Debates of June 8th, 2022

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

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

That is all the time we have.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Joliette.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are now at third reading of this omnibus bill.

In fact, there are all kinds of statutes stuffed into Bill C-19, with topics ranging from strip searches to justice in space. That might be helpful for addressing all the mischief Brad Spitfire could get up to, but it does not belong in a budget implementation bill. This is a half-baked omnibus bill. It is no wonder it is full of problems.

To start, the paper copy we were given was missing more than 20 pages. We were working with the wrong version for far too long. That is unacceptable, and it seriously undermines the government's credibility and our trust in it.

A lot of changes were made to this bill at the Standing Committee on Finance, and I applaud the work we did. However, it is so big that there was no way the committee could do an in-depth study of the entire bill.

I will have to criticize the government's approach once again. The government promised that it would not introduce any more omnibus bills, but only the willfully naive are buying Liberal promises these days.

Regarding our study, I am sincerely grateful for the help we got from the other House of Commons standing committees: Justice and Human Rights, Citizenship and Immigration, International Trade, and Industry and Technology. Let me add an honourable mention for the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and our superhero there, the member for Thérèse‑De Blainville.

Bill C‑19 put forward a lot of changes to the employment insurance system, including the EI board of appeal. The government did not do its job properly. It did not consider the consultations and the needs expressed by stakeholders, such as unions. It is rare for the employer and the union to agree that something like this was poorly done. The member for Thérèse‑De Blainville was very efficient at bringing all those people together with the finance committee and the human resources committee so parliamentarians could hear from them. Their message was clear. Better to strike the issue from the bill altogether rather than pass flawed measures.

We in the Bloc Québécois prepared for both eventualities. We introduced several amendments and asked that the section be deleted. In committee, I pressed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to lobby his government to have it removed.

I tabled a motion to that effect. My colleague from Thérèse‑De Blainville got the human resources committee to adopt a unanimous motion to delete it. The Conservative and NDP members also requested the same thing. The government listened to reason. It backed down and committed to tabling something a little better in the fall.

This is what we MPs are here for. It is what the House and the parliamentary committees are here for as well. We study government bills. We review them with the people they would affect. If the bill is good, we support it. If it is bad, we reject it. We work tirelessly to improve the bills.

We know the government is tired and worn out. The pandemic took its toll on us all. The Prime Minister gave an election a shot in the fall. That tired out his government, which is still a minority. We had the blockades in the winter, followed by the war in Ukraine, which has been going on for over 100 days. That has kept everyone busy.

The Prime Minister is overwhelmed and exhausted. The Minister of Finance is playing the roles of both prime minister and minister of foreign affairs, especially with respect to the war. All the work she is doing is very honourable. The problem is that she is caught up in all these fast-moving issues, so she no longer has enough time to do her job properly as finance minister.

We saw that with her budget. We saw that with the crisis facing specialized businesses that convert trucks into ambulances, armoured vans and other specialty trucks. They are affected by the semiconductor shortage, which has shut down truck manufacturers in the United States. This input shortage is hitting our businesses hard. We cannot afford to lose these good niche jobs.

In December, the finance minister promised that the shortage was over. We supported Bill C‑8 based on her assurances. She had agreed to provide us with the statistics showing that things were getting better. We believed the Liberals' promises, but we never got the statistics, and the situation of these businesses is getting worse and worse as the weeks go by. We have been pressing the minister on this issue since January, but we have still heard nothing.

The only response we received came in her fall economic update, when she committed to subsidizing semiconductor manufacturers. However, this is a far more complex market, and she has completely missed the mark. We were unable to secure a meeting with her to discuss this subject. We were also unable to get her to come to committee to talk about inflation, even though we officially invited her in January to come testify sometime before May 31. It is now June 8, and we have still heard nothing.

We know that the Minister of Finance is very busy with the war and all of the other files she manages for the Prime Minister. The only problem is that that does not leave her any time to take care of finance. The associate ministers and parliamentary secretaries have not been delegated to follow up on this or other files. It is a serious problem that will have harmful consequences for our economy.

I have another example. In Bill C‑19, the budget implementation bill, the government presents the details of its luxury tax. It is 170 pages long. We agree in principle that people who buy luxury cars, planes or boats should pay a luxury tax. That is one way to redistribute wealth. However, the tax needs to be well constructed and the situation properly assessed.

