Debates of Dec. 5th, 2022

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to speak to the fall economic statement.

I know the members across the way will struggle with the first thing I have to say, but it is true. This plan does nothing to address Canada's cost of living crisis. As a matter of fact, the economic update shows that the government revenues have increased by $40.1 billion in this year alone. This means that the inflation that is being created is not only increasing costs for everyday essentials that Canadians need on a day-to-day basis, but also increasing taxes for Canadians.

The economic update released by the Liberal and NDP coalition fails to address the cost of living crisis that we are in right now. It was created by the out-of-control spending of the Liberal government, with the support of its members on this side of the House.

The Prime Minister's inflationary deficits, to the tune of half a trillion dollars, have sent more dollars chasing fewer goods. This inflationary scheme is hiking the price of absolutely everything that Canadians need, and it is causing incredible duress in every home, or perhaps not in every home. I am taking that back because, obviously, there are people who are in a state of wealth, who may not have to go without food or wonder if they are going to be able to afford their rent next month. It might simply mean they put a little less fuel in their yacht and take one less trip, I do not know, but the truth of the matter is that for the majority of Canadians, these are very difficult times.

Canadians have never paid more taxes than they do under the Prime Minister. With that as the backdrop, we on this side of the House just asked the Liberals to consider two things. We said that if they would do these two things, it would make a huge difference to the quality of life of Canadians who have suffered more and more, year after year under the federal government.

The first was, simply, no new taxes. We did not even ask them to stop some of the taxes they had already introduced; we simply asked that there be no new taxes.

This included cancelling all planned tax hikes and the tripling of the carbon tax. This is what we were asking them to do, on behalf of Canadians, I might add. I know that quite often they lose perspective on what we are doing on this side of the House. We are representing the hearts and minds of Canadians, who are saying they cannot afford the heavy tax burden they are under. They are struggling to heat their homes.

Let us think about that. I never in my life dreamed that once we got past the development of this country to the point we are at now, we would have trouble in this nation paying to heat our homes and put food on the table.

I know this personally from the young people in my own life, who have children and who are trying to make those dollars stretch further than they have had to before. The level of desperation is growing.

Part of that is also the tripling of the carbon tax. We have heard it over and over again today: What is the big deal there? This is not an environmental plan. This is simply a tax plan.

On top of the carbon tax, the government has also put the GST. That is a source of revenue of millions and millions of dollars, yet it expects Canadians to turn around and say, “Oh, thanks so much for doubling the GST rebate for me on a temporary basis.”

No, this is not an environmental plan. It is a tax plan.

There is no question that the environment is an important concept, something that we need to work on, but I would like to say that what the government fails to understand or simply chooses not to look at is the reality of where we are in the world as Canadians. I want to say, right now, that the best thing we can do as Canadians is to give the world what it needs, and the world needs more Canadian best practices, more Canadian research and more Canadian innovation.

I have to tell members that in Saskatchewan, we are very proud of what we do. I have a map. I cannot show it in the House right now, unfortunately. It is too small. It shows Saskatchewan and the resources that we have in mining.

The resources are uranium, base metals, gold and major peat resources, which are desperately needed to grow anything. There are clean coal fields, helium, oil, gas, bitumen, potash and commercial forestry, and they cover the entire province. Nowhere is there not the potential and continuing ability to have a strong economy. If we add to that our agriculture and the manufacturing going on in the province, it is stellar.

The amazing thing is that it is always done with, in the backs of our minds, the importance of protecting our economy and our environment. The two do go hand in hand, but the government is stifling the economies of this nation. It is destroying our ability to maintain our own level of subsistence and to help the world. It it is shutting down our economic engines simply because it wants to navel-gaze and virtue signal on the environment, when it does not need to do that.

In mining, agriculture and manufacturing, in everything that is done in the province of Saskatchewan, the environment is paramount. There is an amazing opportunity to go to Agribition and Ag in Motion in Saskatchewan, two amazing programs that show off what is done in Saskatchewan, and there is no recognition by the government of the incredible work that we have done and, even more importantly, that we continue to do.

