Debates of April 27th, 2022

The House resumed from April 26 consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to share some words on this budget.

I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Nunavut.

In the context of what Canadians are going through, it has been a tough time. These past couple of years, Canadians have had to deal with the pandemic and the growing cost of living, which is at a crisis level now. The cost of everything has gone up, from filling up our cars, to buying groceries, to finding homes people can afford and paying rent. On top of that, there is a war that makes everyone around the world feel less safe.

In this context, Canadians sent us to Parliament in a minority government to get them help and to find ways to solve the problems that they are dealing with, and we did exactly that. In this minority government, we used our power to win significant victories for people. While other parties have spent their time worried about themselves, and spent their time not responding to Canadians' needs, we focused on what people needed most and we delivered.

We were able to expand our national health care system for the first time in a generation, and do it in a significant way. We delivered dental care for Canadians. Starting this year with children under 12, children who need care the most will be able to get their teeth fixed. That is a significant step forward for so many people. We are proud of that.

We know that this is going to make a big difference in the lives of Canadians and we are going to keep pushing phase two, which will cover children under 18, seniors and people living with disabilities. We will eventually see full implementation of our program, which will mean that everyone in our country who qualifies, and who does not have coverage already, will be able to get their teeth fixed. That is something that we are proud of. That is something that this budget delivers that we used our power to obtain.

I want to share with members what that means for real people. I have spoken with one person in particular named Adam. As I am a new dad, Adam's story really hit me hard. He is a young dad of two kids. Both are under the age of 12, and both need dental work. He figures the estimate for the work they need is about $1,000 for each child. He makes under $70,000 per year and he is barely getting by. It is tough. The rising cost of living has hurt him.

When I spoke with him, I could hear his voice quiver when he shared with me that he feels a bit ashamed. He feels ashamed that he does not know if he can afford to get his kids' teeth fixed, and he feels ashamed that he is wondering if he should just wait until their adult teeth come in. A dad was feeling ashamed that he was not taking care of his kids.

I got to speak with Adam after we made our announcement. He said he had a feeling of relief right now, knowing that his kids would be looked after, and that he did not have to continue to bear the shame of not being able to afford to care for his kids, who he loves so much. It was such a beautiful thing to hear him share that with me.

I have spoken to so many people who tell me that it would be life-changing for them to be able to get their teeth fixed. I was just speaking with a young woman at a bakery where I was purchasing some bread. She thanked me, and said that this would mean that she would be able to look after her teeth, which she had been neglecting for so long.

This is going to be a lot of help for a lot of people. Seniors who, as they age, often encounter problems with their teeth and end up in the hospital and are unable to get the care they need, will be able to get their teeth fixed. This is going to mean a lot to a lot of people.

While we are proud of this victory, I want to also be clear that, as much as this might upset the Conservatives' world view, this is not a New Democrat budget. This is a Liberal budget where we used our power, as New Democrats, to get some victories for people. However, there are a lot of problems with the budget. There are a lot of problems with the approach of the government toward some of the most urgent struggles that people are dealing with.

We are therefore proud that we were able to use our power with this minority government to win some victories for people in this budget. We met the needs of people who said that they were facing major challenges in their lives and who asked us to help them. We were able to support them through a federal program that will help people across the country who cannot afford dental care. This truly marks a turning point, and it will help millions of Canadians. We estimate that about 6.5 million Canadians will have access to dental care thanks to our efforts.

It is also important to mention that the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against this motion and this plan in the past, and that we have now won this victory.

There are a lot of problems. One of the massive problems we have with this budget and the government's approach is about the environment. It is one of the most crucial issues of our time. We know that people are worried about the impact of the climate crisis, not simply for the future but right now in their lives. We are seeing forest fires devastate communities and floods steal away people's homes and their ways of life. Extreme heat waves that we have never seen before are taking the lives of some of the most vulnerable. We are feeling the impacts of the climate crisis now, and we know from scientists that this will only get worse if we do not act.