For example, this tax will have serious repercussions on the entire economy and on jobs related to the use of personal boats. When I asked the Department of Finance to show us its impact studies for this new tax, the departmental officials told me that they had not done any studies. There is nothing. This has a real boys‑in‑short‑pants feel about it. Santa Banana could have done a better job of this.

What we have here is an ideological tax. It is all about the principle, and no one cares about how it will be implemented. In any case, the minister does not have time to waste on that.

This tax will be disastrous for the aerospace industry, which has been in a complete panic for almost a year now, not because the wealthy will no longer be able to afford to buy private jets, but because the tax will apply to companies and exports, even though it is not supposed to.

This whole thing is a big mess. The government gave the Department of Finance carte blanche, and it did not do its job properly. It did not feel like doing it, so it did a poor job. Because the Minister of Finance is busy dealing with the situation in Ukraine, the government is letting this slide. That is unacceptable. This measure is so poorly thought out that unions and employers, along with some members of the House, have banded together to warn us about how serious this situation is.

Canada is already the only country that has an aerospace industry but no industry strategy, not even for government procurement. Now the government is imposing poorly designed taxes that are harmful to the industry without even doing an impact study. That undermines Canada's credibility with the industry.

I would remind members that greater Montreal is the third-largest aerospace hub on the planet. Such a high value-added sector helps drive our economy. Anyone in the world would be very careful to preserve such a cluster—anyone, that is, but Ottawa. Is this all because the industry is in Quebec? That is unacceptable, and it reminds us of the repercussions of being under our neighbour's thumb.

Working with the unions and employers, we submitted several amendments to correct the poorly drafted tax measure. For instance, one amendment stated that the tax must not apply to exported aircraft. Another would have excluded businesses from the tax, which is how it is supposed to work. The Liberals and NDP voted against all those amendments. Yes, the NDP voted against what the unions were calling for. Why? It is because of their deal with the Liberals and their promise of unwavering support, to the point of compromising their principles.

The Conservatives voted with the unions on the luxury tax in Bill C-19, and the NDP and the Liberals voted against the unions. They were so quick to compromise their principles for a promise that benefits only the party that wanted it in the first place.

All of this will undermine our important aerospace industry and its unionized, well-paying jobs. This is all because the tax is ill-conceived and fails to meet its objective of taxing people who purchase luxury vehicles. Instead, the bill will tax airplane and helicopter manufacturers on aircraft that they export, over 90% of their output, or sell to businesses. This comes at a time when the industry is barely recovering from being hard hit by the pandemic. This is all because we have a finance minister who is no longer doing her job, since she is doing the Prime Minister's job and nothing is delegated. This is all because the government is not putting more effort into supporting and developing our economy.

In a normal democracy, a government like that would be overturned and replaced, but not in Canada. This government is supported by a party that is afraid of losing seats and is facing an opposition that is torn apart by extreme and polarizing ideologies. This is the price of following our neighbour's lead. It has little concern for our economic issues and has its own fish to fry.

With respect to the problems that the ill-conceived luxury tax will cause for the aerospace industry, I spoke numerous times with the finance minister, members of her team, her parliamentary secretary, her department and several other government members. That accomplished next to nothing. All we were able to get passed was an amendment that allows the government to delay implementation until after September at its discretion.

In addition, we had to wait until the report stage. My colleague from Saint-Jean and I introduced the amendment, as did the member for Elmwood—Transcona. This is the last glimmer of hope. If the government can take its head out of the sand and does its homework, we are offering it the opportunity to not implement the tax and to come back with a better bill in the fall. I urge the government to take us up on our offer.

The government is proposing a vast array of legislative changes in this mammoth bill. It has cut corners and done a poor job. The government is patting itself on the back for holding lots of consultations on everything. The only problem is that it is not taking the feedback into account. The Liberals' idea of democracy is letting everyone talk without listening to a word they say.

Luckily, we got the government to backtrack on its ill-conceived employment insurance amendment. We told it to go back and do its homework and listen to stakeholders. Unfortunately, we did not get the government to backtrack on its new tax that is 170 pages of poorly written text, but we did get one amendment passed that will create a window for changes in the fall. That will depend on whether the government sees fit though. I am very worried, as are the industry and union members. The government has not seen fit for quite some time now.

