Debates of April 7th, 2022

Constitution Act, 1867

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, this bill definitely carries on the legacy that started in 2011 under Prime Minister Harper, and that is what we see going through this bill.

I do not know what the member interpreted from my speech. I tried to outline the historical background of what happened and why we are at this stage. Asking for perfection or for better is something that everybody aims for. That is what I was trying to do here in the speech that I delivered today.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague noted that Mr. Harper's government recognized Quebec as a nation. Since then, however, there has been no concrete action.

The bill maintains Quebec's number of seats at 78, but Quebec loses relative weight because increasing the number of MPs in Canada reduces Quebec's weight from 23% to 22.51%.

It is all well and good to maintain the number of seats in Quebec, but if the number of seats elsewhere in Canada is increased, Quebec loses out in the end. What does my colleague think?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, Quebec was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the law that was passed under the Harper government in 2011.

The hon. member was asking about the fluctuation of the numbers here and there. I think the speech made it very clear how this happened and what the formula should look like. The bill that is presented here is also very clear. We will wait and see what happens with the vote in a few hours.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate that for us in the NDP it is critical that Quebec in particular maintains its position in Parliament. I would ask my colleague to share his views once more on the importance of Quebec's role in Parliament and the importance of preserving that role.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the motion that was passed with regard to maintaining the number of seats that the province has right now actually came from our side, from our deputy leader.

It is clear in my speech. I am not sure if the hon. member heard the whole speech, but what I was trying to say today was very clear in the speech.

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

Madam Speaker, this is an interesting piece of legislation. I wonder if the member could speak more on the importance of the principle of representation by population, the principle that every Canadian should have a reasonable expectation that their vote counts for the same thing and that if they move to a different part of the country, their voice does not suddenly become more valuable or less valuable. That is just a common-sense proposition of fairness.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, we can never ask for too much justice. This is about justice, about representation, about having equal opportunity for MPs to represent their different areas, and about having equal opportunities for constituents to be fairly represented by MPs and through proper budgets.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Edmonton Manning for sharing his time with me, and I also want to say hi to him from Yosef, who just cut my hair. I know they are good buddies, and I think they sing together, or something like that, so I just want to say hi to him from Yosef.

I will say off the top that I will be voting in favour of Bill C-14. I want to make that clear to the member for Winnipeg North, so that he does not have to stand and ask me that question. This particular bill would clarify that we would be, from now on, using the current number of seats in every province as the floor for this country going forward. That said, I would like to talk a bit about representation, and particularly regional representation. These are issues that have motivated my interest in politics, and they motivate a great many Albertans' interest in politics, and none more so than a fellow from my riding named Edward Goodlife.

I always wish I had Edward Goodlife's last name. I think he has lived a good life. He is a good friend of mine. He moved to Canada from England. He chose Canada. He moved to a little place called Granum, Alberta, and started a nail factory there. He was driving across western Canada through the Prairies and he noticed that all the houses in our part of the country were built out of wood. He said to himself, “All these houses need nails to put them together,” so he decided to start a nail factory in Granum, Alberta.

One of the reasons we know each other is through politics. His motivation for getting involved in politics was a whole litany of issues he had when getting his nail factory started and profitable in Canada, such as issues of regulation and taxation and issues of regional disparity. The story he told me was that it would cost him something like $23 to ship a pallet of nails on the railway to Ontario, yet his competitors in Ontario could ship that same container of nails to Alberta for $8. This is something that I think is called a mill rate on the railway, and I am not 100% sure of all the details of how that worked, but one of the things that really grated against him was the fact that the system seemed to be set up against him.

In order for him to compete with folks who were manufacturing nails in Ontario, he had to pay three times more in shipping costs than people in Ontario shipping their goods in this direction, particularly nails. He could compete with them here, but he had to work fairly hard. When he tried to break into new markets, particularly in eastern Canada, he was up against that.

