Debates of Dec. 6th, 2022

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on the following question. We in the Bloc have focused on the three main elements we wanted to see in this bill, specifically, employment insurance, pensions for people aged 65 to 75, and health transfers. For years now, this has been part of the Bloc Québécois DNA and what we have been calling for. That is what we want.

Does my colleague support these priorities? Would he support these Bloc Québécois priorities?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, yes, health care is essential in this country, but we have seen, coming out of the pandemic, that there is excruciating pain in every hospital in this country. The pandemic was not easy for every hospital in every province in this country.

We are fighting the shortage of doctors and nurses. It would be nice if we could take out of the air an extra hundred doctors and put them in the city Saskatoon, but that is not possible. We will see where it is going to go. It is an interesting time, as we are coming out of the pandemic. With the Liberals' spending, it is going to be tougher to get out of it because of the interest rates that we are going to see in the next little while.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did not hear the hon. member, in his speech, talk about the increasing cost of housing and how difficult it is for people to be able to afford that. Ultimately, here in the House, we believe that housing is a human right and that the financialization of the market through things like real estate trusts and investment trusts are part of that problem. Could the member talk about that?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am fairly confident that in the province of Saskatchewan we have really moderate housing costs compared to everybody else in the country. I feel for those people starting out who are living in Vancouver and Toronto and the GTA, where it is without question nearly impossible to start under $700,000 or $800,000. In my city and my province, that would get people a pretty good house these days.

Canadians really do want to save for housing. It is going to take a little time. I am really disturbed by the interest rates. I lived when they were 12% to 18% in the 1970s and 1980s. It was hard. The younger folks, if I can say this, have never seen 12% to 18% interest rates. They have to get used to it because the way the government is spending, we are getting there faster than ever before.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to rise again to speak to the economic statement and Bill C‑32. Actually, I am getting a little tired of this. Let me explain. It is not because I do not want to do my job, it is just that I would have preferred to discuss something with a little more content and substance.

There were three clear, repeated demands, the same ones that the Bloc Québécois always brings forward. The government knows what they are. It is not a secret. It is not as though we kept them to ourselves just to throw them in the government's face at the last minute. No, these are the demands we have always made. My colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles said it earlier: This is about increasing health transfers; providing better support for seniors starting at age of 65 and stopping this kind of two-tiered plan that favours seniors aged 75 and over; and respecting the commitment to comprehensively reform employment insurance. This commitment dates back several years, and it is especially important in view of the possible recession on the horizon.

We know what a refuge, a comfort and a safety net employment insurance can be when there are fears of a recession. This is true for workers, of course, but it is also true for businesses and for society as a whole. One can only imagine what would happen if people were to suddenly lose their jobs because their firm or business closed and they were left without any recourse or resources in the meantime.

Today, I want to talk a little bit about the stress and anxiety people feel, the real fear of not getting enough to eat, despite the fact that they have worked all their lives and have taken it for granted that their years of good and loyal service to society would be recognized at retirement. In other words, people believe that their government will not let them down at the stage of their lives when they are most vulnerable. Despite what my colleagues opposite will say, that is exactly what the Liberal government is doing now.

Seniors' associations, and even seniors themselves, come knock on our door begging us to help them. These seniors and associations protest against this system, which they say is discriminatory and enables only those 75 and older to get increases and support cheques during the pandemic. The others, those aged 65 to 74, are hung out to dry. That is what seniors tell us. They say they are being hung out to dry, even though they worked their entire lives. They worked on assembly lines in factories, earning low wages, not making enough money to put something aside for their old age. Then, they find themselves struggling and facing hardship. They are the ones who come to see us, these honest, humble people who have the right to fully enjoy their retirement and their well earned quality of life at 65, not just at 75. What is left for these people?

The government changed the rules halfway through the game, so it is too late for them to pivot and talk to their banker about setting aside a little more of their paycheque. Actually, many of them never actually had money to set aside. Now they have a choice. They can go back to work. The government says there is a labour shortage and jobs available all over the place. Another option is to get help from food banks. Hello, dignity.