We managed to fix another of the government's egregious errors on another subject entirely in Bill C‑19. Australia took its dispute with Canada over an excise tax on wine to the World Trade Organization. Obviously, it was about wine made from grapes. However, because wine is not just grape wine to Ottawa, the tax applies to many other products too. In committee, we heard from cider and mead producers. The tax would have really hurt them and undermined a rapidly growing sector. We worked with them to propose an amendment that would exempt them from the tax. I think we made some important progress that will enable these passionate people to keep improving their quality products so that we can enjoy the fruits of their labour. I think we deserve congratulations.

More generally, let me say that I am very proud of every member of the Standing Committee on Finance. We spent many hours working constructively and collaboratively. From my perspective, we engaged in successful dialogue and made progress. I am sincerely grateful to every member of the committee, including its chair and the parliamentary secretary. I believe we made substantial improvements to Bill C‑19, and that is down to how well we worked together.

I also want to commend the work done by the other committees that studied parts of Bill C-19. I thank them for their insights. Lastly, I want to once again commend the hard work of my esteemed colleague and friend from Thérèse-De Blainville, who helped force the government to commit to redoing its homework on EI. I salute her for that.

Despite all my criticisms, Bill C-19 does include many good measures. Even though the government introduced a mammoth bill, even though it cut corners, even though we were not able to improve the bill as much as we would have liked, the fact remains that, when we weigh it all out, there are more pluses than minuses for the Quebec economy. That is why we decided to support the bill.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, part of my colleague's speech addressed the fact that the present finance minister has been somewhat overwhelmed with what she has to deal with. I think that is sort of what the former finance minister, Bill Morneau, talked about, that there really is no direction. There have been a lot of statements about what they might like to do, but if we try to drill down as to whether there have been any studies or whatever, we find out that this really has not happened. I think this has become one of the critical aspects.

I am just wondering if the member could comment on this. I asked the NDP earlier how we can get competitiveness so we can bring in investments. The member mentioned the aerospace industry. If we get to a stage where nobody trusts that we can get anything done, those dollars are then going to leave this country and we will all be in worse shape.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance is hard-working and a fierce fighter who never stops. However, since the start of this year, with the conflict in Ukraine and all the Prime Minister's files she is juggling, I have noticed that she does not have the time she needs to do her job as finance minister properly. That is to be expected given the circumstances.

One of the things I like about being an MP, and this is the case for each one of my colleagues, is dealing with specific issues that are brought to our attention by businesses or individuals. We can make a request of the minister responsible, work together and, quite often, solve the problem behind the scenes without garnering media attention. It is very gratifying and we feel as though we are improving people's lives.

Of all the ministers, the Minister of Finance is usually the quickest to respond. Since January, however, she has been overwhelmed by other matters and there is no longer any follow up, which is understandable. We see it in the lack of vision and direction for the budget and in this bill, which is very problematic. It is not the person who is the problem, but the way the government is configured. What is needed is someone who can be more focused on the finance department.

As for the competitiveness and productivity of our economy, it is clear that more needs to be done, and that takes vision. There are several possible avenues the government could take, but if it does not take any of them, then of course it is going to lose. Every economy is in competition with all the others to attract good jobs and develop this or that niche, such as artificial intelligence, aerospace or the green economy.

Whatever the niche, it takes vision. For example, in aerospace, Canada is the only country that does not have an industrial policy or comprehensive strategy to support and develop this sector in order to demonstrate that we value this cluster, these companies and this expertise. This is missing from the budget and it is a massive oversight.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I heard the member's critique of the luxury goods tax, and some of that may indeed be fair. He did not mention that the NDP was able to negotiate a carve-out for the aerospace industry so that the cabinet, if it so chooses, can address the concerns of the industry prior to the tax coming into effect.

My question is about the larger issue of wealth inequality and the idea that those among us who are doing the best for themselves should also do their part and pay their share so that we can have a strong country and a strong future. I think this is a concept that the Bloc supports, the overall concept of reducing wealth inequality.

What are some measures he would have liked to see in this legislation that would go further and do a better job of addressing wealth inequality in our country?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, the issue that is most important to me in this Parliament is the fight against the legal, yet immoral, use of tax havens by large corporations, Bay Street banks, multinationals and the wealthy. This government is doing very little to combat tax evasion, and Canada lags behind other countries in this respect.

