Debates of June 6th, 2022

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, my question is on the point the member was just speaking about, the issue of dental care. People pay taxes to the government and then the government decides how to fund dental care. Presumably that is the policy objective of the government.

Why does the government not simply cut taxes or provide additional financing directly to low-income individuals who are identified as vulnerable and let them choose how to spend their own money as they wish, whether it is on dental care or other things that are priorities for them? Why not give people more control over their own lives and their own money by targeting support to the most vulnerable?

Why is it necessary for the government to create a new program to control how it would spend those resources for people?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, we already have a basic tax exemption in the country. That is standard and it applies across the board to all people.

What I have experienced is that too many people in this country are suffering through ill health because they are unable to deal with their dental health. A lady told me she thought she was to have back surgery because she had so many back problems. When they narrowed it down to a final diagnosis, it was all related to her dental health. In fixing her dental care and providing her access to dental care, it provided her a better, healthy outcome overall.

There are particular people in our country who cannot afford the services that are critical to them. I support making sure they have access to them.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that it is getting hard for people, but their government seems to be more interested in padding the pockets of their corporate friends, including big oil.

For example, Suncor made a net profit of $4.1 billion and paid out $3.9 billion to its shareholders: $1.6 billion in dividends and $2.3 billion in share buy-backs. The government still provided $2.9 billion for fossil fuel subsidies, yet it provided no increase for health care transfers, something my colleague spoke of as being important, nothing for long-term care, nothing for mental health, and no new funding on a just transition for workers.

Would my hon. colleague agree that what is needed are investments in people rather than in big, wealthy corporations?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, the member knows we have increased the health transfers to provinces and territories in this budget by nearly 5%. We have added more money under the health care transfer fund to be able to do more recruitment around doctors and nurses. We have reduced the backlog of surgeries. We have signed agreements to bring the cost of child care down for every family in Canada that needs that service. We have invested heavily in housing programs for both indigenous and non-indigenous regions. We have established the first housing strategy ever in Canada. When it comes to labour mobility and the transition of labour, we are at the table with every union and every group in Canada that will be affected. They are leading the way on energy transition and they are leading the way for new jobs, high-paying jobs and jobs that will be sustainable for the future.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member can go ahead and insist that they increased health transfers, but the truth is that the provinces and Quebec unanimously called on the federal government to increase health transfers to 35% of health spending. Her government ignored them and refused to do it.

Here is my question. Will she commit to working on the inside to enable the government that has jurisdiction and knows how the system works to provide more health services? By that, I mean the government of Quebec.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, there are no deaf ears when the Government of Canada increases its health transfer by almost 5%, when it puts more money out there for provinces and territories to deal with the backlog of surgeries, or when it puts more money into recruiting more doctors and nurses. We were prepared to step up and pay for dental care for those Canadians who cannot afford it.

That is not a deaf ear. That is responding to the health care demands that Canadians have.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place to speak to the issues that impact Canadians. Today, that issue is Bill C-19, the budget implementation act. To reference the speech by my colleague across the way and the comment she made, and with no disrespect to people having health issues, my back is sore from carrying my share of the national debt that the Liberal government has accumulated over the last seven years.

The budget implementation act, in short, is the way the Minister of Finance plans to carry out the promises made in her budget. However, maybe we should start with a brief examination of what the budget really is.

I think when the minister first decided to draft the budget, she got a couple of definitions confused. Investopedia has a pretty layman's-terms approach to what a budget is. It says:

To manage your...expenses, prepare for life's unpredictable events, and be able to afford big-ticket items without going into debt, budgeting is important. Keeping track of how much you earn and spend doesn't have to be drudgery, doesn't require you to be good at math—

Clearly, we know that.

—and doesn't mean you can't buy the things you want. It just means that you'll know where your money goes, you'll have greater control over your finances.

It mentions preparing for unexpected events, affording big-ticket items and knowing where our money goes. Wow. None of that sounds anything like the Liberal budget, does it? The Conservatives and Canadians have not forgotten that this very Liberal minister has yet to account for $600 billion in public spending from the 2020-21 fiscal year.