I want to share one person's story. Mr. Danis is a constituent of mine. He is 72 or 73 years old. I know he is in that age group because he is concerned about the government discriminating against seniors on the basis of age. Mr. Danis is at the forefront of my mind whenever I talk about seniors. I have lost track of how many times he has called me. He has come to my office when I was not even there. He has called outside of office hours, on weekends. He has contacted me through Facebook messenger. He has done everything in his power to talk to me.

When we finally managed to meet up and have a conversation, I cannot even begin to describe the emotion in his voice. We are talking about a man who worked hard, very hard, his whole life for little income. It is exactly the situation I was describing earlier. Mr. Danis lives in the same house. It is his house. He has lived there for 53 years. His roof is leaking and needs to be replaced. He says that he is going to let it leak because he cannot afford to repair or replace it. He also cannot afford to take out a new mortgage. He is struggling to make ends meet on a small government pension. What is more, that pension has not increased, even with inflation being what it is.

Mr. Danis is a proud and dignified man. He has some health problems and must travel 45 kilometres to a nearby city for treatment he cannot receive in Drummondville, where he lives. Due to the cost of gas, he cannot fill up his tank, and his car is not in good condition. What can we do for these seniors who worked all their lives and cannot even meet their basic needs and take care of their health because their pensions are frozen? These seniors are not old enough to be eligible for the pandemic support cheque.

I will draw a parallel to health transfers, the third very important request that the Bloc has made in years. I will give the example of Hôpital Sainte‑Croix, which is in my riding of Drummond. This hospital is the pride of the region. It was a fine hospital at the time, and the services were exceptional. I want to commend the medical staff and all support staff. All the employees at this hospital are personable, professional and competent. There is no arguing about that.

However, last year, the elevators were in terrible shape. One was not working at all, and the other broke down. Had there been a crisis or a fire, had there been any need to evacuate the hospital, patients on the third floor and up could not have been evacuated. This is a hospital we are talking about. We do not have enough money to maintain hospitals adequately.

We are going to build a new hospital. The Liberals think that, if we have enough money to build a new hospital, we must have tons of money, so there must be no need to increase health transfers. I just do not get it.

The health care funding shortage comes at a human cost too. Triage now means dismissing situations that would have been emergencies 20 years ago.

I am going to talk about seniors again. Mr. Rocheleau is a very nice guy, and I really like him. He is 80 years old, and he has been chairing the Remembrance Day poppy campaign for the past 10 years, but he has been involved with the campaign for 53 years. He waited for hip surgery for two years. Two years could be 25%, 50% or 75% of what an 80-year-old has left in their active life. It is inhumane to make elderly people wait for operations that would guarantee their quality of life for the years they have left. It is absolutely mind-boggling to me.

I have about two minutes left. I want to take this opportunity to talk about the infamous EI reform, which we are waiting for. How many demonstrations are held here on the Hill by workers' groups, unions and just about everyone else calling for EI reform?

One woman in particular came to the Hill a few years ago. I am talking about Émilie Sansfaçon. She came to meet the Prime Minister and members of all parties. Everyone was at her feet, everyone wanted a photo with Émilie. What a fighter, people said. Émilie was fighting cancer, and it may have already been terminal at that point. She is no longer with us. She was asking for 50 weeks of EI sickness benefits so that people like her who have to fight a serious illness can do so with dignity, free from financial worries. Is that not the least we could do for them?

A government member will probably stand up in a few minutes to boast about what the government did for health and everything it did to save lives during the pandemic. That is what the government keeps telling us over and over again. If it really wants to look good with its spending, maybe it could spend in the right places.

Everyone agrees that 26 weeks of EI sickness benefits is not enough. It is a good step forward, but when a person is battling cancer or other types of serious illnesses, 26 weeks is not even half of what they need. This measure would not have cost much, and it would have gone a long way.