I saw at Ag in Motion this amazing drone that was over 12 feet wide and lightweight. It carried its own gas and the product needed to treat the weeds in the fields, so that farmers are not running machinery over the fields and not spraying everywhere they go. It has been programmed to know exactly where it needs to spray. The environmental footprint is minimal, and the impact on the ground is also minimal. That innovation was created by a local farmer and is going to become the next amazing thing that farmers provide to this nation.

As a matter of fact, there is research at the University of Saskatchewan. I went to a carbon event put on by APAS, where it talked about what Saskatchewan does and needs to continue to do. That was four years ago, when it said that within a decade, increased innovation in agriculture in Saskatchewan would offset the entire oil sands. That is just one example of so many things Saskatchewan does.

Just recently, a private member's bill went to the industry committee on how to green the Prairies. When I went home, I went to an RM event and told them about this, that the government wanted to come and green our Prairies. I would suggest that it come to my riding and say that out loud. We have this wonderful thing called the grasslands, where cows roam, big animals, and they are sequestering more carbon now than when the buffalo roamed. The Cattlemen's Association talked about it at the industry committee, and I have to give credit where credit is due. Individuals made the comment that it was something they did not understand or know about in the past, yet they were bringing forward a bill on greening the Prairies.

I appreciate the time I have had today to talk about why this economic update serves no good purpose. It puts band-aids on wounds that the government has opened up in Canadians' lives and does not solve the problems it has created.

Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C‑32, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that the minister will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of the said bill.

Report Stage

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I definitely agree with the Conservative member across the way that the economy and the environment go hand in hand, and I want to compliment Saskatchewan for taking steps that are good for both its economic output and the environment. I think every province and everyone should take lessons from that.

In reference to the inflation comments, I would like to ask the member whether she feels Canada is in this by itself, because if we look at comparable countries in the G20, we are the ninth lowest in the G20; in the G7 we have the third-lowest inflation rate.

Does the member not think that in the global market, the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia plays a major impact on food prices and the inflation rates we have today?

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that Canada is one of the breadbaskets of the world on so many levels. I am touting Saskatchewan today, there is no question, but I want to say that when I go home I talk about this entire nation, and I have a different perspective from the one I had before I became a member and found out, as I say to my communities back home that are very rural, that it is not east versus west at all.

Rural Ontarians are facing the same challenges my constituents are. They are struggling with the fertilizer requirements. They are struggling with the carbon tax, and all of the things that are impacting my constituents as farmers in Saskatchewan are impacting them there, even as far as firearms go. There is no question that as a whole nation, we are not impacted by the ongoing war. These are things that do not impact our ability to produce and share with the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I will agree on one thing. This is obviously not the bill of the century.

We in the Bloc Québécois focused on three key issues before the bill was introduced, and we will continue to focus on them because they are what matter the most to us. I am talking about increased health transfers, support for seniors over 65 and urgent EI reform.

Does my colleague agree with me that the government should focus on these three priorities?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say my colleague and I agree on more than just one thing, because we serve on the veterans affairs committee together, and I really appreciate what he brings to the table there.

Are these important issues? Absolutely they are. I have to say my concern is for seniors who require assistance. It is always really important that we make that clarification. Sometimes I have trouble believing I am talking to myself about that particular age group, but the truth of the matter is that it is very important that the individuals who need the assistance in our society get it, and unfortunately a lot of those things are being put in jeopardy because of the way the government has handled the fiscal responsibility Canadians have entrusted it with.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can help me to understand. I am hearing from the Conservatives who are speaking about the increased cost of living and the impacts on Canadians. I agree that there are some real issues that need to be addressed. However, around the actual asks that are coming forward from the Conservatives, for example on the carbon tax, we know that provinces and territories have their own carbon pricing, whereas if we were to look instead at removing the GST from all home heating, we would be able to provide relief for more Canadians across Canada.

I am wondering if the member could explain to me what the Conservative stance is on that, and why we are not seeing support for removing the GST from home heating and are instead looking at carbon pricing, which would benefit only a portion of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, my frustration is that the member opposite and her party are choosing to prop up the government. Removing the GST is one small part of what that party should be doing to ensure the government does not continue on in power.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured every day to stand up in the House. Today, we are talking about the fall economic statement. Before I talk about that, I just want to take a moment at the beginning of my speech to recognize that the bodies of indigenous women have been found in Winnipeg and an alleged Winnipeg serial killer has been identified.