Despite the seriousness of this crisis, the Liberals' approach has been to give more subsidies to the oil and gas sector instead of cutting them, as we have said, or eliminating them entirely. No public money should be spent on profitable oil and gas companies. Our public money should go to workers impacted by the climate crisis, to investments in renewable energy, and to investments to ensure that we are doing our part to reduce emissions and create good jobs for Canadians. That is where our public money should go. Instead, the Liberals have increased subsidies for the fossil fuel sector. We know that the plan or the price on pollution exempts the biggest polluters: It lets the biggest polluters off the hook, but it disproportionately hurts indigenous people and small businesses. We see this theme. The government makes decisions that benefit those at the top and hurt everyone else.

The other major concern, and one of the most unifying serious crises of our time in Canada right now, is the housing crisis. An issue that used to be more of a concern in large urban centres, such as Vancouver and Toronto, is now a crisis that has gripped every city and municipality in our country. People cannot find homes to call their own. They cannot afford homes. What does that mean for a young person who wants to start a family? I have heard from young people and young families who say they cannot afford a home to raise their kids, so they are not going to have kids. To be forced into a position where they are unable to grow their families just because they cannot find places to call home is pretty bad in a country as wealthy as ours. It is, frankly, shameful. We have people who have good salaries who cannot find homes, people who have limited salaries and people with no income. This is a concern that is impacting all walks of life. All Canadians are struggling.

I have spoken with parents who have beautiful homes, and they tell me their number one concern is the cost of housing. When I tell them they have beautiful houses, they say that their kids are never going to be able to afford a place. Even more so, young people who grow up in a community with their friends, families and connections feel that they will never have a chance to find homes in the communities where they grew up and will have to move somewhere else. When they try to find homes somewhere else, those are too expensive, too.

It is a serious crisis, and we do not see the action necessary to respond to this crisis from the government. We fought for some serious supports and we are proud of those supports to tackle the housing crisis, but we need much more. We need to do a lot more. We need to make up for decades of inaction on the part of Conservative and Liberal governments. When the government fails to continue investing in the housing that people need and fails to ensure that there are affordable options for people over decades and decades, it causes a crisis. When the government sets up a tax system that not only encourages but incentivizes speculation and property flipping, it is no surprise that properties and the cost of homes have gone up. A system has been designed to encourage and incentivize that activity.

We know that the other major crisis, one of the most serious in the country, is the housing crisis. We need more measures to address it. Clearly, people cannot find affordable housing.

We will continue to put more pressure on the government to provide assistance.

Again, these are all choices. If we were in government, New Democrats would make choices to invest in our health care system, increase transfers and make sure that we invest everything possible to build homes that are affordable. We would tackle the housing crisis. We would commit to investing in solutions to create good jobs and fight the climate crisis. That would be a New Democrat budget.

We are proud of the work that we have done, but we have got to make it very clear: decisions by Liberals and Conservatives have gotten us to this point where people cannot afford homes to call their own. They have gotten us to this point where the climate crisis is raging. There is no solution for workers and for people, but we would do it differently. We will continue to fight and be their voice.

It is truly an honour to share these words with my colleagues today.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions, I have heard NDP members say that oil and gas subsidies have gone up. I will be honest. The first time I heard that I started to look into it because I was personally concerned about it.

The only evidence I could find of oil and gas subsidies going up is with respect to money that has been designated specifically for dealing with orphan oil wells. In my opinion, that is not really a subsidy. That is more about making sure that we take care of the environmental consequences oil wells have contributed to over the years.

I have a very simple question for the member, because I could be wrong. I am willing to accept that, and if that is the case, I want to hear that. Is it true that, when the member says the oil and gas subsidies have gone up, he is really referring to the fact that more money has been put towards dealing with those orphan wells?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of orphan wells, we are deeply concerned that profitable oil and gas companies are getting subsidies to do the work they should have done anyway. They should not have left orphan wells that way. To answer the question directly, there are also more than $2 billion of carbon capture credits, which amount to at least $2 billion of additional subsidies. Many scientists point out that we do not know how effective carbon capture technology is.