I commend Louis Sansfaçon, Émilie's father, who continues to fight on behalf of his daughter. I promise him that one day, there will be 50 weeks of sickness benefits, and that the Bloc Québécois will be there to keep fighting for the government to spend taxpayers' money, money that it has been entrusted with, on the things taxpayers need most.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question about heritage. My hon. colleague sits on the heritage committee, and I am wondering if he would like to take the opportunity to talk about media in Quebec, what is happening there and what steps we can take as a Parliament to assist news outlets, especially when facing foreign tech giants.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thought I was going to to be taken to task by the Liberals after my speech, but instead, in hockey parlance, they are giving me an assist. I thank my colleague, who is also a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. He knows where I stand on the media, artists and the cultural industry.

There are two extremely important bills that really should be passed quickly. One is stuck in the Senate, which is outrageous. The Senate needs to stop playing games with Bill C-11. The cultural industry is depending on it. The web giants need to pay their fair share in every sector in which they are making a profit in Canada and Quebec, and that includes both the cultural industry and the broadcasting industry. This is also about protecting our news media.

We are working hard on Bill C-18, which is currently being examined in committee. Things are moving along well, and there is goodwill. I completely agree with my colleague. We need to do everything we can to ensure that the web giants contribute in sectors where they are making exponential profits.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his fine speech. He talked about a number of issues, including seniors. He also talked about employment insurance. Of course, when someone has cancer, as my sister did, and is in remission, 26 weeks is not nearly enough.

It is the same thing with seniors. The government must not wait until people are 74 years old. They become seniors at 65. One day, we will reach the age of 65 too, and we will deserve a proper pension.

What is my colleague's proposal for getting the government to do more and meet these demands, which are so important not only for Quebec, but for all of Canada?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question and her comments.

It is not complicated. As I said earlier, I firmly believe that all the members of the party currently in power want to make things better. I simply cannot believe that they are acting in bad faith, just to do things differently from what the opposition parties are proposing.

There are plenty of places where they can invest taxpayers' money in a constructive, sustainable and positive way. Health transfers are not a frivolous thing. This is an urgent need. We have been calling for a $110-a-month increase in seniors' pensions for a long time. Seniors aged 65 and over are calling for it. I cannot imagine which seniors are telling them that it is okay for the increase to start at age 75. I have not met any. None of my 31 Bloc Québécois colleagues has heard a single senior say that 75 is the right age.

There are places where the government could spend the money better and where the Liberals could make their mark. That would be positive, and we would be the first to congratulate them.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, housing is obviously a necessity, and it is in crisis in many parts of the country. In the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, which I represent, housing is unaffordable.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague can tell the House what suggestions he would like to see in this budget that would help Canadian families and individuals afford a safe, secure and decent place to live.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know that I do not have much time left, and I will try to answer quickly because it is a very pertinent question.

One of our Bloc Québécois colleagues, the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, is a strong advocate for housing. The entire country is grappling with this crisis. It is more acute in certain places, of course, but it is also starting to affect cities where it was not previously a major problem. We could be taking action.

The term “inflation” appears 108 times in this economic update, but there is no concrete measure to actually provide direct assistance to Quebeckers and Canadians in the event that a recession materializes.

The housing crisis will not improve unless much more vigorous action is taken. In that regard, I believe that my colleague and I very much agree.

It feels like the Liberals are standing with their arms crossed, watching a train go by, and that they will wait until it derails and pick up the pieces afterwards. We cannot do that. Action is needed now. Human beings and families are affected.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House to speak. Today I am speaking to 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, and the fiscal update.

When I spoke on the government's last fall economic statement and fiscal update in February, I shared how frustrated the people of Flamborough—Glanbrook were feeling about the cost-of-living crisis and the housing crisis. I am sad to report that over the course of the past year, and certainly after hearing the fall economic statement that was delivered earlier, their frustration has only become worse.

Canadians wanted hope, and instead they got increased heating and grocery bills. They wanted a plan for the economy and for the recovery, and instead the PBO and other organizations predicted private sector growth will be sluggish or even worse. Canadians wanted to hear an update that would give them confidence in these uncertain economic times, and instead what the government delivered was an update that failed to address the out-of-control cost-of-living crisis. It actually adds fuel to the inflationary fire. With more government spending and more taxes, Canadians have never felt more pessimistic about their financial future.

