Debates of June 8th, 2022

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned immigration. We did not see a single thing in the budget that had to do with tackling the racism issue that is happening in IRCC. What we are seeing in IRCC under the Liberal government is unaddressed racism, which is also affecting Quebec in a big way. We are seeing African countries with almost 90% rejection rates under the Liberal government. For two years, they have had an anti-racism task force. Not a single person has been fired. Not a single person has been reprimanded. What we do see is that those people who have that kind of racist behaviour have gotten raises under the government's watch.

What does the hon. member have to say regarding that and why have the Liberals refused to address racism in IRCC, which is affecting many people?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I believe the member opposite asked my hon. colleague, the Minister of Immigration, a question on this and he said that this was something they were looking at internally in the department. I do not have the specifics on that.

What I will say is that I am proud of the government's record on immigration. We have been tabling important numbers in terms of levels. We have brought in 15,000 Afghans. The minister has made it very clear that we are going to continue to drive forward toward our goal of 40,000. We have brought in 80,000 Ukrainians and we have, I think, close to 200,000 applications that we are going to continue to focus on.

I have Syrian immigrants in my riding who are so thankful and proud to be in Canada.

It has been this government that has taken this approach. The member opposite ran on a platform that did not even support government-assisted refugees. That program was going to be cut.

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

Madam Speaker, let me begin by complimenting my colleague from Kings—Hants on his French. I would also like to tell him that he is as solid as his play on the field. He is dedicated to his team and I can attest to his determination. I would like to commend my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, too. When he uses his head, he really gets results.

My question is about agriculture, which my colleague spoke about at length in his speech. Back home, members of the Union des producteurs agricoles have made a number of proposals and recommendations, including abolishing the gas excise tax of 4¢ per litre, but just for the agricultural sector, not for everyone. There is also a proposal to abolish the 35% tariff on inputs from Russia. This affects farmers, but in other countries this tax is not passed on to farmers; therefore, it ends up on our plates.

Could the government set up an emergency account, like it did during the pandemic, but especially for farmers, with loans as well as grants and subsidies? Could the advance payments program be increased to $200,000 to provide some breathing room? These are all possible solutions, and to that list I would add accelerating the temporary foreign worker program to ensure that workers are available to work our farmland.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and for his efforts on the soccer field.

The issue with fertilizers is a very important one. My opinion on this is clear. The government must find a solution to the costs that farmers are facing if they purchased fertilizer from Russia or Belarus before the war. The tariff must be maintained for purchases made after March 2 to discourage farmers and companies from buying from the Russians. We also need to find other ways to help our farmers cope with the cost of fertilizer. The advance payments program is a good initiative, but we must do more.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoy serving on the agriculture committee with the hon. member.

While it was not necessarily in the BIA, I am extremely proud to see the $5.3-billion investment in the budget for dental care in Canada. It is going to start at the end of the year with children under the age of 12 and it is going to make a considerable difference in Canadians' lives, no matter in what part of Canada they live.

It was less than a year ago that the Liberals voted against a motion that would have done the exact same thing. My colleague Jack Harris brought forward that motion.

Is the hon. member happy that the NDP was able to push the Liberals to do the right thing and is he going to be proud of showcasing this amazing program to constituents in his riding?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, let me say to the member opposite that he is not only a great member on the agriculture committee, but he also plays soccer on this wonderful team that we have.

Our job as a government is to respond to the needs of Canadians. We work with all parliamentarians in this House to be able to advance them, and on this particular initiative, we were pleased to see support from the NDP on the budget to be able to introduce this measure that we think is extremely important for all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

We are heading into the final hour of Wednesday, June 8. I am pleased to be spending the final moments of this day with my colleagues. I want to thank them in advance for their rapt attention.

We are here tonight to discuss Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures. I would like to review the timeline. This bill has come back from committee. First, there was the budget. There were many things about it that bothered us, so many, in fact, that we could not support it. Voting against it was our only option. The bill contained a significant amount of intrusion, interference, and federalism pervaded. That rampant federalism would have steamrolled our jurisdictions and dictated the terms. There would have been interference here, there and everywhere.