Again, giving billions of dollars to subsidize profitable oil and gas companies with a carbon capture tax credit is absolutely wrong, and it is absolutely an increase in fuel subsidies. That should not happen. Why would we give public money to profitable oil and gas companies, which are gouging people at the pumps? It makes no sense at all.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, NDP members have repeatedly said that carbon capture and storage is unproven or does not work.

I want to take this opportunity to invite the NDP leader to come to my riding. I will pay for his hotel. He could see carbon capture and storage happening right now. There is the Shell Quest project in my riding. Last week I went to an open house for the Polaris project, an entirely private sector-funded carbon capture and storage project.

Saying that carbon capture is unproven is like saying that we do not know if cars work or if airplanes work. They are working, right now. They are capturing carbon, and they are contributing to environmental reductions. They are being fully funded, in the case of the Polaris project, by the private sector.

Will the NDP leader stop ignoring the reality of carbon capture, stop denying the technology that is currently happening and working, and commit to coming to my riding and seeing it in action?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's passion has certainly secured him a future job in the oil and gas sector.

However, the problem is, why would we give billions of dollars of additional subsidies to profitable companies? Why would we spend our public money? Would the member go to the public and say that we are going to spend the public money on a company that is profitable to make them do something? Why would we agree to that? That is ludicrous.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member had his time to ask a question. Maybe the member wants to ask another question, but I will respond by saying that it is ludicrous to give public money to profitable companies when we should focus our public money on investing in workers, in the help workers impacted by the climate crisis will need and in renewable energy. That is where our public money should go. We would not want to give our public money to profitable enterprises. That is wrong.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

We have time for a 30-second question, but first I wish to remind members that this place requires some decorum. The debates are passionate, but I would ask members to show more decorum.

The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Burnaby South for his truly touching words.

Dental care is extremely crucial. Teeth are important for smiling, and smiling helps us connect with others. Dental care is definitely something that affects us all.

I would like to know if the member for Burnaby South will support the Bloc Québécois' request to adequately compensate Quebec under this program.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our policy has always been to recognize that Quebec has the right to opt out with full compensation. That is what we have always said.

However, I want to make it clear that what we are proposing is a federal program similar to employment insurance. It is not about hiring dentists. It will pay the bills for people who cannot pay them. That is what we are proposing.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I rise today to speak about housing in my constituency. This budget has an entire first chapter on housing, and it offers the classic promises of modest levels of funding to the three territorial governments. Housing is not a new issue. Although the housing crisis in Nunavut has been raised in Parliament, there may be still little understanding or knowledge of what this crisis means on the ground.

I will continue the work started by my predecessor Mumilaaq Qaqqaq. I am more convinced than ever that safe, affordable housing is the key for Nunavut and all indigenous communities to thrive. Reconciliation takes a full government effort. We cannot shuffle it into a specialized corner.

A basic everyday reality in Nunavut is that Nunavummiut do not have access to many housing units in their own communities, while imported federal employees do.

Across Nunavut and in many indigenous communities, federal employees are given the benefit of an allocated housing unit with their job. To hire and retain employees, Canada has completely opted out of the general housing supply and has built or leased its own units, exclusive to its employees, which results in federal employees avoiding the experience of the housing crisis themselves.

Nunavut communities have rows of boarded-up federal employee housing units. The federal employees have been moved years ago to newer units in newer parts of the community. This means that every day on their way to school, children in Iqaluit and other communities see and walk past empty federal housing units. I do not understand how we can talk about equity and fairness when I think about people like Iqittuq, who told me that in that her household there are 15 people in a four-bedroom unit: three adults, each with their own family.

Why is it acceptable to have this level of overcrowded housing and still permit so many housing units, which are directly controlled by Canada, to sit empty in so many indigenous communities? Does anyone in authority know how many of these unoccupied houses Canada controls? What is the financial and the social cost of allowing 40-year-old units to be empty when Nunavummiut are cramped into 60-year-old housing that is in worse condition? Why is this not a budget issue?