When I spoke last winter, the inflation rate was only the worst it had been in 20 years. By the spring it was only the worst it had been in 30 years. Now it is the worst it has been in 40 years. How much more can the government expect Canadians to suffer?

I spoke recently to Mary, a senior in Waterdown, a community in my constituency. She expressed how gravely concerned she was with the rising cost of rent, utilities and groceries, and how they had risen so quickly that she is barely able to manage the basics anymore. Her exact words were, “I just manage to survive, never thought my retirement years would be so sad.”

Those words “my retirement years would be so sad” break my heart, and they should break the heart of all members of this place. Seniors like Mary have worked hard their entire lives, and they deserve to enjoy their retirement years. The reckless policies of the government are robbing them of that.

It is not just seniors that are feeling the pinch; it is also young families. A couple of months ago, at one of the fall fairs in my riding, I spoke to Will, who is a father of a young family in my constituency. His mortgage renewal is coming up in a few months, and he is very concerned. Not only is he seeing his grocery bill double, but he is also seeing the cost of fuel to get to work increase dramatically. He is now seeing his heating bills increase as winter and the cold weather start to set in. In the back of his mind, he has the fact that his mortgage is coming up for renewal. We know there are higher interest rates happening because of the inflationary spending of the government.

Out-of-control government spending has created more dollars chasing fewer goods, causing higher inflation, leading to higher interest rates. We know that tomorrow the Bank of Canada is going to announce the latest in a series of rate increases, the seventh, I believe. This is going to further increase the cost on families like Will's. It is really the cruellest tax of all.

In growing suburban Ontario communities like mine, people like Will are putting on a brave face and are trying to plow through, but they are dealing with these inflationary pressures on food, home heating and they are looking down the road at their mortgage rates as well.

We ran a survey of the people in Flamborough—Glanbrook this past fall. We asked them how the cost of living was impacting them. We already knew the answer from all of these anecdotes. Over 900 people responded and the results really told the story. Ninety-four per cent surveyed said they were feeling the financial pinch, and more than half of those were going to change their habits or hold off spending plans as a result. The pinch, of course, is not limited to people in my riding. Six in 10 Canadians across the country have said that they are feeling the impact of inflation in their daily lives.

A study out of Dalhousie University reports that a quarter of Canadians are cutting back on essentials like food, housing and utilities. We know that when people go to the grocery stores these days, they are cringing at the price of some basic items. Meat is up 7.6%. Dairy is up 10%. Bakery products are up 15%. Vegetables are up 12%. Those are the figures from a couple of months ago. We know they are probably higher today.

Food banks, as has been noted, are seeing a record number of visits, with 1.5 million Canadians visiting food banks. That is a dramatic increase. It is an all-time high. It is a shame. How much more does the Prime Minister expect Canadians to take?

People like Mary and Will cannot afford to pay their mortgage and rent, while our Prime Minister is spending $6,000 a night on hotel rooms in London. Is there a more blatant example of how out of touch the Prime Minister is? How much more can the government expect Canadians to take before they break? They are looking for hope. They are looking for strong and competent leadership.

There is a host of problems and inconsistencies throughout this bill. First of all, I do not see actions lining up with words.

The government talked about the fact that Canadian farmers grow the food that feeds the world. We know we have an abundant food supply here, but we have seen the government attack farmers and slap a fertilizer tariff on them and the carbon tax on the heating and cooling of barns and the drying of grain. The growing of those crops that feed Canada and the world are breaking their operations.

Also, in the statement they said that we have the natural resources to support our allies with energy security, which sounds great, but the Liberals have been ensuring we cannot get these resources out of the ground. Just last week we saw Germany finally give up on us and sign an agreement to import LNG from Qatar instead.

Perhaps the biggest inconsistency of all is the fact the economic update was purported to help make life more affordable for Canadians. How can we make life more affordable for Canadians when we are tripling, tripling, tripling the carbon tax and increasing other taxes as we head into winter? A Conservative motion was put forward to exempt home heating fuel from some of those taxes to bring a bit of relief. That is important to people in my constituency who heat with propane or home heating oil because there is not the natural gas infrastructure in certain parts of the riding and they do not have that option. However, the Liberal and the NDP coalition voted to defeat that motion.