It is these kinds of stories and sentiments that bring the frustration we have whenever we get talking about representation in this country. The Bloc members have brought into this debate, and I am not sure where they got it, the idea of proportionality and that somehow Quebec should own 25% of the seats in the House of Commons. I am happy to see that the government did not put into this legislation the maintenance of one particular seat. I am supportive of that, but this idea of proportionality is very interesting and comes up very often in my conversations around northern Alberta.

This idea of proportionality comes up often, and people show me graphics all the time. I see them on Facebook and places like that. People have made graphics showing the proportion of the seats based on regions of the country, and they come to my office and are very upset about this. I will say to them that there is nothing in our system that says anything about proportionality of seats.

Our system is based on having the House of Commons and the Senate. The House of Commons is based on the number of electors, and the Senate is supposed to be a representation of the landowners, provincial interests or those kinds of things. We could perhaps say that, in the case of the Senate, there should be some redistribution of the Senate seats or an addition of new Senate seats so that provincial representation was perhaps weighted equally or on percentage of land mass, percentage of taxation income, resource revenue or something. We can have that discussion, but that is not what this bill is about. Those are some of the things that come up often. Proportionality is not something that comes into the seating in the House of Commons.

The other thing that is fascinating, and that many Canadians, particularly from either Quebec or Ontario, do not think about, is how close they live to Parliament and Ottawa. I have the privilege of touring school groups through the House of Commons. They come up from southern Ontario to have a tour of the House of Commons, and I am happy to oblige by doing that. I note and tell them all the time that they are fortunate that they live a four- or five-hour drive from Ottawa. Growing up and in my high school years, in grade three and grade six we went to the legislature buildings in Edmonton, but I never had the opportunity to do a field trip to Ottawa with my class. That is something that, being from Alberta, we just did not have the opportunity to do.

We see that borne out in lobbying efforts and the way that these systems are set up. Ottawa is a distant place for Albertans. Ottawa is not something that we think about. It is not in our lives every day, and because it is far away we do not necessarily have access to that place as somebody who lives a lot closer has. Sometimes we, who are from northern Alberta, realize that the decisions made in Ottawa are often influenced by the people who live near to it. That makes sense because they are closer. They have access. They can drive there in an afternoon and make their case, whereas people in northern Alberta do not. It is a 3,600-kilometre tour from my house to Ottawa. It takes three and a half days to drive there, and it is an expensive endeavour.

All of these things lead to the sense of a lack of representation in Ottawa. It is not even necessarily that we have more people voting for fewer people, which is the case, but also the distance of it. That is just a reality. Other than perhaps moving the Parliament buildings to Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver or Peace River, that is going to be the reality.

The member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon was making some great points around this as well, and the fact that the representation in our part of the country feels quite a bit different than it does for people who live close to Ottawa. We want to make sure that representation happens. Having a hard and fast rule on representation by population is just a matter of fact, in the same way that Quebec and Ontario being close to Ottawa is a matter of fact. I am happy to support this particular bill, but I would just point out that there are other things that are matters of fact that we cannot change and that we should not necessarily worry about. The same thing goes for representation by population. That is the way the system is set up, and we should work hard to maintain that principle here in this place.

With that, I am looking forward to the budget this afternoon and to having Alberta's interests represented, in particular northern Alberta's. One of the major reasons that I got involved in politics was to represent Alberta in Ottawa, and I am pleased to do so today here in this Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental flaw in terms of what the member is talking about.

It is a whole lot easier to get from Edmonton or Calgary, let us say, to Ottawa than it is from many Ontario communities. In fact, one might have to take a long drive to an airport to take another airplane to come to Ottawa: Canada's capital.

My concern is that, number one, the member should not try to give the impression that one has to live close to Ottawa to have influence. I like to consider that I carry some influence, as the member no doubt carries influence, and I am from Winnipeg.