I think collectively in the House, and hopefully across all of Canada, we are sitting with the deep horror of that reality and what that means for all of us. It is shameful that we live in a country that still does not value indigenous women and girls and our LGBT community. We see it demonstrated repeatedly. I hope all of us are carrying this in our hearts and that we continue to carry it in our hearts and our minds every day until this stops.

Coming back to the fall economic statement, I want to talk about some of the concerns I have around this economic statement. We are all hearing from constituents who are struggling every day to afford the basic necessities in their lives. We hear about the increasing use of food banks. We also hear from so many families who are eating substantially less. Parents are acting like good parents and are not eating as much so their children can go to bed with full bellies. That is something that we should all be listening to.

We know that inflation is certainly a part of the problem. However, we also know that greed is a huge part of the problem as well. In my community, I hear from a lot of indigenous elders and they consistently tell me that greed is an illness. They have a lot of traditional ways of dealing with greed, because it is seen as a sickness that will hurt our communities at large. I wish that, in this place, we could also see it as a sickness that needs moderation. It needs systems in place to stop it.

We know that Loblaws has seen record profits. It is profit like it has not seen in well over five years. It is profit that is so substantial that we hear it is making $1 million extra a day. That concerns me greatly. As we are having this discussion, it is important that we recognize that this fall economic statement does not really substantively address that issue and I hope that it will soon.

We know that the Canadians for Tax Fairness have said that the costs from inflation are more than what is passed on to consumers. That means that inflation is passed on to consumers but more is added. In my opinion, that is simply greed. We need to address that issue so that we hold the people who sell us our food accountable.

I remember a constituent once told me, “Rachel, we are not consumers; we are Canadians.” Every day when I am in the House, I really try to remind myself of that as we look at our systems and recognize some of the challenges in them.

I also did not see a substantial enough increase for housing. I know that on November 25 in my riding in Campbell River, there was a conversation on housing. Many representatives from communities throughout my region were participating. I heard again and again, like I do so often, that housing is simply a crisis. If someone has a fixed income or a low income, it is getting harder to find a place to live. A lot of people are living outside. There is a lot of snow in my area, which is fairly rare, but it is having a huge impact.

We also know that a lot of seniors are couch surfing. When I get calls from people in their eighties who are moving from friend's house to friend's house and sleeping on couches, it just means there is something substantively wrong in this country. I want to remind Canadians that the federal government really has not been part of the housing strategy in this country since 1992. I appreciate that the government has put some money into it, but if we leave a wound festering like that for so long, it is really hard to fix it. That is what we are seeing here.

I want to thank the Campbell River Community Foundation and the Campbell River and District Coalition to End Homelessness for all of their work on this particular file. We heard from small communities and indigenous communities. They are left out. The federal funding is not working. Indigenous communities are not getting the supports they need from the government and it needs to be better.

I also have concerns that we are not talking about GST on home heating. We know that this would help. It is not the biggest help, but put together with a lot of things, it would help hard-working people across this country be able to pay for their heat when we hit the cold season.

We still have not seen a meaningful windfall tax. That is such a gap. We need to have more structures in place. Again we will hear from the government on this, but it has not fixed the problem. It has done a few tweaks, but it has not taken that comprehensive look at the fact that people are making a lot of profit off the labour of Canadians and they are not paying their fair share. Ultrawealthy people are hiring accountants who can help them pay very little, but everyday people are paying all of their taxes. That is wrong and we have to fix it.

There are a few things that I am very much in support of in this bill as well. I was excited to read about the Canada recovery dividend. This is something that the NDP has been asking for. It is temporary and maybe we do not want temporary, but it is there. It is a one-time tax of 15% of taxable income over $1 billion, so it is getting at some of those profits. The other thing we know is that in this country a lot of corporations, after the pandemic, have done extremely well very quickly. In fact, many of them are making more profit than before the pandemic. We need to question that, we need to understand it and we need to make sure that they pay their fair share.