I want to respond humbly to my colleague's question. As I said in my speech, the amendment that the member for Elmwood—Transcona, my colleague from Saint-Jean and I proposed at report stage was not extensive and was merely intended to give the government an opportunity to delay the implementation of the luxury tax. This might have given the government time to address some problems, if it had been willing. I remind the House, however, that unions and machinists, among others, told us to make sure that this tax does not apply to exports or to sales to companies.

Because of its deal with the Liberal government, the NDP voted against the unions' amendments, while the Conservatives voted in favour. In this type of deal, compromises always have to be made. Since the vote in committee, however, I have been wondering whether the NDP is starting to compromise its ideals.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, all the Quebec MPs saw what happened in the province's long-term care facilities during the pandemic. What does my colleague think about the multi-generational home renovation tax credit? Instead of putting a senior in a nursing home, a family can renovate their own home to accommodate the senior and have them live there. The goal is to keep families together. I would like to hear his opinion on this tax credit.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of good measures in Bill C-19, and this tax credit is certainly one of them. It is important, and that is why we will be supporting Bill C‑19.

However, I would ask the government to implement this tax credit more quickly than the one they gave to teachers in last fall's budget. It is still not in effect because Bill C-8 is still before the Senate. Normally, when a bill is winding its way through Parliament, tax credits can be put in place more quickly. It appears that because the opposition parties are against Bill C‑8, they are being blamed for not granting this tax credit, which several teachers have asked me about.

I would therefore ask that the tax credit to help seniors stay in their homes be implemented more quickly than the tax credit for teachers.

I do not know if I have enough time to respond, but I would add that the situation in the long-term care facilities was carnage, a real disaster. The long-term care facilities are the poor cousin of Quebec's health care system, which brings to mind the chronic underfunding of the health care system. Obviously this goes back to the years of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin who, in order to balance Ottawa's budget, massively cut transfers to Quebec and the provinces. The situation has never been rectified since, and we expect Ottawa to send massive transfers to the provinces to respect each one's ability to pay.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette, who is our excellent finance critic. One file overlaps both of our critic roles: the luxury tax.

One of my parliamentary files is aerospace. For over a year now, I have been hearing about this tax, which we agree with in principle. In the Bloc Québécois, we are big fans of better distribution of wealth. We gladly support that goal, since the ultrarich have to pay their share. However, often the devil is in the details, and that was the case with this luxury tax.

A year ago, it was only natural that we did not necessarily understand all the implications of the description of this luxury tax. However, the stakeholders contacted the government. How is it that a year later they continue to—

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

Order. I have to give the hon. member for Joliette a few seconds to respond.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government does a lot of consultation. The aerospace industry was consulted. Its representatives raised their concerns all year, but no changes were made to the tax. When we attended the Department of Finance's information session about this tax, departmental officials answered all of our questions by saying that it would depend on how it was interpreted by the Canada Revenue Agency.

The committee summoned experts and stakeholders, who said that the tax made no sense and that it needed to be changed. However, at the end of the process, the Liberals rejected all of those amendments, with the support of the NDP.

What we have is 170 pages of extremely complicated text that does not target the right people, namely the wealthy who purchase luxury products. Instead, the tax targets an industry, manufacturers and their unionized workers.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here with you and all of my colleagues this evening to debate Bill C-19.

I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Kitchener Centre this evening.

It is a pleasure to be here this evening to reflect and offer a few thoughts on a piece of legislation that is important not only for those in the chamber but also for all Canadians, coast to coast to coast. It is important in the fact that I, like many of my colleagues here, have children at home, or grandchildren for that matter, and everything we do, as legislators and as members of Parliament, should be through the lens of ensuring that we leave a strong economy and a clean and healthy environment for our children and grandchildren.

I do have some thoughts on where we are in Canada and in the world, and where we are with the economy today. Bill C-19 would continue to put us on a path for strong economic growth, good jobs and employment prospects for Canadians. We would also ensure we are leaving behind a very healthy and clean environment, including reaching our net-zero goals by 2050 and the interim targets which were defined and which we became accountable for through Bill C-12.