The definition of “rhetoric”, on the other hand, is “the art of persuasion, of using language—both written and oral—to convince others of one's point of view.” However, many perceive such convincing as dangerous, especially in democracies, where individual voices actually matter. The line between persuasion and manipulation is not always clear, and the effects of crossing it can be incredibly corrosive. That sounds like the document the finance minister presented to the House.

The finance minister, in her budget implementation act speech, took special note to discuss the existential threat of climate change. She went on to say that it is why she was focusing on growing the economy and making life more affordable for Canadians. That is laughable. May 3 must have been backwards day, because the finance minister's unveiled attack on the Canadian economy and on affordability for Canadians was directly her doing. The budget did nothing to deal with the skyrocketing cost of living or the inflation crisis, which, by the way, is now at the highest rate in 30 years with no signs of slowing down at all. I would argue that this is the single largest existential threat to Canada and Canadian families.

The Minister of Finance was unwavering against the pleas of Canadians and the Conservatives to stop the carbon tax escalator, even now as the price of gasoline and diesel are well over two dollars a litre. Workers and commuters have to pay that new higher price just to get to work. Farmers have to pay more to put their crops in, take them out and get those goods to market, and the price of groceries, dining and household necessities are all driven up exponentially as a result. She calls climate change an existential threat, but for Canadians, the finance minister, her policies and her government's poor financial management are the real existential threat that most Canadians face.

When I talk to constituents about what they wanted from this budget, not one of them said they wanted more rhetoric about how the government was helping them. In reality, the government continues to be the single largest problem in Canadians' day-to-day lives.

The government acts like it is fighting for the little guy while it taxes the rich. The finance minister made a big to-do about taxing the sale of new luxury cars and aircraft with a retail price of over $100,000. This tax would also apply to the sale of boats that cost more than $250,000. Canadians see through that. This is not a tax revenue generator, nor a deterrent to those who would buy a car worth over $100,000, much like the silver Mercedes 300 SL the Prime Minister has. This would also not have an impact on those who would buy a private plane to be whisked away for a day or weekend in the sun at a vacation island. The Prime Minister knows this because he has been there.

This tax is nothing more than an attempt to persuade voters, while the Liberals are trying to do something with rhetoric to address an issue. It really just muddies the water with additional rhetoric aimed toward Canadians, who now find themselves having to work longer shifts to afford the new inflated price of everything from gasoline to groceries. This affects families. They can no longer afford to sign up their children for recreational or educational activities because thanks to the inflationary actions of the government, they now have no money left for such activities. However, Canadians can be comforted to know that the Prime Minister and his friends, with their private aircraft and $100,000 vehicles, will have to pay a couple cents more on the dollar in taxes.

The government is so disconnected from reality that it is unbelievable. The reality is that for more and more Canadians, the government's incompetent policies have driven up inflation to the point that it now consumes their entire paycheques. There is little to no money left at the end of each month. There always seems to be more month left at the end of the money. For many, paycheques are purely going to subsistence living and in many cases do not even cover that.

With that reality, it becomes even more laughable that the government praises itself for subsidizing the price of zero-emission vehicles. It is like the finance minister and the Liberal cabinet have only ever met urban downtown Toronto socialites. She thinks that new cars are in the budgets of average working Canadians. Even if those same Canadians scrimped and saved to remotely afford such a vehicle, they would be plagued with backlogs, delays and chip shortages.

Maybe in the finance minister's world of social elites, the government decided to just scrap their barely used cars and buy new ones. However, the majority of Canadians, like the hard-working constituents of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, work hard, budget carefully, buy quality vehicles and maintain them because they rely on them to last. They simply do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. To put it in the language of the Liberal cabinet for it to better understand, they do not throw out the champagne with the cork. Speaking of champagne, the Liberals have a tax on that too, with an automatic escalator annually. They want to ensure that no matter what Canadians do and how they live their lives, there will always be a tax creating price inflation.

The budget has missed the mark and the budget implementation act has therefore also missed the mark. This is not good for Canadian families. It is simply the Liberal elites' manifesto of what they think the world should look like: more debt, more spending and higher costs for everything. The supports the government brags about, such as reducing the cost of new zero-emission cars, only benefit the rich and those who can afford them. This is not the implementation of a budget; it is “the art of persuasion, of using language—both written and oral—to convince others of one's point of view.” Simply put, it is just rhetoric that, in reality, will continue to destroy the economic and social stability of this country.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member makes reference to oil. It was not that many years ago that the Conservatives were criticizing the government because the price was too low. When it was selling at 88¢ a litre, we were being accused of crashing the Alberta economy, according to many of the Conservatives. Now they are saying that the price of oil is too high.