An Inuk woman in Pond Inlet told me, “There are so many family members in one overcrowded house, so many families that have been on waiting lists for years, to move into any available house. Housing authorities need more resources.”

In this budget, we see the government only beginning to demonstrate an awareness of the life-altering need Canadians have for access to suitable and affordable housing. The issue is largely presented as generational. The up-and-coming generation of Canadians are struggling to access what much of Canada has assumed was available: appropriate, affordable and diverse housing options.

Welcome to our reality. The reality for most of indigenous Canada is that housing is a multi-generational, multi-family and all-encompassing crisis. It impacts health, schooling and employment.

From filling those empty federal units to supporting indigenous governance, there are many ways the federal government can directly support the easing of the housing crisis in Nunavut. It is the Nunavut communities that know what the potential solutions are. They know the seasons, the infrastructure limitations, the families in most need and the resources required to go beyond what was announced in budget 2022 weeks ago.

Over and over, we hear dollars announced, as we saw on page 41 of this budget, but communities do not see changes on the ground. Families like Peter Kilabuk’s, who is retired and raising grandchildren with complex medical needs in Pangnirtung, do not see the changes. He told me that past housing promises have not reached his community. When I met with him, he asked me where the $300 million for housing that was announced before was. He does not see it.

Announcing numbers is relatively easy. Impacting on the ground requires a whole rethink. Clearly, what we are doing is not working. Do we do more of the same, or do we look to the roots of the issues, such as financing, taxation, travel costs, seasonal out-of-community workers and the abrasive transient work camps?

I was recently in the communities of Cambridge Bay and Kugluktuk. Both communities also identified these issues. Indeed, housing has been a crisis across all Nunavut communities. While I loved the warm welcome in both communities, I saw around town the many broken windows requiring replacement, and many boarded-up, empty units. Of course they should be repaired and renovated, but it is not simple. Access to supply is incredibly limited.

No Nunavut community has road access. In any given year, marshalling materials takes months and access to capital. The open water shipping season each year is days to weeks long, up to a maximum of four months. Most communities may get sealift once or twice per season. In that season, bulk food, resupply materials for housing and new infrastructure are all delivered, and most communities do not have a dock or a harbour.

Members should take a moment to compare this to their home communities. If they need to repair the back steps or replace a window, how far is it to the nearby building centre to get materials? Have they ever considered having to fly in an electrician or plumber from 1,000 kilometres away to maintain their homes?

In Coral Harbour, I was told that Inuit are capable, skilled and knowledgeable. Inuit must not be only employed as janitors, receptionists or security personnel. Even if Inuit are not academically educated, Inuit must be paid for the skills they do have as experts in our communities. We need to recognize skills and develop them from the ground up. Fly-in solutions are, at best, stopgap and intrusive.

Inuit need to be part of the solutions and integrated into the decision-making and to be the lead when building new units and in community planning. How is this any different from other remote and indigenous communities? Does anyone need solutions dropped on them from afar, or do we need to see needed structures and programming that support community goals and efforts?

During my recent travels in Nunavut, I spent time in Naujaat with renowned elder Donat Milortok. What I gathered from Milortok is that individuals in the communities know what the solutions are. Canada must allow the solutions to be shared solutions. We must ensure that in this budget cycle the federal government stops ignoring the calls for a complete rethink of housing for indigenous communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's thoughts regarding indigenous housing and housing in general. In Winnipeg North, I represent one of the higher percentages of indigenous people, probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000 to 25,000 people. It breaks my heart when we see the type of housing they have, and it is one of the reasons why I believe that, as a national government, we have to recognize that we do have a role to play. That is why we have invested literally tens of millions of dollars in Winnipeg alone with regard to emergency housing shelter, the Main Street Project, investing in and encouraging provincial governments and municipalities to also come to the table.

This is where my question lies. Would the member not agree that, as a national government, we can show leadership by investing in and generating ideas, but we also need to get provincial and other stakeholders, such as indigenous communities, which have demonstrated incredible leadership on the issue, to continue to work together to try to resolve this problem?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.