This dividend would also increase corporate income tax on banks and life insurance groups by 1.5%. That is getting some of that windfall tax and putting it back into the coffers. It is making sure that people in our communities get things like appropriate housing, dental care and a bit of support to help with their rent when they pay way more than 30% of their income on rent.

Those things will make a difference, but we also know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been very clear that if this Canada recovery dividend were put on big box stores and the oil and gas sector, we would see an increase of revenue to Canada of about $4.3 billion. We need to question this. Again, I keep coming back to this and the NDP will continue to keep coming back. When we see groups of people and big corporations making significant profits when other people cannot even feed their families and other people are living on the streets, Canada has an obligation to address this issue. Therefore, these are some steps in the right direction, but we still need to see more.

There is another thing that I am in support of and I am looking forward to seeing finally implemented. I know the NDP has been fighting and talking about this for many years. It is the removal of the federal portion of interest on student loans. We spend a lot of time in the House talking about young people and about the fact that they do not have enough to buy a house and that they are struggling, sometimes with several jobs in a very changing economy, to address the needs that they have and to have a future that they can believe in.

This is one step. It is not the only step that should be taken on behalf of young people. The federal government has to do more, but it is something that really would support a lot of young people and allow them not to have that burden. They go to school so that they can contribute to their community and to their country. If they have to spend all of their time trying to find a way to pay off their loans, then they do not get to do the things that will make all of us as Canadians a lot more substantive and healthy.

In closing, I want to say that I will be supporting this bill. I believe fundamentally in the fact that people need dental care, and I am really excited to see that come out the door. We know that we still have work. I am really excited to see next year that seniors finally get dental care. I do not know about the rest of the MPs in this place, but I have had a lot of seniors come to my door and talk about the fact that they cannot afford basic dental care and what the impact of that is in terms of their health and well-being.

I look forward to answering any questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the member's opening comments regarding the four murdered indigenous women in Winnipeg. It is indeed a very sad thing to hear.

When I was in opposition, I raised the need for the public inquiry. Ultimately we did get the public inquiry. There are 200-plus calls for justice within that and we have the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's 94 calls for action. I believe we have to go the extra mile whenever we can in order to ensure that there is a higher sense of commitment to get to the truth of the matter and to assist where we can, because that reconciliation is of critical importance.

I want to compliment the member for starting off her comments with this because this is very important. I know she is not from Winnipeg. Her heart is in the right place in terms of indigenous people as we all try to strive to do better. The question I have is related—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up. I am assuming that the hon. member for North Island—Powell River may try to read the hon. member's mind about the question.

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I always do my best to read people's minds. However, my response is simply that this is more than sad. This is an everyday reality for indigenous communities across this country. Until it is an everyday reality for every Canadian in this country, it is not going to stop.

I hope this government will actually get the resources into pockets and that we will also assist in searching for the bodies of these young people, of these women and girls. That is what we need to do, and I hope that the government does it.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to focus on a couple of elements of the member's speech where we have some agreement.

The member talked about the need to take the GST off of home heating, which is a great idea. I would go further and also remove the carbon tax. I would remove it altogether, but if nothing else, surely we could at least remove it from home heating. I wonder if the member would agree with me, given the concern over affordability.

Furthermore, on government culture, a system of corporate welfare has taken hold with this government. I agree with some of the concerns the member raised. The Liberals have wasted a whole lot of money over the length of their government on everything from the Infrastructure Bank to new funds that are little more than corporate welfare. Does the member agree with that and, if so, why is she supporting this government and the bill?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, just to clarify, in fact, the NDP offered an amendment to a motion that the Conservatives put forward in terms of the GST and the carbon tax.

Every province and territory in this country is not the same. I am from British Columbia, and our tax system for carbon pricing is overseen, rightfully, by the province. This is something our province decided when the B.C. Liberals were in power. I think they have a new name, but I do not know what it is yet. I apologize.

If we actually addressed the issue and had GST removed from home heating, it would mean that everyone would have some sort of relief, as opposed to a carbon tax, which would only focus on a few parts of Canada but not the whole of Canada. For me and for the NDP, when we do things, we want to make sure that everybody is included and nobody is left out.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.