One does not have to be from Ottawa in order to have influence. That is my suggestion to the member. Second, with respect to the bill itself, would the member not recognize that the simplicity of the bill is to ensure that we recognize that no province should have a reduction in the number of seats based on the last federal election? Would he not agree, simply put, that this is a good thing and something worth voting for?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did note, right off the top of my speech, that I was supporting this bill. I even noted that I was doing that for the benefit of the member for Winnipeg North, so I am pleased that he listened to my speech.

The other point I would make is that my point all around distances to Ottawa was not so much that we can change that but that this is a matter of fact. We cannot change the fact that Ontario is closer to Ottawa than Alberta is. We should just respect these things that are a matter of fact and respect the idea that representation by population is a matter of fact.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought the member really nailed it, especially with his description of the challenges of the factory owner at the beginning. This country has a unique history: some provinces in the east came together to create the country, but western Canada was always viewed as kind of a colonial possession. It has been a long struggle to work toward some degree of recognition of provincial equality.

Would the member want to comment on some of the legacy of that history, in terms of Senate representation and other things? These really come from the fact that it was originally central and eastern Canada that formed the country, but they viewed the west very much as a kind of colonial appendage instead of as an equal partner.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question. That is indeed the case. I would just recognize that P.E.I., for example, negotiated its way into Confederation, as did B.C. That is not as much the case for Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, which were more creations of the federal government—

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

Order.

Photos in the chamber are not allowed, and a minister of the Crown should know that.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague from Peace River—Westlock asked a key question, namely, why Quebec should have a special privilege, the “nation clause”, recognizing that this founding nation, which is francophone, unique, and has its own culture, deserves a certain political weight in the House of Commons. For me, this is fundamental.

Would my colleague be willing to take a step to ensure that the Quebec nation is heard in the House and that it has 25% of the seats? If not, we will leave.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the proportion was never part of the discussion. I do not ever remember hearing anything about the proportion. The other thing I would just note for the member is that northern Alberta has one of the largest French-speaking diasporas. It has been there since before Quebec was even founded.

Since the 1700s, we have had Quebec communities in northern Alberta. These communities are thriving. These are born French-speaking people, and places like Falher, Guy, Marie-Reine and St. Isidore have all been amazing French communities that are thriving. We see people emigrate from around the world to northern Alberta.

The French population of Alberta is actually growing, not necessarily in proportion to the rest of the province, but it is a growing population. I would hope that Quebec would see growth in its population and then it could maintain its seats as well.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of the things that Parliament can do to augment the representation and balance are things such as more money for rural and larger geographic areas or larger populations. Most recently, the government has limited MPs and their offices to five immigration enquiries, which actually makes it disproportionate. I would like the member's thoughts on the other things we could do to make things more balanced for representing Canadians, even though we might have disproportionate populations.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, once again the member has highlighted one of the things that are a matter of fact. The number of immigration queries that we have has no bearing on where we come from in the country. I would say that the government has totally mishandled the immigration file in this country, leading to the fact that my office has to deal with an inundation of immigration cases as likely the member's does as well. Limiting that to five cases per office seems ridiculous because there is not necessarily any correlation between one member's office having more or less just based on where they are in the country.

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

That will finish our discussion of Bill C-14. We will come back when we have the opportunity. We will take a few moments for the minister to arrive in the chamber.

It being 4:06 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Ways and Means Proceedings No. 3, concerning the budget presentation.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

moved:

That this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I would like to table, in both official languages, the budget documents for 2022, including notices of ways and means motions.

The details of the measures are contained in these documents.

Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I am requesting that an order of the day be designated for consideration of these motions.

We all remember that Thursday in March just over two years ago when our travel plans were hastily cancelled, when our children came home from school, when we all rushed to the grocery stores to buy toilet paper and hand sanitizer. We realized then that this virus would disrupt our lives, but few of us imagined quite how much or for quite how long, yet here we are. We bent but we did not break. Canadians have done everything that was asked of them and more, so to all of them, to all of us, I want to start by saying, “Thank you.”

