contract to make sure that we buy the F-35s. The surface combatants need to get in the water to get built.

There is no money in here to deal with the real crisis happening today in the Canadian Armed Forces, which is recruitment. Chief of the Defence Staff General Wayne Eyre has said that this is a crisis. I say that it is a catastrophe, and we need to deal with that very quickly.

We have a lot of needs, but we are getting no vision. It seems like everything these Liberals touch, they break.

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

Madam Speaker, I tried to follow my hon. colleague but, at times, I got caught between spending and investing. He is saying we are spending too much. We are investing in our country. That, by itself, is definitely a different approach between our government and the opposition, because we are investing in Canadians. We invested in improving our CPP, for example.

Let us look at the economic situation today. We have the lowest unemployment in 40 years. We have over 400,000 new jobs since the pandemic, which was a major increase. We have the AAA rating, so we have a strong economy. We have been there through the pandemic. We are there now with affordability.

I am having trouble because he is saying that we are spending too much, and then he is saying to cut. Which one is it? Which areas are the Conservatives going to cut as we move forward?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, if we look at things the Liberals touched and broke, one of the things they broke is Veterans Affairs. We already have a bunch of our veterans who are waiting not weeks, not months, but years before they get any pensions. One RCMP veteran contacted me. He has been waiting for over two years to get his pension from Veterans Affairs.

How is that compassionate? How is that management that people can rely upon? It comes down to these Liberals, despite throwing money right, left and centre, never having been able to provide the services Canadians expect under their leadership. During their time in government, things have gotten worse not better.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hear what my colleague is saying about the national shipbuilding strategy, or NSS.

Since 2015, Davie has made extraordinary improvements to its workforce, so much so that it won the North American Shipyard of the Year that year.

Despite all of the promises made in 2019 and all of the announcements regarding the umbrella agreement, things keep getting delayed.

Does the member agree with my colleague that, if Davie had been included in the NSS without delay, then the costs of the strategy would be much lower than they are now?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am a big fan of the Davie shipyard. I believe it proved itself as being able to deliver on time and on budget when it delivered the Asterix. We campaigned in the last election on having that shipyard also deliver the Obelix so that we could have two offshore auxiliary replenishment ships, one on each coast, plus have the joint supply ships that are being built at Seaspan in Vancouver.

We think that is the right mix of ships we need to maintain our navy in both the Atlantic and the Pacific, and to have the ability to deploy all of the assets we have within the navy. I do believe that Davie has a role to play, and it is one we need to investigate even further. There is no plan in this economic update for where we are going with our surface combatants or where we are going to get submarines. We need to deal with the proliferation of submarines by our adversaries, and the best way to fight a submarine is with a submarine. We need to get some new submarines.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We have time for a brief question.

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

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate my colleague talking about lapsed spending and ensuring the men and women who serve in Canada's military get the right equipment. When he talks about lapsed spending, I remind my colleague that the Conservatives left $1.2 billion unspent that was dedicated to veterans. He just scolded the Liberal government when it was the Harper government that cut a third of Veterans Affairs, which led to the backlog today. The Liberals are just as guilty for not fixing the mess the Conservatives created.

My question is about young people and students. This legislation includes a framework for removing the interest on the federal portion of student loans, which is something New Democrats have been fighting for. Can the member explain to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry to interrupt, but I did ask for a brief question.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has the floor.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will give a very brief answer. When it comes down to veterans, that was seven years ago. The backlog we are dealing with now, which has grown so much, is all on the shoulders of the Liberal government. When I talk about RCMP officers waiting for their pensions for 24 months, that all happened under the Liberal leadership. It has failed, in every way, our veterans in the armed forces and our veterans in the RCMP, and it is failing our current serving members in the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues who are present today for what is a very important topic: the fall economic statement.

It is important for me to preface how important this tool is for Canadians, and how important the value of respect is not just in this place but across the country. The last year was, in many ways, horrific for many Canadians. We saw some Canadians go to the food bank for the very first time. We saw some students who were unable to begin their next year of studies, because the cost of tuition was too high. We also saw workers rightfully demand increases to their wages as the cost of living crisis continued to clamp down on them. They asked for the basic respect they deserved. New Democrats stand with them, and I hope members of the House will also stand with them.

In order to do that in a way that is responsible and balanced, and to provide Canadians with a wholesome opinion on the fall economic statement, I will talk about that principle of respect throughout my speech. I will talk about some things New Democrats fought for, some things workers fought for and some things students fought for. I will talk about some great things New Democrats were able to achieve in the fall economic statement, but they were simply not enough.