As a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I too am thinking of the families of the victims, the indigenous women and girls who have disappeared. There was another case recently in Winnipeg. Such a tragedy.

My colleague spoke about dental care for seniors. The government often holds this up as an example of how it is helping seniors. However, how can it ignore all seniors aged 65 to 74?

Does my colleague not think that old age security should be increased for them and that this is what would truly help seniors?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for bringing up how much dignity we need to bring to the discussion around indigenous women and girls and LGBT people being lost, murdered and missing. I appreciate that.

As for the other component of the question, I do agree that a senior who is 65 has every right to have a little extra in their old age security and should not have to wait until they are 75.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to add my comments on the fall economic statement.

Ahead of the Liberal government's fall economic update, our Conservative team put forward two really concise proposals. One was to stop the tax increases and the other was to stop spending money we do not have. Unfortunately, the Liberals did not take our advice in either one of those areas. They are still proceeding with their planned tax hikes and they are continuing to spend at record levels.

It goes without saying that Canadians are having incredible difficulties paying their bills, rent and and mortgages and putting food on the table. Seniors, students and working families are getting crushed by the dramatic rise in the cost of almost everything they purchase these days. Heating a home or business is not a luxury; it is a necessity. The Conservatives get that, but it is clear the Liberals do not. Canada was the only G7 country to raise energy taxes during this inflation crisis.

The finance minister should have used the fall economic statement to stop the plans to triple the carbon tax. It was a missed opportunity, and it is regrettable that the Liberals are failing to listen to their constituents, who are struggling to pay their bills.

Thanks to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, his recent report on the costs of the Liberal carbon tax completely debunked the Liberals' claim that people are better off under their rebate scheme. It proved what Canadians already knew about the Liberal carbon tax: It is costing them money. For months, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has been claiming that eight in 10 Canadians get more money back from the carbon tax. The PBO report says that is not true, and most households that are subject to the Liberal carbon tax “will see a net loss”.

After years of the Liberals saying their carbon tax results in more money going into the pockets of Canadians, it is time for the Liberal government to end the charade. It needs to admit that Canadian households are in fact losing money and will continue to lose money because of the carbon tax. Every time the Liberals get up in the House and state otherwise, it is simply not accurate.

In Manitoba, winter has already arrived. The temperatures are plummeting and people’s furnaces are running non-stop. According to Manitoba Hydro, the carbon tax is equal to 9.79¢ applied to each cubic metre of natural gas that a household uses. The typical household in Manitoba will use around 2,250 cubic metres of natural gas in a year, resulting in $220 in carbon taxes. It is important to note that the carbon tax is also applied to the fuel people put in their trucks or cars.

Constituents of Brandon—Souris are disproportionately affected by the carbon tax. I have stated this a number of times in speeches in the House. I am a proud Manitoban. I am also proud to be from rural Canada. The Liberal government needs to start realizing that its policies affect rural and urban Canadians quite differently. My riding covers a span of well over 17,000 square kilometres. Unfortunately, I do not believe the government has any regard for the livelihoods and concerns of those who are from that portion of our great nation.

Many members of the Liberal government probably do not understand what life is like in rural Manitoba, or anywhere in rural Canada for that matter. People must drive long distances to get to the grocery store or to a doctor's appointment. They have to drive a long way to take their kids to school or to drop them off for hockey practice or music lessons. Many must commute to work in the next town or drive into Brandon. Many students from rural areas must drive into the city to attend either one of our great educational facilities: Brandon University or Assiniboine Community College. The Liberals are punishing these folks through no fault of their own, and none of these Canadians are buying the Liberal gaslighting that their rebates are covering the increased costs due to the carbon tax.

The other policy item our Conservative team was looking for in the fall economic statement was for the Liberals to get spending under control, which is almost an oxymoron for Liberals. Not only was there no plan to get spending under control, but the Minister of Finance is also asking for Parliament’s approval for $14.2 billion in unidentified spending in the fall economic statement. At a recent finance committee meeting, when pressed on what this money was for, the Minister of Finance flat out refused to outline what the money would be used for.