I now have the honour of tabling my second federal budget. I tabled my first in April 2021. In the year preceding it, the Canadian economy had teetered on the brink. Our economy contracted by 17%—the deepest recession since the 1930s. Three million Canadians lost their jobs. It was a shattering blow.

The Great Depression scarred this country for a generation or more. It was entirely reasonable to fear that the COVID-19 recession would likewise hamstring us for years; that millions of Canadians would still today be without jobs; and that the task of rebuilding our country would be the work of decades.

We knew we could not let that happen, and so we provided unprecedented emergency support to Canadian families and Canadian businesses. Our relentless focus was on jobs—on keeping Canadians employed, and on keeping their employers afloat. It was an audacious plan, and it worked.

Our economy has now recovered 112% of the jobs that were lost during those awful first months, compared to just 90% in the United States. Our employment rate is down to just 5.5%, close to the 5.4% low in 2019 that was Canada's best in five decades. Our real GDP is more than a full percentage point above where it was before the pandemic. Let us think about that. After a devastating recession, after wave after wave and lockdown after lockdown, our economy has not just recovered; it is booming.

Today Canada has come roaring back, but Canadians know that fighting COVID and the COVID recession came at a high price. Inflation, a global phenomenon, is making things more expensive in Canada too. Snarled supply chains have driven prices higher at the checkout counter, buying a house is out of reach for far too many Canadians and now Putin's barbaric war is making food and gas even more expensive. The money that rescued Canadians and the Canadian economy, eight dollars out of every $10 invested, was deployed chiefly and rightly by the federal government, but our ability to spend is not infinite. The time for extraordinary COVID support is over, and we will review and reduce government spending because that is the responsible thing to do.

On this point, let me be very clear. We are absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline and our deficits must continue to be reduced. The pandemic debt we incurred to keep Canadians safe and solvent must be paid down, and it is being paid down. This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we will not cross. It will ensure that our finances remain sustainable.

Canada has a proud tradition of fiscal responsibility. It is my duty to maintain it and I will, so now is the time for us to focus with smart investments and a clarity of purpose on growing our economy and on making life more affordable for Canadians. That is what our government proposes to do, and here is how we propose to do it.

Pillar one of our plan is investing in the backbone of a strong and growing country: our people.

Let me start with housing. Housing is a basic human need but it is also an economic imperative. Our economy is built by people, and people need homes in which to live. Our problem is simply this: Canada does not have enough homes. We need more of them, fast.

This budget represents the most ambitious plan that Canada has ever had to solve that fundamental challenge. Over the next 10 years, we will double the number of new homes we build. This must become a great national effort, and it will demand a new spirit of collaboration—provinces and territories; cities and towns; the private sector and non-profits all working together with us to build the homes that Canadians need.

Over the next 10 years, we will double the number of new homes we will build. This must become a great national effort, and it will demand a new spirit of collaboration with provinces and territories, cities and towns, and the private sector and non-profits all working together with us to build the homes Canadians need. We will invest in building more homes and in bringing down the barriers that keep them from being built. We will invest in the rental housing that so many count on. We will make it easier for young people to get those first keys of their own.

We will make the market fairer for Canadians. We will prevent foreign investors from parking their money in Canada by buying up homes. We will make sure that houses are being used as homes for Canadian families rather than as a speculative financial asset class.

On housing, I would like to offer one caution. There is no one silver bullet that will immediately, once and forever, make every Canadian a homeowner in the neighbourhood where they want to live. As Canada grows and as a growing Canada becomes more and more prosperous, we will need to continue to invest year after year after year in building more homes for a growing country.

A growing country and a growing economy also demand a growing workforce. A lack of workers—and of workers with the right skills—is constraining the industrialized economies around the world.

However, there is good news. In 2020, Canada had the fastest growing population in the G7. At a time when the world is starved for workers and talent, our country's unique enthusiasm for welcoming new Canadians is a powerful—and particularly Canadian—driver of economic prosperity.