I think the member should listen to my statement more intently, because my recommendation is that the federal government needs to listen to the communities. The communities are the ones that have been offering solutions. They have been ignored long enough, and it is the communities that need to be heard when solutions are being provided. It is the federal government that needs to listen more intently so that it can show real reconciliation when it comes to providing solutions that will impact and improve indigenous people's lives.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the statement put forward by my colleague from Nunavut, and I agree with her. The federal government should do more for housing. I think it is failing communities in northern Canada.

I have a question for her about her leader's comments that were made just previous to her speech and the fact that he is basically a carbon capture denier. He does not agree with the science of carbon capture, although it is out there already. I would like to know the member's opinion. Does she agree with her NDP leader about carbon capture not being a way to help clean up the environment?

I invite all New Democrats to come to my riding in Saskatchewan and tour Boundary Dam 3, which is one of the largest working carbon capture facilities in the world. It is the equivalent of taking millions of cars off the streets, millions of cars' worth of emissions, and it has been working for five years. The NDP in Saskatchewan actually started this project.

Are New Democrats against their provincial cousins and are they actually carbon capture deniers?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.

I have been quite interested in the Conservatives' approach to addressing climate change, to addressing indigenous issues, to addressing what is going on in Europe. They have taken such a different approach to how we as Canadians try to support each other.

In my focus, when I decided to talk about housing, I needed to do so because indigenous housing is such a major issue. With most of our communities still operating on diesel, with diesel-operated energy, we need to find ways to make sure that renewable energy is the source of the transition that we move toward.

Whatever positions the Conservatives have made, I have not been able to agree with them because of the foundation that they have been trying to use to misinform and disinform a lot of Canadians.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member for Nunavut. I think she understands the concerns of Inuit communities better than anyone in the House. I also think she is best suited to stand up for these communities here in this House and to explain what is happening in the north.

Would she have preferred that the agreement between the NDP and the Liberals focus on a concrete plan to help Canada's Inuit communities rather than a dental plan?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.

That is a very simple answer for me, and that is yes. I would have preferred more collaboration to make sure that we are doing better for our first nations, Métis and Inuit, and I will continue to make sure that we do.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock, Justice; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Canada Post; the hon. member for Bow River, Small Business.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to rise today and address the budget, which I will call “the good, the bad and the ugly”. I am expecting Clint Eastwood to walk through the doors and the music to play.

I will say this, just to address the speech. There is a section of this budget that I agree with. The good part is that the government is promising to give Ukraine $500 million and to provide weapons that are so desperately needed right now in the war against Russia. We need to make sure we send whatever lethal weapons Ukraine has been asking for. I am glad to see the government has made this announcement and will be out there on the market buying up as many weapons as possible.

I know, for example, that there are lethal weapons being built in Winnipeg by PGW Defence Technologies, which builds sniper rifles. It has already done business on its own directly with the Ukrainian government in the past, and has also sent sniper rifles over very recently. I believe those high-quality sniper rifles being made in Winnipeg would be very valuable to the Ukrainian armed forces, and buying more of those weapons with this $500 million would be welcome news.

I have been advocating this for quite some time, going back to early March, right after the invasion started. There is an inventory of Canadian military equipment that is sitting around and that is about to be retired and turned into museum monuments at war memorials and legion halls across this country, but we do have light armoured vehicles, such as the Coyotes and the Bisons. There are 32 armoured ambulances in the Bison configuration that can easily be used and shipped over to Ukraine.

The reason we can use these vehicles to provide armoured personnel carrier protection to Ukraine is that the replacement LAVs, the new super Bisons that are being built in London at GDLS, are almost complete. The parking lot is full of new LAVs. They just need to be accredited by the Canadian Armed Forces. Taking those Bisons, Coyotes and our M113 tracked LAVs and sending them to Ukraine would provide much-needed protection, especially for the civilian domestic defence force that has been stood up with recruits from across Ukraine as they battle against the Russian aggressors.