As we look at the Canadian economy, with an unemployment rate of 5.2%, we, as a country, through the hard work of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, have recovered 116% of the jobs to where to were pre-COVID. We are on the right path. Our AAA, the big A's and the small a's, for our credit ratings have both been affirmed by all three major agencies: DBRS Morningstar, S&P and Moody's. Our fiscal framework and the finances of this country are strong and continue to be guided by the Minister of Finance, who is doing an incredible job.

We know that in the world today, Canadian families are facing an affordability issue. We have inflation, and we know what has caused the inflation. We do know that COVID-19 has disrupted and continues to disrupt supply chains. Some of them have been fixed, and some of them will take longer. We know the barbaric, unprovoked invasion by the Russian Federation and President Putin into Ukraine has disrupted commodity markets, food markets and, obviously, energy security and affordability. We acknowledge that.

I see it when I go to the grocery store. My wife sees it when she goes to the grocery store to shop for our three children. It is a conversation at home. We all know it. We must be steadfast and resolute as a government to maintain the backs of Canadians as we move forward through this environment, and as we move forward ensuring that Canadians have the resources they need for them and their families.

We can look at our measures for affordability over the years. We have Bill C-19 and the BIA, as well as bills on past budget measures that we have implemented. We can think about the Canada child benefit being indexed, which benefits more than 9 out of 10 Canadian families. It is literally thousands of dollars, tax free, arriving monthly to Canadian families. We can think about the Canada workers benefit, something I have championed day after day, literally helping millions of Canadians and lower-income workers. We can think about early learning and child care plan we have put in place with all provinces and territories. It is something we said we would do. It is a promise made and a promise kept.

My family is going to be putting our almost eight-month-old daughter into day care in the fall. It is something we will see a benefit from. I know that in the province of Ontario, by the end of this year,December 31, we will see a 50% reduction in child care fees. For the area I represent, the York region, just on top of Toronto, this would represent a 50% reduction in child care fees. It would represent literally thousands of after-tax dollars to families in York region and in the city of Vaughan. That is something I applaud.

I am proud to be part of a government that signed on and collaborated with provinces and governments of all political stripes in the provinces. Unlike the Conservative Party of Canada, which wishes to tear up the early learning and child care agreements, we will maintain those agreements. We will continue to work with those provinces and territories across Canada to maintain these agreements because it is the right thing to do. We will not buy into the gimmicks offered by the Conservative Party of Canada when it comes to affordability.

Our seniors will receive a 10% increase in their old age security in July. That is roughly $800 a year, which will continue to be indexed, for roughly 3.5 million seniors. Again, that is a promise made and a promise kept by this government. I look forward to seeing our senior groups over the summer at the bocce courts, picnics and gatherings.

In the city of Vaughan, we have such a vibrant senior population. I love my seniors. They built this country, and they built the community. Many of them immigrated here with very little education and very little money. They came through Pier 21. They never complained. They worked hard. They saved, and they created a better future for themselves and their families. I just love and applaud them. They have my utmost respect as an individual and as a parliamentarian.

We have committed to dental care, and that is something that I have a very granular story on. A senior came into my office and said she needed help with her dental care. She had an infection. We sent her to York Region where there is a program to assist low-income seniors. Something like that for a senior who is on a very minimal income can really bankrupt them. It could really set a person back.

We cannot have that in our country. We cannot have that in modern-day Canada. That is why we have committed to ensuring that Canadians from coast to coast to coast, such as young children, seniors and all Canadians, will have some sort of coverage or insurance through a $5.3-billion dental care plan that will ensure vulnerable Canadians do not have an issue with getting dental care. The BIA and Bill C-19 really invest in growth, in people and in the green transition.

Of course, I would be remiss if I did not talk about the tradespeople who build this country from coast to coast to coast. My father was a tradesman. He was a carpenter, a labourer, a sheet-metal worker and a roofer. I remember working on weekends with him, when we would do odd jobs for our neighbours and friends, and that was something that taught me the values of hard work, sacrifice and putting aside that dollar, and I see that in our budget.

We came through on a promise made and kept on a labour and mobility tax deduction for tradespeople. Obviously, they have to fit the criteria. This would be $4,000, and it would be a deduction and not a credit. A deduction is very powerful. It would allow tradespeople to move from one jurisdiction to another jurisdiction and cover those expenses, which is something I know the Canadian Building Trades Union, LiUNA and the carpenters have advocated for.