This budget will make it easier for the skilled immigrants that our economy needs to make Canada their home, and to do the jobs they are trained for.

We will also invest in the determined and talented workers who are already here. We will make it more affordable for people working in the skilled trades to travel to where the jobs are. Programs like the enhanced Canada workers benefit will make it more worthwhile for people to work and will make life more affordable for our lowest-paid and very often most essential workers. We will invest in the skills that Canadian workers need to fill the good-paying jobs of today and tomorrow. We will break down barriers and ensure that everyone is able to roll up their sleeves and get to work.

One of those barriers is affordable child care. When we promised less than a year ago to make high-quality affordable child care a reality for all Canadians, our plan was certainly welcomed, but the cheers were muted by justifiable skepticism. After all, similar promises had been made and broken for decades, five decades in fact. That is why, as I stand here today, I am so glad to say we have delivered. We have now signed agreements on early learning and child care with every single province and territory in our great country.

This is women's liberation. It will mean more women no longer need to choose between motherhood and a career. This is feminist economic policy in action, and it will make life more affordable for middle-class Canadian families. Fees are already being slashed across the country. By the end of this year, they will be reduced by an average of 50%, and in three years, child care will cost an average of just $10 a day from coast to coast to coast.

Housing, immigration, skills and child care are social policies to be sure, but just as importantly, they are economic policies as well. Our strategy is what Janet Yellen, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, recently dubbed “modern supply-side economics”. Modern supply-side economics borrows the supply side's key insight that increasing supply is fundamental to growth, but takes a progressive people-centred approach. At a time when our chief economic problem is that there is too much demand chasing too little supply, this set of people-centred policies provides exactly what Canada needs right now. This pillar will create supply-led growth that satisfies the demand today that is driving inflation. It will help our economy grow sustainably and will make all of our lives more affordable.

Our second pillar for growth is the green transition. In Canada—and around the world—climate action is no longer a matter of political debate or personal conviction. It is an existential challenge. That means it is also an economic necessity. This is the most profound economic transition since the Industrial Revolution. The world economy is going green. Canada can be in the vanguard, or we can be left behind.

That is, of course, no choice at all—which is why our government is investing urgently in this shift. Our plan is driven by our national price on pollution—the smartest, most effective incentive for climate action. This budget launches a new Canada growth fund that will help crowd in billions of dollars in private capital we need to transform our economy at speed and at scale.

We will invest in Canada’s remarkable abundance of critical minerals and metals. These are essential to the green transition, and the world’s democracies must be able to produce them for ourselves and each other.

As automakers urgently retool their assembly lines to build zero-emission vehicles, we will make it more affordable for Canadians to buy them. We will build the batteries that power zero-emission cars and trucks, and we will invest in building charging stations from coast to coast to coast.

For our children, the green transition will mean cleaner air and cleaner water tomorrow. It will also mean good jobs for Canadians today.

Our third pillar for growth is a plan to tackle the Achilles heel of the Canadian economy: productivity and innovation. Canadians are the best-educated people in the OECD. Our scientists win the Nobel Prize and our cities are outshining Silicon Valley in creating high-paying technology jobs.

However, we are falling behind when it comes to economic productivity. Productivity matters because it is what guarantees the dream of every parent—that our children will be more prosperous than we are. This is a well-known Canadian problem and an insidious one. It is time for Canada to tackle it.

We propose to do so, in part, with a new innovation and investment agency—drawing on international best practices from around the world—that will give companies all over the country and across our economy the tools and incentives they need to create and invent, and to take risks and to grow.

We will encourage small Canadian companies to get bigger. We will help Canadians and Canadian companies to develop new IP—and to turn these new ideas into new businesses and new jobs.

These three pillars—investing in people, investing in the green transition, and investing in innovation and productivity—will create jobs and prosperity today, and build a stronger economic future for our children. They will make life more affordable, and they will ensure Canada continues to be the best place in the world to live, work, and raise a family.