If I can conclude anything from Bill C-32, it might be that the Liberals are true to their form. They will tax and spend believing that will get us out of a cost-of-living crisis. We saw $30 billion more in spending. There is perhaps a grab bag of credits to give the appearance of supporting Canadians. While we certainly support relief through the GST credit, we saw a whole bunch of other money spent. What is happening is the Liberals are taking more money out of one pocket and giving a bit back and pretending it is actually going to help people.

What is happening is Liberals are profiting from inflation. They are increasing taxes on things like home heating and food, and there is the resulting interest rate increases. One of their solutions was for people to cut their Disney+ subscription. Canadians want a better answer than that.

We know the interest on the national debt that has been racked up by the government is going to exceed in the coming years the amount of money that is spent on the Canada health transfer. We have $27 billion in interest payments this year. That is money that should be and could be spent helping farmers, families and seniors rather than gobbling up their bank accounts to pay for more government spending through taxes.

That is why a Conservative government would commit to any new spending being matched by a dollar-for-dollar equivalent in savings, just as households manage their own budgets, rather than just racking up the credit card endlessly. At the end of the day, they are paying for that plus the interest rate increases they are going to see as a result of the inflationary spending.

Instead of creating more cash, Conservatives would create more of what cash buys, more homes, more gas and more food. We certainly have all the resources in Canada to do that. We will make energy more affordable by repealing some of the anti-energy laws and getting Canadian energy out to markets so we can generate jobs and economic activity here. A tax plan is not an environment plan. It is actually a tax plan. We have an opportunity to change that.

We will also make Canada one of the better places—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member's time is up, but I am sure he will be able to add during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member's speech and he spoke about speaking to his constituents. I know when he was speaking to his constituents he did not talk about the rebate on the price of pollution and I am guessing he did not mention to his constituents that he ran on a carbon tax. When he was speaking to his constituents about affordability, did he mention the CCB and the fact that his party voted against it? Did he mention to his seniors about voting against rental and dental supports? Did he mention voting against the OAS and GIC increases, or is that just inflationary spending that people should not receive?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, we are opposed to inflationary spending, because what that is doing is increasing the interest rates. We are going to see that again tomorrow. People in my community who have housing prices now approaching $1.2 million on average are going to pay for that in interest rates. We know that the average homeowners in Canada are going to see, when it is time to renew their five-year mortgage, a $7,000 increase in mortgage payments. In my community, we are above the average, so people are going to see about $1,000 a month more in expense.

I think Canadians would rather pay less on their mortgage and less on interest than for the inflationary spending and policies of the government.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook spoke about making energy more affordable. On this point it is important that we talk about the extent to which oil and gas companies across the country are gouging folks at the pump, including in his riding. In the last year alone, the wholesale margins, in other words, the profits, are up 18¢ a litre.

Is the member concerned about this gouging that is happening? Would he not agree that more needs to be done to recover these funds and use them to invest in making life more affordable for people across the country?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I respectfully disagree. Energy companies in Canada create thousands of jobs and pay millions of dollars in taxes. All of that contributes to the Canadian economy. It contributes to what we are able to pay for health care, education and the services that we value in this country. In fact, we have one of the most abundant supplies of energy in the world. It is clean. It is environmentally sourced. We are consulting with indigenous communities on extracting it. If we were to get more of our natural gas to the B.C. coast to liquefy it and get it to China, it would help that country get off coal, as it is planning to build a thousand coal plants over the course of the next years.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is estimated that the interest alone on the debt will be greater than the combined health transfers to the provinces. How will this burgeoning, continually snowballing debt impact Canada's ability to care for our citizens?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has asked this very good question many times throughout her long tenure as a member of Parliament.

It is a very important one because when we are spending $27 billion and more, growing to $30 billion, $40 billion over the course of a number of years, on interest on the debt, we are not spending that money on health care, education and the things that matter.