This lack of transparency is shocking. I for one will not vote in favour of giving the Liberal government a $14.2-billion blank cheque. How are we as parliamentarians supposed to scrutinize the government’s spending plans when we do not even know what it wants to spend it on.

It is the same irresponsible action that the Prime Minister took at the start of COVID, when he told the finance minister, at that time Minister Morneau, to put forward spending for 21 months, to the end of December 2021, with none of it being voted on in the House. It was completely unaccountable. This is another proof point that the Liberals have zero regard for fiscal transparency, nor do they have a plan to eliminate wasteful spending.

Every single hour the government’s debt goes up by another $6 million. That equates to $144 million per day. All of that debt is getting expensive. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, federal debt charges will top $53 billion by 2024. The amount of money the government will spend on the interest payments on the debt will almost be as much money as the federal government transfers to provinces for health care. The debt charges cost $20.4 billion last year alone, and according to Department of Finance, this year will total at least $34.7 billion.

During a Senate committee meeting, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said, “That will have a major impact on public finances...We’ve looked at the impact of increasing interest rates as well as the increase in the stock of debt. We estimate that in the next four years interest payments will probably double”.

In the weeks leading up to the update, the finance minister was speaking about fiscal responsibility for the first time in seven years. In a leaked internal memo, she even asked Liberal ministers to find a dollar for every new dollar of spending, exactly what Conservatives had been pushing for, for years. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, the Liberals’ words did not align with their actions. They refused to commit to cancelling any of their planned tax hikes and announced plans to increase inflationary spending by a whopping $52.2 billion over the next six years.

While the finance minister plays down the threat of inflation and spiralling government debt, the reality is that uncontrolled Liberal spending has played a role in making life less affordable. Even the Governor of the Bank of Canada confirmed that more deficit spending has resulted in more inflation. More inflation means Canadians are paying more without getting more.

Pay cheques are not going as far as they used to. Nearly one in five Canadians are skipping meals to cope with rising food costs. More than 88% of Canadians say it is more difficult to buy food. Food bank usage is at an all-time high. Housing prices have doubled.

In closing, our Conservative team has proposed several tangible ways to bring inflationary costs down for Canadians. We want the Liberals to enact a dollar-for-dollar law that requires government to find a dollar of savings for every new dollar of spending.

We want the Liberals to end wasteful spending by, for example, getting rid of the multi-billion dollar Infrastructure Bank, which has failed to build any infrastructure projects since it was created, and stopping their disastrous firearms buy back scheme, which would do nothing to stop gang violence.

We want the government to get out of the way of our farmers so they can grow more food. We want to see a plan that would spur the private sector to build more homes, which includes incentivizing municipalities to encourage home building. We want the Canadian energy sector to get more projects built so Canada could sell more LNG to our allies.

We will never stop pressing for an end to the carbon tax, which is raising the cost of gas and home heating. In a country like Canada, no one should be forced to choose between buying groceries and heating the house, especially in winter.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party supported the government when it spent billion and billions to support Canadians during the pandemic, whether it was wage subsidies, loans to small businesses or supporting Canadians with CERB. Then, all of a sudden an election goes by, and even during the election the Conservatives had said they supported the price on pollution. Now, all that is gone, and they do not support that. Now they say, “Well, we have to cut, cut, cut”, or “chop, chop, chop”, as the Minister of Revenue would say.

What about the billions that are being spent on programs such as child care, record-high amounts on health care and the 10% increase for seniors over 75? Does the Conservative Party today support initiatives such as supporting seniors, child care and health transfers?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, speaking of pollution, there is perhaps a bit of dilution there as well from my colleague.

I am glad the member raised the issue of the COVID spending because I had it in my speech. The Liberals did not want to have any accountability for 21 months. Imagine, an endless amount of spending with no accountability or bringing in any of the parties in opposition to vote on it, but we stopped that.

I did not say that in my speech, and so I am really glad that he had the opportunity to ask me that question. We did put a stop to that. They did have to bring it to the House. We did agree on the spending that needed to be there, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer has now pointed out that, of the $500 billion they spent, $200 billion of that had nothing to do with the COVID spending.