The Government of Canada carries some influence; there is no doubt about that, but the member needs recognize that there is a world economy and that the world sets the price of oil. Does he really believe that the Government of Canada can dictate to the world what the price of oil should be?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to answer my colleague's question. In every speech he always asks one.

I never mentioned oil in my intervention; I mentioned the price of gasoline. I think it would be very naive of the member to suggest that the price of gasoline has not been impacted by the taxes put on it by the government, such as the carbon tax and excise tax. The fact is that we still continue to import millions of barrels of oil. This is shameful given we have the third-largest resource in our backyard. In fact, the government pushes an agenda, an ideology, that we need oil but do not have to buy Canadian oil.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to tell my colleagues that repeating a falsehood does not make it true.

One reason the price of gas is skyrocketing today is refining margins. Big oil producers have boosted their refining margins significantly. Suggesting that the government should cut taxes to give big oil more room to manoeuvre when these greedy corporations are siphoning off what little money the Canadian middle class has is a little rich, in my opinion.

I do not know if my colleague is aware of what refining margins are for oil companies.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do know that repeating a lie does not make it true. Unfortunately, this is something that maybe the Liberal government should implement for themselves, rather than the rhetoric they want to flog on Canadians.

Do I know that oil companies are making money? Yes, I do. Do I know the extent of the margins they have? I have not looked at them recently, but I do know the extent that we are taxed on our oil and gas. The fact is that we do not develop our own oil and gas, and the government has put a moratorium on that and wants to kill the industry. If we think the price of fuel is expensive now, wait until the government, if it stays in power for another term, has its way with Canada's oil and gas sector. We are doomed.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, oil companies are making record profits on the backs of motorists, and banks are making record profits on the backs of consumers.

What does my colleague think of the idea of imposing a special tax on them, and using that money to increase the goods and services tax credit, which would help the poor and the middle class directly?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, let us look at the Canadian tax scheme. We always hear from the NDP-Liberal coalition that those corporations do not pay their fair share of taxes, but people should look at what they actually pay to the government in taxes. I hope we would want to do everything we can to eliminate the excess taxes the government charges on oil and gas, on fuel, and support the industry we have in this country to ensure that we have a viable and sustainable future in the oil and gas industry.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand as the representative for Edmonton Strathcona today to speak about the budget implementation act, Bill C-19.

I thought I would start today with some of the parts of the budget implementation act that I like and am very supportive of. I know many people think politicians only oppose, but I have to say there are things in this budget implementation act that I really like, and that I am really proud of. I thought that was where I would start, and then I am going to dig down to a few of the things in this budget implementation act that cause me a lot of concern and a lot of problems.

However, the first thing I want to say is that I am absolutely delighted to see the first step taken to recognize the desperate need for dental care for children in this country, and I am so proud to be part of the New Democratic Party that made that happen in this budget implementation act.

The previous member for St. John's East was just here today. I just had an opportunity to speak to him earlier today, and I can say his name now. Last year, in the previous Parliament, Mr. Jack Harris brought forward the exact bill to make sure dental care was available for children, and the Conservatives and the Liberals voted against it.

That is how we know that what we are seeing in this budget implementation act is clearly the work of the New Democratic Party. This is something we have been able to provide for Canadians, and as somebody who is part of that caucus, I am so proud. The biggest change and increase in health care for Canadians in decades is happening with this government and this budget implementation act.

I wanted to start with dental care. The single biggest reason children end up in the emergency room is that they do not have access to dental care. I have told the House before that I have two children, and I am very lucky I have a dental plan that comes with my employment, so when both my children required braces, we were able to do that. However, for so many children in this country, that is not possible, so I am very excited about that change.

I am very excited about some of the investments in housing. The joke we always hear in here is that the NDP's response will always be, “It is not enough.” I am going to say that many times today, but I am happy there have been investments in housing and that there is an additional investment of $1.5 billion to build new affordable homes and make changes so Canadians can save hundreds of dollars a month in rent.