I have also been working with people here in Canada who want to buy Role II mobile field hospitals, which Ukraine has requested. Unfortunately, the government here has yet to provide those hospitals. We have extra Role II hospitals that are sitting in containers. They were purchased for the pandemic and were never used, so we could be moving them over. There are some mobile field hospitals that are available for sale in the Netherlands. Again, they are ready to go. The Government of Canada could buy those off the shelf and move them over there in under a week. I hope it will consider that and get it done, because Ukraine desperately needs them and has asked for them as part of the shopping list it has given to NATO countries around the world.

Finally, there is the issue of the Harpoon missiles. We had defence and industry experts in Canada who came forward and said that we have over 200 unused Harpoon missiles sitting in inventory. There are launchers sitting on one of the ships that are under refurbishment right now. We could send over a whole cache of truck radar systems, all built here in Canada, with our excess Harpoon missiles that are sitting in inventory, to help protect Odessa from the onslaught that is taking place from the Black Sea. The more we can eliminate the Russian navy's ability to bring its forces to the coastline, the better off Ukraine will be, and the more protected.

I welcome the $500 million. I encourage the government to do more and make sure we are repurposing some of our existing assets. We do not have to actually go there and put cash on the table, just send those and donate them to Ukraine, as well as the $500 million that is approved in this budget.

Unfortunately, that is the only good thing in this budget, and I am not going to be able to support this budget, because of the bad and the ugly that are still in there.

The bad is that the current government continues to print money like it is going out of style. The Liberals have increased the deficit again this year by another $52.4 billion, which has taken our national debt to $1.2 trillion, and all of that has not been entirely tied to, as they would like to say, pandemic spending to support the economy. We know there have been many situations where this budget is about unnecessary spending. It has put increased money into circulation, devalued the Canadian dollar and driven up interest rates and inflationary pressures on our economy.

Canadians are now worse off because of the reckless spending by the Liberal-NDP coalition. They know that they have to deal with higher food prices and higher fuel prices, and that continues to increase the cost of living. In Manitoba alone, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's own numbers, Manitobans are now $2,000 poorer just because of inflation created by the government.

I know they will try to argue that there are supply chain issues. They will try to argue that this is an international phenomenon, but, at the same time, we are talking about 6.7% inflation rate. That is higher than in so many other countries in the G7 and the G20, and it is because of excess government spending and putting too much cheap Canadian money into circulation, which has taken inflation out of control.

The other bad part of this budget is that there is no help there for farmers. We are seeing higher input costs because of inflationary pressures. We are seeing higher input costs on farmers because of the carbon tax, which affects everything from diesel fuel to fertilizer prices. We are seeing that the Liberals continue to push farmers farther and farther down into the deep red hole on their balance sheet because they do not care about protecting our farm families.

They may, as a government, expect that they will be able to import cheap food from elsewhere, but why do we want to make our farmers less competitive on the international market? Why would we not let our beef, pork, grain and oilseed producers flourish and be competitive on the world market? Instead, we are increasing their input costs to such a level that they will never be able to compete on that global scale.

We expect government to actually care about our farmers, our farm families and our rural communities and give them relief from things like the carbon tax, give them relief from rising excise taxes on fuel, give them relief from the increasing costs of fertilizer. We need to know if the government will ever commit to helping out our farmers.

In my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, our farmers last year dealt with a very devastating drought, the fourth year of dry conditions, and again, the help from the federal government was next to nil. We know that there is no help in the budget for farmers who dealt with that drought, whether it was trying to buy feed for their livestock or having major shortfalls in crop production.

The ugly part of this budget is the way the government continues to treat our Canadian Armed Forces. Our members in uniform deserve to be given the best equipment and the best support, and have a warrior culture that is out there actively recruiting and rebuilding our Canadian Armed Forces. We are 10,000 members short as it stands today, and the government seems not to care about making sure that we have a critical mass of soldiers, sailors and aircrew across the country to serve here at home and to be able to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves around the world, including what we are seeing happening in Europe. Although the Liberals talk about increasing spending and getting it up to about 1.5% of GDP, it is still far short of what NATO members expect of us. Our NATO partners are asking us to spend 2% of GDP, and it is not happening in this budget.