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

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague talk about removing the carbon tax. I am from British Columbia where the carbon tax was brought in by the B.C. Liberals, a right-leaning party, and was supported by all parties in British Columbia, just like the carbon tax here federally in the last election, which was supported by all parties represented here in the House. It is funny how the Conservatives changed their mind after an election. However, the Conservatives are calling for the removal of a carbon tax in jurisdictions such as where I live, where they do not actually have the authority to remove it.

The carbon tax applies to liquids and gaseous fuels. It does not apply to electric heat. We put forward a proposal to remove the GST on home heating, which includes electricity, and the Conservatives voted against it. Will they stop misleading Canadians and start supporting proposals that can be implemented to help Canadians tackle the affordability crisis they are facing?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from the NDP for his support of the Liberals and keeping the carbon tax going in his area.

We want to get rid of the carbon tax because it has proven not to reduce greenhouse gases, and it is costing people money out of their own pockets. What we are wanting to do, I think, is very responsible. We would like to leave that money in people's pockets to start with so they can make their decisions and then get our industries to use technology to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are out there today, and they are doing it.

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

Madam Speaker, the environment is vital to our lives. Without the environment, we would not be able to eat, breathe or build ourselves a shelter.

I understand that oil is a major source of energy and revenue in my hon. colleague's region. That said, we must consider the situation as a whole. Any attack on the environment is an attack on people's health. Does my colleague believe that it is important to implement better transition measures for workers, youth and industries in his region and others to ensure an adequate, healthy energy transition for all?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy that the member raised that as well because I am very concerned about it. Seven of my 14 years in the Manitoba legislature were spent as either the critic for the environment or conservation, and I have farmed all my life. Therefore, I am very concerned about it.

However, we have a situation here where the government is completely unaccountable for the situation it is faced with. It keeps taking money out of people's pockets, and it would be one thing if the greenhouse gases were going down, but they are not.

I think that the provinces that have made their own decisions on the greenhouse emissions and carbon tax are something that we are looking at. We will work with those provinces. The government continues to force the provinces to follow its rule in all of those particular areas, and with $54 billion of new spending, we need more accountability.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure and honour to rise in the House and share my views on this fiscal budget update and bring forward the views of the constituents of Provencher.

As our leader and many others have articulated here today, the Conservatives had two very simple conditions to gain our support for this fiscal economic update: no new taxes and no new spending. These were two very simple and reasonable requests. To my colleagues who disagree, I note that one of the few fiscal details contained in the minister's speech was that government revenues have increased by $40 billion, twice what the deficit was in 2019. That does not sound like the government should be hurting for cash, and if it is, it would be as a result of overspending.

That number 40 rings a bell: 40% of the COVID money spent was not spent on COVID but on everything else. That is $200 billion the government did not need to spend but chose to spend. That $200 billion is now driving the inflation that is crippling Canadians and driving up the cost of everything from food to fuel to home heating. Rather than providing real relief by reducing taxes, the government wants to smack Canadians one more time with even more new taxes: taxes on EI and CPP, the tripling of the carbon tax and new taxes on fuel, costing families an additional $1,200 per year.

All Canadian families are struggling to buy groceries for their kids and heat their homes. It is wintertime and it is cold out there. In my province, it will go down to -30°C tonight. Given the current plight of Canadian families and the government's direct responsibility for the current inflation and the cost of living, this was not an unreasonable demand we had.

It is likewise for the no new spending. To be clear, we are not saying that the government cannot spend money on anything and that it should freeze all spending. What we are saying is that if it is going to spend money in a new area, it has to look for a cost saving somewhere else. It is quite simple. If the Liberals wants a new program, they should look for a cost saving. They have increased the size of government by 30%. Surely, there has to be some savings to be found there somewhere.

Instead, they continue to spend. They continue to add to the size and cost of government. Every time they add to the cost of government, they need to tax, borrow or print money, which is what caused the state of inflation we are now in and what caused the cost of living crisis in the first place, just as we said it would.