My mom is a retired nurse. She worked in the health care system in Hamilton, Ontario, and saw that first-hand. My dad just went through chemotherapy. I know all Canadians who have gone through health issues understand this. We value our health care system, so rather than spending $27 billion on interest, let us spend more on health care. Absolutely, that makes a lot of sense.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, we will not oppose Bill C‑32, which implements the government's economic statement. Seasons may change, but this government's economic statements remain the same. We are not very excited, because this one is virtually the same as the spring economic statement, which contained nothing in the way of a constructive or reassuring vision for the people of Quebec and Canada.

The Bloc Québécois decries the economic update, which mentions inflation 108 times but does not offer a dime in extra support for recognized initiatives, such as transportation electrification, or for seniors, the unemployed, or families trying to put a roof over their heads. The cornerstone of this government's everything-old-is-new-again approach to solving problems is interference. When it comes to interfering in areas under Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction, none can equal this government.

Let us think about that for a minute. Retirees who contributed their entire working lives to the economic and social development of their communities, who humbly and honestly paid their taxes, as my colleague from Drummond was saying earlier, and who suddenly are 65, or 70 or 74, are being completely ignored by the government. However, the contributions they made while working were used to run the public service, including the seats in this place. Now, we thank them by telling them to go back to work, to do something else, to find a way to earn some income, to go to food banks, because there is no money for them.

All of a sudden, at 75 years of age, they receive a cheque. It is extraordinary. Sometimes magic happens, but we do not know why. We do not know what justifies it and the reason behind it.

In fact, I think that the government does not know its citizens. In any case, it does not know the citizens of Quebec. Does it have any idea what their reality looks like? That is the question. Does the government know Mr. Lucien, who no longer has affordable housing, who has to use the food bank and make tough choices to be able to afford his medication? Does the government know Ms. Mariette, who has to pay for essential home care services to be able to continue living at home because that is what she wants more than anything? She has to turn the heat off at night and eat only one meal a day so that she can continue to live at home. Does the government know Ms. Agathe and Mr. Georges, who did not make much money when they were working? Even so, they worked for 45 years and were honest about paying their taxes. Ms. Agathe is in a wheelchair because she worked as a waitress all her life and no longer has any circulation in her legs. She lives on the outskirts of the city and so she has to take public transportation to get health care. Her husband, who is a little younger than her, retired unexpectedly early because he saw that his wife was unable to get around. Today, they live at home. They have not had any additional income for more than 15 years. They are aged 72 and 65 respectively.

With inflation taking a heavy toll on seniors' meagre incomes, old age security offers little in the way of actual security because fixed costs, rising food prices and gas taxes are not going away.

What really worries me is that seniors have been getting poorer for a very long time. The government has not taken them into account when making decisions for a very long time. I think society agrees on that. We can blame a lot on the pandemic, but the health care issues we are dealing with now have everything to do with the fact that the pandemic amplified indifference, complacency and callousness on the part of both governments—for these decisions were not made by just one government—toward the people who built the Canada and Quebec we know today. By the time people reach old age, they have built their lives and contributed in the hope of benefiting from a decent social safety net. What we are seeing now is people who, if they had more money, would manage to live at home instead of crowding long-term care facilities and hospitals.

There is a whole network of interconnected issues that are the result of the government not paying attention to the seniors who built this society. I find that particularly painful, because I know many of them in my riding. They are upright, reliable and honest people who have really given everything in the hope of receiving a little something. Now the government is telling them that it is not going to happen.

It seems that there is no accountability at the federal level these days. No one is accountable for anything. Things go wrong, but it is nobody's fault. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals are accountable for their past actions. To hear them tell it, each party has done much better than the other and nothing is their fault. It must be that thing called fate, or the evil pandemic, or the global inflationary crisis.

Then there are the excessive oil investments and environmental failures—both of which make people sicker and sicker—but they are nobody's fault. Elderly people and the unemployed find themselves on the street, but it is nobody's fault. Small and medium-sized businesses are closing down because there are no accommodating tax provisions for them, while foreign and oil mega-corporations conveniently squirrel their profits away in tax havens, but that is nobody's fault.