On top of that, the government continues to fall short in spending and buying new equipment. Procurement has been well short of satisfactory. We know that in this budget there is a $15-billion gap between what the government is promising to do and what is actually in the Department of National Defence departmental plans for the next year. We know they already have $12 billion lapsed over time that should have been used to buy new ships, new planes and other equipment for our Canadian Armed Forces members.

It just comes back to the fact that the Liberal-NDP coalition has not made the proper investments in national defence, at a time when the world is getting more and more scary. We are witnessing what is happening in Europe with the Russian aggression in Ukraine, and we are always concerned with other nefarious actors on the world stage who are watching and seeing what Canada does, as well as our allies. We need to do more, not less.

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

Mr. Speaker, the irony here is that the member who just spoke was the parliamentary secretary for defence. We have to remember that, under Stephen Harper, the military expenditure was, at one point, less than 1% of the GDP.

I am glad the member recognizes the value of the contributions toward the war effort in Ukraine, $500 million, but what he does not say is that there is an $8-billion increase for defence.

Would the member not agree that for the first time since Stephen Harper, we have seen a real, tangible investment in the Canadian Forces today, because it was lacking during the Stephen Harper era, the time in which the member was a parliamentary secretary for defence?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member for Winnipeg North that under Stephen Harper, when we were at war in Afghanistan, there was defence spending. This is before the Liberals cooked the books on how we calculate the amount of money that is allocated to national defence by adding things like the Coast Guard, veterans' pensions and other things that are spent under foreign affairs, not under defence. If we had added those numbers in, we would have been well over 1.5% when we were at war in Afghanistan.

When we pulled out of Afghanistan, defence spending went down because we balanced the books. The government here continues to spend recklessly. This means that the debts and deficits of today are going to be the taxes of tomorrow on our kids and grandkids, and we know the Liberals still have not made the investments, because the money they promise does not get spent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his speech. I found it very interesting and well structured.

In his critique of the budget, there is one thing he did not talk about that I would have liked to hear. It may be something that does not concern him, but maybe it does. He can let me know.

In the budget that was tabled, we see the government, or the NDP‑Liberal coalition, intruding significantly on areas under Quebec's jurisdiction, including health. For example, the budget talks about creating federal pharmacare or dental care programs, when that is strictly the responsibility of Quebec and the other provinces.

Regarding health transfers, which every province is calling for, here is the answer we get: “Any conversation between the federal government and the provinces and territories will focus on delivering better health care outcomes for Canadians”.

How does my colleague interpret the message that the government is sending, and does he agree with these intrusions?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from the Bloc for his intervention, because he is dead right. The one thing the provinces asked the NDP-Liberal coalition government to do was increase health care transfers. About $28 billion was asked for and they got nothing. Instead, they got $5.3 billion for an imaginary dental plan, and that is nothing the provinces have asked for. Again, the federal government, now with the support of the NDP, continues to ignore the interests of our provinces in delivering health care to all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and continues to venture into that type of jurisdiction.

The housing program is another example of this. The federal government is stepping into provincial jurisdiction to create housing stock. We all know the money it is offering is not going to create half the housing stock that is required. It also penalizes people who are trying to increase housing stock through property developments, condo developments and flipping houses, which are all now being taxed even more by the Liberal-NDP coalition. That is disgusting.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech that my hon. Conservative colleague made.

Only a couple of days before the budget was introduced, the House passed a motion suggesting that the Liberals support meeting the 2% NATO target. However, when I read this budget, it fell woefully short of that, promising only a bit of money incrementally spent over time. The Liberals seem to have claimed victory on this issue, but that simply does not line up with the facts.

I wonder if my colleague could expand on how far short this budget falls compared with even what the Liberals had promised a few days before the budget was introduced.