I mention those two organizations because both of their training facilities are located in the city of Vaughan in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. I meet with those members, and those are the folks who every day, rain, shine or sleet, warm or cold, get up to build our communities and build our critical infrastructure. They are great people.

We need more of those apprenticeships, and when we talk about apprenticeships, our government rolled out a program called the UTIP, the union training and innovation program.

We have committed another $80 million, which is within Bill C-19, to ensure we train literally thousands and thousands more apprentices. I went on a visit to a carpenters union, and I was looking at CCAT. They had their apprentices there, and they were high school students. They were being funded through this UTIP program. It was so great to see these young folks so excited about their futures and so excited about what they are going to do in this country, building the homes and the infrastructure for tomorrow.

The same thing takes place, whether it is at the LiUNA 506 training facility in York Region or LiUNA 183's training facility, with the operating engineers, the painters, and the HVAC and the electrical workers. The same thing takes place, and we are partnering with all of these organizations.

Members will remember that the Conservative Party from prior years attacked private sector unions with Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. The first thing we did in 2015 and 2016 was repeal those bills. We will always stand beside working Canadians, and we will always stand beside those tradespeople who go to work every day to maintain and build and repair our critical infrastructure.

When it comes to homes, I have spoken before about them in the House. I am blessed to live in a very entrepreneurial area. I have to hand it to the entrepreneurs in my area. The Mayor of Vaughan, the hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua, was a member of Parliament for many years. He committed to raising $250 million for our hospital, so this city of 330,000 people has the spirit of generosity.

We, the city of Vaughan and the entrepreneurs, hit the target of $250 million last week. I applaud them. They are entrepreneurs who have taken risks, invested, made money and contributed to their hospital. With that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have run out of time for the member's speech.

Continuing with questions and comments, the hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland has the floor.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I noticed that the member was talking about the government's early learning and child care promise to create a $10-a-day day care system in this country.

What we are seeing on the ground is a very different story. It looks like the government is creating a two-tier day care system in this country. I am getting messages from day cares across the country saying they cannot even apply for the government's subsidy because of the amount of red tape the government is putting in place.

For example, the government is saying it is only going to fund the program up to $18 an hour. We know child care workers get paid way more than $18 an hour, so they cannot afford to hold onto these programs at $10 a day. We are going to have some families get into $10-a-day day care and some families paying $2,000 a month.

How does the member support a two-tier day care system?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, we need to put the early learning and child care system in place and sign agreements with every single province and territory. We need to make sure it is affordable and accessible, and that we hit the target within each individual province that signed. With the Province of Ontario, we got to $10-a-day day care. My understanding is now, after the provincial election here in the province of Ontario, the Government of Ontario will be implementing that accord. It is a very detailed accord from what I understand. We definitely do not want a two-tier system on day care.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was really glad to hear the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge talk about dental care. Our old friend Jack Harris was in town today, the former member for St. John's East. It was less than a year ago on June 16, 2021, that the House voted on the motion that Mr. Harris brought forward, Motion No. 62, which would have extended dental care to families making under $90,000 a year.

Unfortunately, that member voted against that motion, so I am glad to see that the Liberals have made an about-face and come to understand the importance of dental care for low-income families. Is the member now happy that the NDP pushed the Liberals to see the light of day, do the right thing and put forward this important program for low-income families?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, dental care was actually mentioned in the prior throne speech. It has always been a priority of our government to help all Canadians, middle-class Canadians and those who are vulnerable, who do not have access to certain services. On this dental care program we are rolling out, I am glad to see we are working together with other parties to get things done for Canadians so we can leave a better future for all Canadians, and that is what we will continue to do.

As well, I love the province of British Columbia. It is my home province, where I was born and raised.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I get two questions in a row. My second question for the member is about the first home savings account, we know that young, working families simply cannot afford to put away $40,000 into a savings account. What we are going to see with this program is the children of very wealthy people whose parents are giving them the money to put into the first home savings account will be the ones who benefit the most.