I will speak to ways we can improve programs so that they help Canadians. I will talk about the big wins with which Canadians can hope to see relief. To the students, in particular, the removal of interest on student loans is a massive victory. I thank all the students from coast to coast to coast who made this possible. Their advocacy and their work to ensure that students are not left behind has been heard, and we will ensure this remains.

However, we have to also look at some areas in relation to student debt that were lacking in the fall economic statement. We know that just south of us students in the United States have a forgiveness of $20,000. This is something that, for a long time, New Democrats have fought for, but it was not mentioned in the fall economic statement. I will return to that subject soon.

I will also highlight the fact that we are seeing signals, which may not be the golden goose we all hoped for in many ways, in relation to clean tech and clean hydrogen. This is important for my province of Alberta. Regular workers do not often check into the proceedings of the House of Commons, but they will see the investments that are happening at their workplace and the investments clean hydrogen will make for them and their families. This is important for communities in Alberta. It is important for communities in places like Saskatchewan.

We also saw the doubling of the first-time homebuyers' tax credit, which is a good incentive for young people. This is a good first step, but the question for New Democrats is whether it is enough. I will speak to that in a second, as well as to ways we can hopefully find better outcomes.

We have also seen that financial institutions will be made to pay a bit more. The Canada recovery dividend is an important tool to ensure that those companies that make profits of over $1 billion pay their fair share. However, it is interim and it is not far-reaching enough. We know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that if we were to expand this important windfall tax to other highly profitable industries here in Canada, we would see an income of over $4 billion in revenue to help Canadians who need it most.

We also see an important tax on those who are flipping houses. It is critical in a housing crisis like we are in right now to tackle those who are driving the cost of housing up. It is important that we take a real financial approach to ensure the market cannot continue to gouge Canadians. That falls to the very premise of what New Democrats have been fighting for in this place for a long time. I encourage all parliamentarians to engage in a respectful and healthy dialogue on this really important topic of differentiating between the needs of Canadians, like food and housing, and the wants.

New Democrats believe that the free market has a role in Canada, but it should not be used for goods that Canadians rely on. An example of that is something we do not have to look very far back in our history to realize. The price of bread was fixed in Canada. Imagine that. When families were struggling to pay their bills and to put food on the table so that they could have a dignified life in this country, companies were abusing the trust of Canadians and fixed the price of bread.

My friends, it is important that we talk about these issues. It is important that we talk about the difference between what Canadians actually need, which is food and housing, and what they want. We need to find a way to ensure that the government continues to play a role in ensuring that those needs are regulated in a way that all Canadians can have access to them. The compact that we make as Canadians to one another is that we will be there for each other when we need it the most on those things that matter the most. That is the calling we have today.

It is important that we tackle the issues that are present to Canadians, from the cost of living to the existing problems we are facing in our social safety net. Our cherished public health care system is crumbling right now. I remind Canadians how important our health care system is in Canada. It has not always been this way.

Our health care system in Canada was not always freely accessible and publicly administered. It was something Canadians, people from the Prairies in particular, in my home province of Alberta and our relative provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, were able to fight for and they never gave up. It is something that we must continue to defend.

I am disheartened and sad about what is happening in my home province of Alberta and what could be happening in provinces across this country. The chronic underfunding of our public health care system is leading to it breaking so that it can be replaced. This is not fair to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who rely on our public health care system to get the results they need to ensure they continue to survive. It is a matter of life and death for Canadians.

We need to ensure we have a robust public health care system in Canada that is publicly funded and publicly administered. That means the federal government needs to come back to the table, invest in the solutions we need and partner with the provinces. It is something I hope we see and continue to fight for as New Democrats in the future, but it is sorely lacking here.

We know that, in just this year alone, what we are going to see beyond the cost of living crisis is Canadians needing more support. We do not have to look any further than the food banks. The reliance on food banks in Alberta has increased 73%. That is an outrageous number and something we must truly have compassion for.

Simultaneous to this unfortunate squeeze that so many Canadians are enduring right now, we do not see the same for Canada's richest CEOs. CEOs are laughing and popping bottles in their offices right now, because they are raking in some of the largest profits on things the public needs the most in Canada. Let me mention a few.

I mentioned groceries earlier. Loblaws increased its profits by 17.2% this year. We also saw the CEO of Loblaws rake in $5.4 million in compensation. It is outrageous that Canadians can barely squeeze by while CEOs are continuing to rake in millions with no compassion for Canadians. As Canadians continue to see the cost of goods increase, they also know it is partly because these same companies are using inflation as a cover to increase prices by almost 25%, as a matter of fact.

I will conclude by mentioning the importance of workers. Workers from coast to coast to coast are battling to ensure that their collective agreements can actually withstand terrible Conservative governments, like what we have seen in Ontario with the use of the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively against workers. It is unjust, and we are here to defend workers and all Canadians.