I am happy to see there is a ban on foreign homebuyers for the next two years. I am happy to see an additional investment of $4.3 billion in indigenous housing. Everybody in this place should know that this is insufficient for the need, and it is insufficient for the demand, but I am happy to see it in the budget implementation act.

I am happy to see some of the actions taken on tax fairness. I have stood up in the House time and time again and demanded we do more to ensure our tax system is equitable and fair. Canadians are paying more and more for groceries, for rent, for gas and for all of the things they need, but their salaries have not gone up. If things are costing more, and the people who are making money are not making any more money, I wonder where all of those dollars are going. I have to say, they are going to the ultrawealthy.

We do need to do more to make taxes fairer, so while I am excited to see there is a tax on financial institutions, it is not what was promised, and while I am excited to see a luxury tax, it is not enough. We did not see the excess profit tax we wanted to see, so we will keep pushing for some of those things.

There are a few things I certainly could go into more detail with, and I am aware I am going to run out of time, so I want to talk a bit about some of the things I have concerns about. One is a very small thing, and I know I may be one of the only people in this place who is deeply concerned about this. However, in this budget implementation act, it would become illegal for Canadians to break Canadian laws in space. It would become illegal for Canadian companies to break Canadian laws on the moon.

Members may wonder why this matters to the member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona, and I am going to tell them why. I have spent 20 years pushing for Canada to do more to ensure that we have corporate responsibility for our corporations when they work abroad. Right now, this budget implementation act says that people cannot break the law if they are on the moon, but the way the government works right now is that if someone is in Guatemala raping and murdering indigenous people, it is no problem. If someone is in Papua New Guinea causing environmental destruction that will never be recovered, it is no problem, or in Zambia, Namibia, Nicaragua or Ecuador.

Last week, two indigenous leaders from the Amazon pointed out to us that the lungs of our planet are being attacked by Canadian mining companies and we are not holding them to account. We are not doing what we need to do to protect them. It is too bad those Canadian mining companies are not working on the moon, because that is when the government cares. It does not give us a core ombudsperson who can do the job, but it is happy to make sure that the moon is safe. That is where we are at the moment.

The other thing I will talk about, which members have heard me say many times, is that there is not nearly enough in this budget implementation act to deal with the scale and scope of a just transition for workers in Alberta. It is workers across the country, of course, but we know the impacts will be felt in Alberta more than they will be felt anywhere else in this country. Our economy has more invested in the oil and gas sector, and as the economy shifts, we will need more and more investment in the transition.

We should be investing in post-secondary education, making sure it is more accessible, more affordable and easier to access so that people can retrain for different jobs. We should be thinking of massive projects we can do that will employ workers, unionized workers, to build electrical grids and other infrastructure projects that we are going to need as we go forward into the new economy, and we are not seeing that investment here.

One day a few weeks ago, I asked a member of the government what they were planning to do for Alberta, and basically I was told that they are really excited to invest in the auto sector in Ontario. That is great and I am happy to see that, as it is important, but how exactly is that helping with the just transition for Alberta? We need to see a clean jobs training centre. We need to see just transition legislation. My colleague, Linda Duncan, who represented my riding before me, worked so hard on that. She worked on it for 11 years. We still do not have those supports for Alberta workers.

Another thing I want to talk a bit about is the direction and control aspect of this. I have worked very closely with some of my colleagues. The member for Northumberland—Peterborough South and I have worked very closely to move forward the work on a just transition. I was really happy to see that the member for Elmwood—Transcona was able to get some modifications to what was in the BIA on direction and control. This is something that protects charities. My goodness, of all the things we should be working toward, it is making sure that the charitable sector is able to do its job effectively and well.

I realize that I am running out of time. I could talk about a whole bunch of other aspects of the BIA, but I will say that I am disappointed that there is not nearly enough on just transition. I am disappointed that we have no actual increase in health transfers, despite what we hear from the government. I am disappointed that there is nothing for long-term care in this budget implementation act and, of course, I am disappointed there is nothing for mental health. Finally, we really wanted and expected to see something on the disability benefit, and we have not seen that yet. That is a shame, because this is something that has been promised to some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, so it is disappointing that it is not in the budget.