Does the member think it is appropriate for taxpayers to be subsidizing the children of the wealthiest 1% to buy their first homes?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the situation with housing affordability in Canada, we need more housing supply. The plan we have put forward is a holistic plan. It is a plan that will need collaboration with provinces municipalities and regions to increase housing supply. It is a plan that targets the froth in the housing market with banning foreign purchases, the anti-flipping measures that we have put in place, and the $4-billion home accelerator fund. We have put in place a lot of measures in the BIA, including the measure the member talked about, to allow first-time homebuyers to actually save.

If someone is a young, downtown professional and they need to save for a first home, this is going to be a great measure and great vehicle for them to do that. This is much like the tax-free savings accounts, which millions of people have used year after year. This is going to be another measure for Canadians to utilize and leverage, and I am so happy to see it in Bill C-19.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise again on Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, this time at third reading. I would like to start with what I appreciate, specifically about the work that was done at committee. If Canadians and neighbours in my community watch only question period, they might wonder whether anyone here gets anything done at all. The fact is that there are plenty of opportunities at committee for parliamentarians from all sides to come together to improve legislation. That is really important to highlight.

First, I want to point out one really critical amendment that was unanimously passed, which would ensure that all Canadians living with type 1 diabetes, of whom there are over 300,000 across the country, will now be able to access the disability tax credit. This is going to help ease the financial burden caused by unavoidable and necessary life-saving expenses.

The original bill had the foreign homebuyers ban, but there was no date set for when it would come into force. It was left up to the governing party's discretion. Through committee, there is now a hard date set. It is longer out than I would prefer, all the way out to January 1, 2023, but it is an improvement at least to have a date within the legislation. As I have said before, in my community, the extent to which all levels of government work to address the skyrocketing cost of housing will define us over the coming years.

I wish there was more in the budget implementation act, and certainly we need more. Investments like those in co-op housing in the budget, for deeply affordable and dignified housing, are a step in the right direction. Having a date in place for when this foreign homebuyers ban will come into force is an improvement.

That being said, these tweaks are insufficient, given the moment we are in. I would like to take this opportunity to share five significant and urgent priorities of my neighbours that are still missed by Bill C-19 and are the reasons why I cannot support it.

First, when it comes to the climate crisis, no doubt this is our last chance at a livable planet. The most recent report from the IPCC defines it as “an atlas of human suffering”. We know that if we want even a 50% chance of staying below a 1.5°C increase in global average temperatures, which, as scientists from the IPCC tell us, is required if we want to hold on to the possibility of a livable future for our kids and grandkids, and if we are to do our fair share, that means 86% of Canada's proven fossil fuel reserves need to remain unextracted. The UN Secretary-General went on to say that “the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels. Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness.”

Of course, I was disappointed that in Bill C-19 and in the budget there is nothing for a prosperous transition for workers, which we so desperately need when it comes to retraining and career support, when it comes to pension bridging, and when it comes to compensation. In the budget, instead, what we saw was $7.1 billion between now and 2030 for a new subsidy in the form of a tax credit for carbon capture and storage. A recent study of this technology from the Netherlands found that in 32 out of 40 projects they looked at worldwide that implemented carbon capture and storage, emissions actually went up. It is one of the reasons why 400 academics penned a letter to our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance saying this is a false climate solution.

Unfortunately, the only time climate is even mentioned in Bill C-19 is when it speaks about the fact that an annual climate incentive is now going to be received by Canadians once a quarter, certainly not the kind of change that reflects the moment we are in, that reflects the crisis we are in, and that reflects the urgency of action required to meet this moment.

The second priority that continues to be missed is with respect to addressing the disproportionate number of Canadians with disabilities who are living in poverty across the country. We know that back in 2020, the governing party first promised the Canada disability benefit, a guaranteed livable income for every Canadian with a disability across the country, which would lift up, or it could if done well, 1.5 million Canadians with disabilities across the country.

We already know that 89% of Canadians support the Canada disability benefit. They are way ahead of parliamentarians here. However, we also need to recognize that emergency funds are required to address the very real, direct and urgent needs of Canadians with disabilities who are living in poverty across the country. Both in the budget and in this budget implementation act, there is no mention of emergency funds. There is no mention of the Canada disability benefit. It was, instead, introduced as Bill C-22. The same as last year, though, all of the major decisions on eligibility and the amounts are left to regulation.