There were also some things that were frustrating because they were not in the budget, such as health. I am not big on whataboutism. People cannot just say there is this thing but not that thing. They cannot just say that there is no actual debate on health. They cannot say that we have not moved forward, that we have not pressed the issue, that we have not been talking about it for quite some time. When I say “we”, I am not just talking about the Bloc Québécois. I am talking about all the provinces, which are united. It is Quebec too. The National Assembly has passed so many unanimous motions on this. They cannot say the government might be surprised when we raise this issue. They cannot say we are coming out of left field. No, we have been talking about this for a long time. It is a problem.

We are at the tail end of a public health crisis—or let us hope so, anyway—that did not create the situation. No doubt it exacerbated it, but we have long been aware of skyrocketing health care costs. We have known for some time that it is up to the provinces to hire doctors, nurses and PSWs and that the money is tied up in Ottawa.

As we know, funding has been cut for quite some time. In the 1990s, Ottawa made its surpluses on the backs of the provinces. Since then, the provinces have had to fight like hell to be able to fund their health care services and social services in general.

There was nothing for seniors, either. As everyone knows, there was the infamous last-minute pre-election cheque last summer, but only for those aged 75 and over. Because of inflation, the cost of living is going up, so pensions also need to increase permanently. By the way, one is a senior as of age 65. A permanent increase in the pension is needed, but there is nothing about that in this legislation.

One could argue that some funding has been allocated to housing, but we are a long way from sustainable, significant and really strong investments that would actually compensate for the current crisis.

The Bloc Québécois advocated for an annual reinvestment of up to 1% of public funds. I do not think that is unreasonable. Money also needs to be diverted so that it does not always go just to private developers, but also to groups that are familiar with the real needs on the ground, such as not-for-profits, housing co‑operatives, and community organizations. The whole financial structure needs an overhaul. There was nothing on any of that. We were unable to support the budget because of what was in it and what was not in it.

Then came the budget implementation bill. We supported it, but with reservations, saying that we would see what came out of it. We would study it, look at it, analyze it. There are committees for that, such as the Standing Committee on Finance. I commend my colleague from Joliette, who is our finance critic and did this work patiently and conscientiously. He did some extremely serious work on this issue.

Several irritants were removed from this implementation bill, which contains some things that we want to improve and that make it possible for us to continue supporting it.

Let us talk about the excise tax. I am the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade, and the excise tax is a subject that I am very familiar with.

As a result of a complaint filed by Australia, the excise tax will once again be charged on all Canadian wines, effective July 2022, after having been exempt since 2006. This tax does not distinguish between grapes, apples and honey, but why should it apply to all wines, including mead and cider, when these last two products were not the target of Australia's complaint?

Mead production is small. The association of cider producers was established in 1992 and has 81 voluntary members. It testified before the Standing Committee on Finance.

Cider production rose from 3.2 million litres in 2016 to 5.1 million litres in 2021, an increase of 60% in five years. The market for cider is booming. This is a nod to the past, because, I remind members, cider was popular in New France. People started drinking beer after the conquest. The beer was not always good, but we have made up for that with microbreweries, which make very good beers.

Cider and mead, or honey wine, will suffer because of the excise tax. I do not understand how the government was unable to make a distinction between honey made by bees in their hives, apples and grapes. It makes no sense to me, especially because, in a similar legal battle with Australia, the Government of Quebec was able to exclude different products that were not standard wine varieties.

Clearly, each country is going to want to promote and protect its own producers and wines. However, Canada should not be penalizing an entire industry because of the government's incompetence and inability to differentiate. We would usually talk about not comparing apples to oranges, but in this case, it is a question of not comparing apples to grapes. What a ridiculous farce.

In the little bit of time I have left, I would like to talk about an unresolved issue, the infamous luxury tax. We support the principle of the luxury tax, taxing the ultrarich, banks, oil companies and their profits as inflation rises. As I said yesterday, our inflation is their loot. The issue we have is that the tax is flawed and very poorly designed, as it will penalize SMEs and the aerospace industry, which is flourishing in Quebec.