I am proud of the victories we have been able to win with this budget implementation act. I am proud of what we see in it, but this is not a budget that a New Democrat would have brought forward. We will continue to fight. We will continue to push, and we will continue to get wins for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, there are a number of things the member said that are just not true. She says there are no investments in long-term care or mental health, when we have invested record amounts of money designated for those categories. She tries to give the impression that there are no increases in health transfers, when that is just not the case. She tries to give the impression that the Government of Canada has not been there in a very real and tangible way for the province of Alberta in a just transition. She should talk to some of the ministers and she will get a list of things that we have done. We have spent record amounts of dollars on infrastructure in the province of Alberta. We had worked with the former NDP premier and now the current Conservative premier to ensure that the federal government is there in a real and tangible way for Alberta.

How does she reconcile the reality versus what she just finished saying about Alberta?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the hon. member that he is not to say indirectly what he cannot say directly, so I would hope that he would retract that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would retract the “reality” comment.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful that the member did retract that statement, because that was inappropriate and unparliamentary language for this place.

First of all, many of the things that I mentioned I can reiterate, but I will just point to one thing. If the member were to come to Alberta and talk to workers in Alberta, which I do an awful lot, he would understand that there is zero faith that the current government and, sharing the blame equally, the previous government have done anything to support workers in transitioning.

We have written to the current government time and again and said to tie strings to the dollars that are going to the private sector and tie strings to the dollars that are going to these big projects so that the money goes to workers. It has never happened.

The well cleanup was the perfect example. Nothing got cleaned up. Workers did not get jobs and big business got tons of money. It is a typical Liberal story.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have to question the member for Edmonton Strathcona. She was speaking about many of the things promised in this budget and the items that she wants to see followed through on. We have seen how the current Liberal government continually makes promises and then does not deliver. Since 1997, the Liberals have promised pharmacare. That is 25 years ago.

It is very hypocritical of this member to state that she is concerned about the government following through and to give the impression that the New Democrats will hold the government accountable, when they have signed a backroom deal. How can this member say that she will hold the government accountable when we know very well that the New Democrats have made an agreement that they will not call a confidence vote on the current government?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all I would say that if the member listened to my speech, he would know I said that one of the things we got was dental care. This budget was not what we wanted to see, but we were able to get some things.

The member also talked about the fact that we cannot hold the government to account. In fact, we have a very transparent, clear agreement, and if the government does not fulfill its side of the equation, then we do not support it. It is very simple.

Maybe the opposition members are very upset because they have not been able to show that they have gotten a single thing for Canadians during this Parliament.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to ask members who have questions to please wait until I call for questions and comments. Otherwise, they should not be speaking out.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with much of what we heard from the member for Edmonton Strathcona, in particular coming from Alberta and talking about the need to invest in a prosperous transition for workers and the concerns with not seeing any emergency funds for Canadians with disabilities.

In particular, though, the member brings a lot of experience and expertise to this place with respect to corporate accountability abroad, and in fact she has a private member's bill on this topic. I wonder if the member would share more with this House in terms of what she is proposing with that bill.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's interventions in this House are always very helpful, and I love the opportunity to speak about my bill, Bill C-263.

Basically, it is to do what the government had promised to do initially, which is to give us a CORE ombudsperson who has the ability to compel testimony and compel documents. It is basically to give the CORE ombudsperson the teeth necessary to do the job that was promised in the first place.

Right now, we have an ombudsperson who was put in place in 2018 and has investigated an entire zero cases of misbehaviour by Canadian companies, despite over 40 complaints by people around the world.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-19, especially since it might give me a chance to reconcile with the member for Winnipeg North. We had a bit of a discussion about Quebec's political weight this week. I am soft at heart and did not want to offend him, so I thought to myself, why not try to be optimistic for 10 minutes?

I will start by saying that there is a pretty big rumour going around, fuelled by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, that the Bloc Québécois is looking for a fight. First of all, the very definition of politics involves parties with opposing views that challenge one another, which inevitably leads to some fighting. However, that is not all. The Bloc Québécois is a party of proposals, and we demonstrated this in the context of programs related to COVID-19. Consider, for example, commercial rents. The Bloc Québécois has proven that it is ready to work to improve government bills.