It is going to be really critical for all of us to continue to put the prioritization, the urgency and the advocacy behind ensuring that we get support to Canadians with disabilities across the country, the Canadians who need it the most. We already know that it has support. In fact, 103 parliamentarians from all parties have now asked not only to bring it forward in the legislation that has now been done through Bill C-22, which I am glad to see, but to fast-track it and ensure that the experiences of Canadians with disabilities are heard every step of the way.

The third priority I want to mention tonight is with respect to mental health. In the budget, the only real mention was with respect to a wellness portal. So many parliamentarians in this place recognize, as is so important to do, that mental health is health. If that is the case, we need to be looking at organizations like the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health and their calls for legislation that would put in place a framework for the Canadian federal government to collaborate with and support provinces and territories and bring about parity in mental health support and funding. That is not in Bill C-19. As I mentioned, it was only tangentially mentioned in the budget. I will continue to advocate and encourage the governing party to meet the moment when it comes to addressing mental health.

Just last week, I spoke about the need to honour promises made when it comes to long-term care. This is because so many neighbours of mine have shared their stories, whether they are caregivers who are not in a position to deliver the care that is necessary or those who have a parent waiting in a hospital bed for months on end, hoping that their parent might one day have a spot in long-term care. We have to recognize the wait-lists. The research I saw last summer said that there were 52,000 people on a wait-list. We still have not seen this promised safe long-term care act. It was mentioned in the confidence and supply agreement between the NDP and the Liberal Party, and I continue to encourage the urgency to be placed on that legislation being moving forward, given that it is not in Bill C-19. In fact, long-term care is mentioned in the budget only once, as it relates to funding that was promised back in 2021.

In closing, the last critical priority that is urgent and needs sufficient prioritization in this place relates to addressing indigenous reconciliation, specifically following through on the 94 calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. According to the Yellowhead Institute's most recent report on the calls to action, only 11 of 94 have been completed to date. In my view, that is another significant gap. If we are not doing enough to move sufficiently quickly to follow through on all of the promises made, to follow through on all 94 calls to action, this is another critical moment to do so.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, my friend from the Green Party touched on mental health. We see all the time the Liberal government members say they have thrown this many millions of dollars at it. I would like to hear from somebody who I feel is very passionate about mental health and youth. Let us put the partisanship aside. What can we do as community leaders together? How can we use that money, the many millions that we hear all about? What can people do to use that money properly, equitably and fairly among youth so that we can help with the pandemic that is going on in mental health?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate not only the question but the person who asked it, because the member for Calgary Forest Lawn has brought up the Canada mental health transfer many times, without anything that I read in it with respect to partisanship but with an interest in really moving ahead.

We know the governing party has promised the mental health transfer. When I go home and reflect back to neighbours of mine some of my aspirations for this place, what I often share is that there are examples where so many parliamentarians do agree, and mental health certainly is one of those. While I am glad to share more about the obvious needs in communities like mine, and his as well, as a newer parliamentarian here, I see this as an example where, as we continue to bring up mental health in this place, we could put pressure on the government, which has said that it intends to move forward. Let us ensure that it follows through on doing so.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my dear Green Party colleague for his speech. I want to acknowledge his hard and heartfelt work on matters of social justice, the environment and persons with disabilities. He shows such compassion for people in vulnerable situations and I commend him for that.

I heard him say that he was disappointed that there was nothing in the budget about standards for long-term care.

Long-term care falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec. Would my colleague not agree that the best way to support long-term care is for the federal government to transfer the money that the provinces and Quebec need?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will answer in English, only to ensure that I get my words right.

Yes, I would agree that funding is critical. National standards for long-term care that are brought about in collaboration and consultation with provinces and territories, in my view, are also really critical to ensure that we address what we strongly agree on, which is that there is a crisis in long-term care, that we have not moved through that crisis yet, and that we need to ensure that we do so much better by our elders right across the country.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's thoughtful and articulate speech. I share his dismay at the $2.6 billion in this budget for carbon capture and storage, not because I do not believe that this technology will likely play some modest role in reaching our climate targets, but because this is a direct subsidy to some of the wealthiest and most profitable corporations in our country. The $2.6 billion is not pocket change. Could my colleague perhaps provide his thoughts on where that $2.6 billion could be better spent in meeting our climate targets and ensuring a healthy future for our kids?