From the first day we started working on this budget, this growth agenda was always going to be our focus. Then Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. On that dark morning of February 24, a day of infamy, we woke up to a world utterly transformed. When Putin opened fire on the people of Ukraine, he also turned his guns on the unprecedented era of prosperity that the world's democracies had worked so diligently to build over more than 76 years. Our rules-based international order, built from the ashes of the Second World War, today confronts the greatest threat since its inception, so our response has been swift and strong. Canada and our allies have imposed the toughest sanctions ever inflicted on a major economy. Russia has become an economic pariah.

However, the mutilated people of Bucha, shot with their hands tied behind their backs, have shown us that this is not enough. Putin and his henchmen are war criminals. The world's democracies, including our own, can be safe only once the Russian tyrant and his armies are entirely vanquished. That is what we are counting on the brave people of Ukraine to do, because they are fighting our fight, a fight for democracy. It is in our own urgent national interest to ensure that they have the missiles and money they need to win. That is what this budget helps to provide.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has also reminded us that our own peaceful democracy, like all democracies of the world, depends ultimately on the defence of hard power. The world's dictators should never mistake our civility for passivism. We know that freedom does not come for free and that peace is guaranteed only by our readiness to fight for it. That is why we are making an immediate additional investment in our Armed Forces and propose a swift defence policy review to equip Canada for a world that has become more dangerous. This budget will help provide the fiscal and physical firepower we need to meet any threat that may confront us.

We understand that security includes energy security, which Canada must work to ensure for ourselves and our democratic partners.

That is why we are making an immediate, additional investment in our armed forces, and propose a swift defence policy review to equip Canada for a world that has become more dangerous.

This budget will help provide the fiscal and the physical firepower we need to meet any threat that may rise to confront us.

The convoys of Russian tanks rolling across Ukraine did not change the fundamental goal of this budget, but Putin's attack on Ukraine and that country's remarkable and valiant resistance has reinforced our government's deepest conviction, a line that runs through this budget and each of the budgets that have preceded it: that the strength of a country does not come solely from the vastness of the reserves of its central bank or from the size of the force in its garrisons. Those do matter, to be sure, but they matter less than democracy itself. They can be defeated, and they are being defeated, by a people who are united and free, because it is the people who are every country's real source of strength. That is true in Ukraine and it is true in Canada.

Let me explain what we need if we are to build a strong country here at home.

We need housing that is affordable for everyone and investments that ensure an entire generation is not priced out of owning a home. We need to fight climate change so that we can leave our children with a livable planet. We need to face up to the sins of our past and ensure that indigenous peoples in this country are able to live dignified and prosperous lives. We need a health care system that allows people to see a doctor or a dentist and to get mental health care too.

We need a society that is truly equal for everyone, because the colour of someone's skin or who they love or where they were born should not dictate whether they get to share in the opportunities that Canada provides. We need a robust tax system that ensures everyone pays their fair share and we need an economy that allows businesses to grow and create good middle-class jobs so that everyone can earn a decent living for an honest day's work.

The brave people of Ukraine have shaken the world's older democracies out of our 21st century malaise. They have reminded us that the strength of a country comes from the strength of its people. And they have reminded us that there should be no greater priority for everyone in this House than to build a country that we would all be willing to fight for.

That is what we have worked to do these last seven years. And that is what we will continue to do today.

The brave people of Ukraine have shaken the world's older democracies out of our 21st century malaise. They have reminded us all that the strength of a country comes from the strength of its people, and they have reminded us that there should be no greater priority for everyone in this House than to build a country that we would all be willing to fight for. That is what we have worked to do these past seven years and that is what we will continue to do today.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I notice the minister is wearing Conservative blue today, but that does not in any way transform her budget from being the first left-leaning NDP-Liberal budget.

The most pressing issue facing Canadians today is the cost of living, especially the housing affordability crisis. Millions of Canadians have seen their dream of home ownership slip through their fingers, and uncontrolled spending from the NDP-Liberal government has had a lot to do with that.