For example, there is my colleague from Joliette, also known as “handsome Gaby”, and what he has done for the meaderies. In my riding, there is the Walkyrie meadery in the small municipality of Lamarche. The owner, Pierrot Lessard, came to meet with me with one of my former students. That struck me, because shifting from political science to making mead is quite something, even though politics leads to all things. They told me that if an excise tax were ever imposed, they would no longer be competitive and could not sell their bottles of mead. They were truly distraught. We managed to talk about it with my colleague from international trade and the member for Joliette, and I think it was a good collaboration. This may be what brings us closer together, the member for Winnipeg North and me.

I simply and quickly want to say that lifting the excise tax in the context of the agreement with Australia is a big deal for Quebec. Microbreweries are developing and expanding. We are seeing that quite a bit in Quebec, but we are also seeing that with the meaderies and the cider mills. The volume of cider production has gone from 3.2 million litres in 2005 to 5.1 million litres in 2021. That is not nothing. That is 60% growth in five years. The sector is clearly booming. An estimated 11% of all apples grown in Quebec are turned into cider, a volume that is trending upward. I can imagine what the imposition of the excise tax might have meant; it would have disrupted not only the development of the cideries sector, but also that of the apple growers. We know that the excise tax would have considerably reduced the farmers' net margin. Lifting the tax is a good thing. This collaboration is something the member for Winnipeg North could keep in mind when we talk about this again later.

The other fairly interesting aspect of Bill C‑19 is the work of my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, whose nickname is “sweet Loulou”. The Bloc Québécois demonstrated that Bill C‑19 contained a significant flaw concerning the social security tribunals. I remember them because I had some dealings with groups of unemployed workers when the Harper government decided to carry out its unfortunate reform of EI in 2013. I am not going to make my Conservative colleagues' ears burn, but the government replaced the administrative tribunals with a single-window decision body. Many unemployed workers ended up being very poorly served. My colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, who is a former trade unionist, which shows that no one is perfect, raised this with the support of former colleagues, and the government reconsidered its position. This change had been proposed by KPMG. My colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville argued this point very capably, with the result that we were able to move Bill C‑19 in a direction that may serve the interests of unemployed workers better. I want to thank her for that.

I said that I wanted to be optimistic, but bad habits are hard to shake.

There are some aspects of Bill C‑19 that are not quite as good. My colleagues know that I am a fan of the Minister of Finance. I have been in Parliament since 2019, and I have found the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to be amenable and open to discussion. I will always remember how much she helped by getting aluminum recognized in CUSMA. Through our discussions with her, we were able to come to an acceptable compromise.

I do get the impression that she has been weighed down a bit because of the conflict in Ukraine, which must be taking up a lot of her time. I want to be charitable because that is not her fault. However, there is something that the government did not manage to address in Bill C‑19, and that is the harmful effects of the luxury tax on the aerospace industry. This issue could have been addressed relatively easily, since we are in favour of the luxury tax in principle. The only problem we have is that this tax also applies to exports.

My colleagues know that the aerospace industry is located primarily in Quebec. This tax weakens that industry. In simple terms, Bombardier estimates that this tax could impact its cash flow by as much as $50 million to $150 million per quarter. There should have been an opportunity to work on this as a team, which would have been very welcome.

I do see a way out. As we emerge from the crisis, the public treasury will have to get back on its feet. Our country's fat cats must be asked to contribute in order to have worthwhile public services. Why not go after the greediest ones? On this point, I agree with my NDP colleagues. Right now, the fattest cats are the oil and gas sectors, which are reaping profits the likes of which have not been seen in 30 years. It is completely outrageous that every big oil and gas company is pocketing middle-class wealth while ordinary people are forced to continue buying gas while waiting for transportation electrification. That said, I do see a solution, namely, slightly more aggressive taxation and an end to the generous subsidies that the oil and gas sectors receive.

We as a society will pay for these much-vaunted carbon capture and sequestration strategies. The budget earmarks $2.6 billion to support greedy oil companies, which I find kind of hard to swallow given that I am still waiting for the federal government to support the aerospace industry, a pretty crucial sector for Quebec's future.

I am a good sport, and I hope to connect with Ms. Freeland after the battle. Maybe we will manage to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I would remind the hon. member not to use ministers' first or last names. I encourage him to be more careful. He has one and a half minutes left.