The Liberals laughed at us. They rolled their eyes. They said that it would never happen. Well, it did happen. It is happening as we speak, and Canadians have to bear the brunt of it. The Bank of Canada has confirmed it too. Now, instead of taking responsibility for their actions, admitting they were wrong and taking real steps to help Canadian families, they are just throwing more fuel on this inflationary fire. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, and Canadian families continue to pay the price for these failed Liberal experiments.

As I look at the fall economic statement, I see an exercise in out-of-touch self-congratulation, with the government saying, “Look what we've done to make Canadians better off.” In fact, it is hard to tell sometimes what is more inflated, the economy or the Liberals' egos. We can see that throughout the front benches. To listen to the finance minister speak, it is as if she cannot understand why Canadians are not lined up around the block to thank her and the Prime Minister for all their new-found prosperity.

The government is out of touch and Canadians are out of money. The fall economic statement shows it spent $400 million to pay for its COVID–19 border testing regime. That is $400 million to ensure that border communities remain in limbo, families remain separated and local economies along the border are destroyed. It is $400 million to cause unprecedented delays at our airports and discriminate against Canadians who used their own judgment or who chose to keep their personal medical choices private. That is hardly money well spent.

Then there is another $42 million to the CBC. Canadian parents are skipping meals so their kids can eat. They cannot pay their bills. They are worried that they will not be able to heat their homes all winter. They are very concerned about rising interest rates, hoping that they will not push their mortgage payments out of reach. What is the government's response? Let us give the CBC another $42 million.

The CBC received over $1 billion last year, and $1 billion the year before. Do members know how the CBC chose to spend that money? It spent it on bonuses. It was on $30 million in bonuses. Averaged across the employees, that is $14,300 for each employee. Last year, it took the money that the federal government gave it and it paid out $156 million in bonuses. It did that while everyday Canadians are suffering, while everyday Canadians saw their bank accounts shrink and businesses were forced to close their doors.

Our public broadcaster has long ceased to represent everyday Canadians. The government has been in the business of subsidizing that media for way too long.

Those are a few things that are in the statement. Let us talk about what is missing. First is health care. Where is the $4.5 billion in mental health transfers the government promised? Mental health care was a huge issue in Canada before COVID. The government response, the isolation, the fearmongering and the shame have only served to exacerbate the problem. The number one issue in high schools these days is mental health and depression.

The government promised $4.5 billion of new health care spending over five years. That is spending that we agreed was needed. However, where is it? It was missing from the budget. It was missing from the fall economic update. The government dropped $200 billion on everything but health care, but it cannot fulfill a vital election promise for $4.5 billion.

Did the Liberals just forget about health care, about the mental health of Canadians, or did their deal with the NDP mean that they had to repurpose those funds to buy their support? The $4.5 billion tagged for mental health is nowhere to be found, but suddenly the Liberals have been able to come up with an unbudgeted $5.3 billion to buy off their buddies in the NDP with a new national dental program. That number seems way too close to just be coincidental.

If so, it marks one of the most callous and craven displays of political self-interest that I have ever seen. Do Canadians need dental care? Of course they do. We recognize dental care is an important aspect of overall health. We also recognize that two-thirds of Canadians already have coverage and access to good dental care.

Do members know how long the wait to see a psychiatrist is in Manitoba? It is two years. For a child or a youth, it can take even longer. One ER doctor told my office that, prior to COVID, mental health cases made up about one out of seven ER walk-in patients. Post-COVID, that number is one in three. The ratio was one to seven before COVID, and it is one to three after COVID. Where are the mental health dollars? They are nowhere to be found.

One in three Canadians cannot get the mental health services they need. They have nowhere else to go. We wonder why our ERs are overwhelmed. COVID restrictions led to huge upswings in mental health and addictions issues, especially among our young people. Our health care system is at the breaking point because they cannot cope with the demand.

We need to fund health care, and mental health care is health care. Before its members even start, the government always claims that Conservatives want it both ways, saying that one day we say to spend more money and the next day we say to cut. That is just not true. We just recognize there is a limit to what can be done.

Despite what the government and their purchased partners in the NDP seem to think, we recognize there is a limited number of government dollars to go around. That means that we need to choose what we are going to prioritize.

I have lots more here, and I could go on for a long time yet, talking about—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member will be able to add more during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.