I started hearing from the industry about this a year ago. I realized at the time that there was a problem with the wording of the tax. Since then, stakeholders have asked the government to do an impact study, but it has refused. Now, the government can no longer justify pursuing this fallacious, erroneous, catastrophic plan that will penalize an industry that is just as important to Quebec as the auto industry is to Ontario.

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

Madam Speaker, my understanding was that the Bloc actually supports the principle of a luxury tax. I would not mind getting some clarification on that matter. Both with the $100,000 for automobiles and the $250,000 for boats, I think most Canadians recognize the luxury tax for what it is. As I said, my understanding was that the Bloc members support the principle. They might have some issues regarding the timing, but they support the principle of it.

Can the member provide his comments? Does the Bloc support the principle of a luxury tax?

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

Madam Speaker, as I said several times, we support the principle. We support the underlying idea. Even industry stakeholders tell us that they agree with the idea, but they are asking us to do things properly.

It has nothing to do with momentum and everything to do with how this is deployed and how the targets are set. It would have been a good idea to do an impact study for something this big.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want my colleague from the Bloc to know that I agree with him very much on the luxury tax.

Oshawa builds automobiles and we want to build the electric vehicles of the future. I think he is aware that with inflation and everything like that over the next few years, people may not get much of an electric car for $100,000. We want to increase the manufacturing jobs here in Canada.

I am wondering if the member would be in favour, for example, as the automotive industry has been asking, if we want to promote more manufacture of green vehicles, electric vehicles in Canada, of removing the luxury tax from electric vehicles?

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

Madam Speaker, we believe in the idea of having more green vehicles. I understand that this is a general question on green vehicles.

Canada has long presented itself as a leader, but it was not one. In 2019, Canada was the last western country to bring in rebates on the sale of individual electric vehicles. That is bad, if we think about it.

The delay is unfathomablere, considering how many things need to be done about transportation electrification. Furthermore, most of the programs encourage industries that are often multinationals based in Ontario, instead of SMEs based in Quebec that are making a real effort to electrify transportation.

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

Madam Speaker, in my riding, carbon capture and storage is very important. It is a technology that is working, that is being supported by the private sector.

The NDP has constantly attacked carbon capture and storage, claiming that it is not working, when we know that, in fact, it already is working. It is an important way of working with industry to support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

I wonder if the Bloc could share its perspective on the important role that carbon capture and storage can play as part of our efforts to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that someone has finally found a riding where that technology works, because we have been searching for one from the start.

In any case, we do not believe in that. The best carbon capture facility is a tree. There was a strategy for that. The government was supposed to plant billions of trees, but it has yet to plant a single one. I myself have planted more than that.

Let us say that this is a carbon capture strategy that has shown that this technology has not worked so far and that it would cost a fortune. It would be pretty sneaky to make taxpayers foot the bill.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I am a bit concerned by his comments about the amount of money paid to the provinces and territories for health care.

I think the bill gives the provinces and territories $2 billion to help reduce wait times for certain surgeries. The Government of Canada obviously worked very hard with all of the provinces and territories during the pandemic.

Why is my colleague opposed to the government's initiatives to collaborate with his province, Quebec?

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

Madam Speaker, the amount that the member is referring to had already been announced. It was then put into the bill, so it is nothing new. It was not specific to this bill.

It also falls well short of expectations, given inflation and skyrocketing costs. I remind members that this amount is far from what was promised in the Canada Health Act.

We could ask the provinces what they think about working with Ottawa. They all say that Ottawa is not doing enough. The Government of Quebec is unanimous on this.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to share my thoughts on Bill C-19. Like many members in the House, we have carefully examined the many clauses included in this piece of legislation, which implements many of the changes announced by the government in its budget.

The devil is in the details, and I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleagues for their vigilance, because the amendments were important, and the organizations that contacted us wanted to be heard loud and clear. I particularly want to congratulate my colleague from Joliette and my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville.