The minister's budget includes $10 billion for housing and homelessness, including $4 billion for a housing accelerator that will actually go to municipalities and not to those who wish to purchase homes but cannot afford to do so right now. In her speech, the minister made the following promise: “Over the next 10 years, we will double the number of new homes we build.”

This is a serious question. Can the minister tell us exactly how many homes she and her government have actually built over the past, say, seven years? I would like just the number, please. I know she has to have the number because she made the claim. Again, how many homes has her government built over the last seven years?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite, first of all, for pointing to the colour of my suit today. I chose it intentionally, and I chose the colour of this button. I thought it was important to show my solidarity, and I think the solidarity of everyone in this House. I am glad to see the member opposite wearing a blue and yellow tie. I have recently learned in fact that his roots, like my own family's, are in Ukraine.

I am glad the member opposite spoke about housing. Maybe that is something else we can all agree on. Housing is the most pressing economic and social issue in Canada today. That is why it is the centrepiece of this budget, just as early learning and child care was the centrepiece of last year's budget.

What is new and important about this budget, which again the member opposite has helpfully pointed out, is a focus on supply. What is new is an understanding that what we need to do as a country is find ways to tear down the barriers to building more homes. The member correctly points out that many of those barriers are at the municipal level. There are a lot of former city councillors and mayors in this House. They all understand very well that what we need to do is find ways to work together with municipalities, provinces and territories to build more of the homes Canadians need.

We will do it. We got early learning and child care done. We are committed, over the next 10 years, to doubling the new housing starts in Canada.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec, the provinces and Quebec's health sector are calling for an increase to the Canada health transfer to cover 35% of system costs. Not only is there no health transfer increase this year, next year, the year after or the years after that, but the government goes so far as to write that if the provinces call Ottawa, they will be advised about how to better manage their health care systems and make them more effective.

Can the minister tell me why she thinks that a government that has never managed a hospital in its life can manage health care systems better than the provinces?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we fully understand that the provinces and territories are responsible for the Canadian health care system, which is excellent. We also understand that the federal government must help fund the health care system.

That is why, and it is written in the budget, we have “only” provided $2 billion to the provinces and territories to help them with the problems the COVID-19 crisis has created in the health care system.

I would like to add that in this budget we are proposing a massive investment of $45.2 billion through the Canada health transfer to support provinces and territories. That is a 4.8% increase over the baseline.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has heard from hundreds of experts who have told her that carbon capture, utilization and storage is “neither economically sound nor proven at scale, with a terrible track record and limited potential to deliver significant, cost-effective emissions reductions”, yet despite the IPCC just releasing another damning report about the state of the climate crisis, carbon capture and storage is the cornerstone of the climate efforts in the budget.

Does the minister recognize that the over two and a half billion dollars they have allocated for carbon capture and storage is a missed opportunity to build national renewable energy projects, like a western power grid that could put people to work and actually help us create new renewable sources of energy in Canada? This is something we absolutely have to do if we are going to electrify our economy and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians at home listening to the proceedings of the House will be a bit confused by what they are hearing, because they have heard a lot about collaboration between progressive parties, yet on this issue, I must differ from my hon. colleague. I absolutely believe in, and our budget is very clear on, the value of CCUS when it comes to a realistic, achievable and attainable emissions reduction plan.

The oil and gas sector is part of the Canadian economy and needs to be part of our emissions reduction effort. The CCUS plan, which we have worked on collaboratively with our environmental partners and oil and gas partners, is a very important part of that plan. It will help Canada reduce its emissions, and that is something that I think all of us agree is essential.

The member has spoken about the need to invest in renewable energy. We agree. That is why this budget includes considerable investments in the green transition, building on the vast investments in the green transition that our government has hitherto made, including the Canada growth fund, which will crowd in private capital for this essential economic transformation.