On top of that, people need to be asked more and more to have confidence in politics, so we go on plastering faces on placards during every election campaign, when we have the nerve to tell people we will be forming government and doing great things for them. Yes, the government will do things like interfere and impose its position and its assessment of the reality facing seniors, as if there could suddenly and magically be two categories of seniors. It will also interfere by determining how much money will be paid into the health care system and, more importantly, how the provinces will spend it, when the federal government has no idea what choices the provinces must make in managing health care.

Let me give an example. In Quebec, we want to encourage seniors to remain in their homes. If the government offers money on the condition that we invest only in hospitals and long-term care facilities, is that a good condition for Quebec? The answer is no. That is one reason why we do not want conditions. We want the money that, in principle, is owed to us.

The government likes to interfere in provincial jurisdictions, and so it is interfering in the protection of the French language with a bill that I would describe as odious and that will paralyze all of Quebec's efforts to impose the use of French in federally regulated businesses and to teach French to new Quebeckers. The government is also interfering in the housing sector and property taxes. It watches everything and tries to make its way into every sector.

It is also perpetuating the status quo on employment insurance. We have been waiting for EI reform for years. There are new realities in the labour market such as seasonal work and self-employed workers. With respect to employment, there are support measures for people who suffer from serious illnesses, illnesses that are becoming more prevalent than they were 15 or 20 years ago. I am also thinking of Émilie Sansfaçon, who left behind two children. She came to this place, despite being under treatment and not feeling well, to raise awareness and ask the government to change its position and support seriously ill people looking to heal with dignity.

I will conclude my speech by saying that the independence movement did not come out of nowhere. It is not a delusion. It is not a bubble in the brain of someone who appeared just like that. The independence movement is a movement that advocates free management of its own public funds, a movement that wants to take its own direction.

I think that the Government of Canada is a Titanic right now. It has not noticed, but the hull has been breached. I hope it will realize this fact before meeting the iceberg of opulence, because opulence is fatal in the eyes of our constituents.

In Quebec, our hull is solid and our engines are remarkable. We are successful. Resources are invaluable and almost unlimited. We have unique economic development levers—

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

I must interrupt the member because she has far exceeded her speaking time.

The hon. member for Saint John—Rothesay.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, as a government, we often hear about everything we are doing wrong. It seems to be one thing after another. Certainly, the official opposition is quick to remind us that we cannot manage the economy, yet it ran nine straight deficits. The economy was in a mess when we took over.

In the fall economic statement, we came forth with a lot of good programs. To be sure, we hear from the party opposite about eliminating the tax on home heating, which would be about $40 or $50 per tank, but what about the doubling of the GST credit? What about the elimination of interest on student loans? What about the rent support? What about all of the programs we have offered that will help Canadians through the situation we are in now?

Can the member opposite tell us which of those programs she would cut?

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of programs that we helped the current government develop. We are satisfied with some of those programs, but what bothers me and what I would tell my colleague is that there are not enough programs.

The government needs to improve its overall economic management to be able to offer more services to the public through new programs, those that we have long been calling for.

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

Madam Speaker, this afternoon, during oral question period, we heard the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine make preposterous comments that cast aspersions on the Auditor General.

The Auditor General's report was tabled today and, in it, we learned that the government overspent approximately $23 billion, if I am not mistaken.

In keeping with the really great speech my colleague gave, I would like her to draw a parallel between the money wasted and the economic statement, which contains nothing new and no additional measures.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my wonderful colleague for his question, which allows me to elaborate on my comments.

The $23 billion that the Auditor General mentioned is likely money that could be allocated to the various programs we were talking about earlier.

What worries me even more is that, at the moment, the government is checking whether CERB was paid out to the right people. People are being asked to pay the government back, then the government realizes that it was correct after all and gives the money back to them. Meanwhile, the Titanic is headed for the iceberg.

During the pandemic, we suggested that the government should be careful about handing out the CERB. It has access to the annual income of anyone who pays taxes, so it could have easily directed supports to where they were needed most, and we would not have the problems we are facing today. We would be much further ahead.