There are times when our actions really matter. Small industries, especially our SMEs, often bear the brunt of measures that are not adapted to their reality, and we must be vigilant. I can assure the House that we have put a great deal of effort and resources into reviewing the proposed changes and doing the necessary checks. The Bloc Québécois believes that it is possible to be prudent, rigorous and innovative at the same time. While our goal is to get everything for Quebec when the current crises are over, the Bloc Québécois is determined to secure as much as possible for Quebeckers.

The Bloc Québécois carefully went through every clause of the bill, as it always does. It voted in favour of the parts that are good for Quebec and voted against the parts that are not good for Quebec, and it tried to improve the parts that could become good for Quebec, in particular for charities.

Last week I spoke about some of the challenges that charities told us about during recent consultations. I am very happy that we were able to build on a solid foundation to make it easier for charities to sign co-operation agreements with organizations not recognized as charities. This will ensure that charities are not needlessly overburdened and can concentrate on their missions.

With Bill C‑19, the version amended by the Bloc Québécois, we join other countries that have taken similar measures to support charities better. The original version of Bill C‑19 introduced by the Liberal government did not adequately respond to what charities had asked for.

I now want to talk about mead and cider. I want to acknowledge David Ouellet, from Miellerie de la Grande Ourse in Saint‑Marc‑de‑Figuery, and the folks at Verger des Tourterelles in Duhamel‑Ouest.

I would like to clearly explain the importance of the amendments made by the Bloc Québécois to Bill C‑19, especially in response to the request by mead and cider producers to exempt these products from the excise tax. Many members here in the House urged the government to help the restaurant and tourism industries, as well as our honey producers, maple syrup producers, berry farmers and many other sectors of our economy.

This is a fine example of a Bloc Québécois amendment that provided desperately needed breathing room. I am certain that we managed to stave off the closure of many businesses across Quebec. Peripheral sectors and businesses such as apple farmers, bee farms, the tourism industry and the restaurant sector will be the better for it.

I have a word of caution for fly-in, fly-out workers. One of the measures I am worried about is the labour mobility deduction for tradespeople who temporarily relocate to a job site. This measure would let people who temporarily work away from their home deduct a portion of their travel and accommodation expenses. It will reduce the pressure that the labour shortage is putting on several sectors in Abitibi-Témiscamingue in the mining industry and construction.

What we do not want, however, is for our region to become a fly-in, fly-out destination. We need to ensure that people settle in our area, that they live there and become proud and strong Témiscamingue people. The wages paid must be spent in local businesses. That is how we develop our territory, how we live in it and how we help small and medium-sized businesses become large corporations.

I already explained all the effects of this kind of measure when we studied another member's bill in the House. I would remind everyone that there is a serious housing shortage in Quebec and that these kinds of measures can put additional pressure on the rental market.

If we make it easier for these temporary workers to come to our regions, they will surely want to stay after getting a taste of what we have to offer. I can assure the House that that is definitely the case in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, where people want to stay and build their dreams with their feet on the ground. There they can live it up in Sainte-Germaine-Boulé, attend a secret show in an alley in Rouyn-Noranda at the Festival de musique émergente, enjoy the view of the majestic Lac Témiscamingue in Ville-Marie or taste the incredible quality of the agri-food products of the Amos region.

Another thing I would like to talk about is division 15 of Bill C‑19, which is about the Competition Act. On May 20, after I moved a motion in this regard, the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology studied this section and heard from numerous witnesses. I think reluctance on the part of those who just spoke has to do with the fact that there were no real public discussions about the measures the government is imposing in this budget bill. As a matter of fact, all the witnesses were surprised to see this section in a budget bill instead of in a bill of its own.

As for the public debate, some people simply want to maintain the status quo in terms of competition. Others say that it is high time changes were made. I think my colleagues know where the Bloc stands. The message needs to be tailored and crystal clear. There must be strict rules that allow for real competition. We are in favour of meaningful reform of the Competition Act as long as it is a comprehensive, transparent process.

Where are things going in the realm of competition? Here are some thought from the Commissioner of the Competition Bureau:

An important conversation is taking shape about the role of competition in the Canadian economy. It's occurring against a backdrop of increasing concerns about the rise of corporate titans and the changing nature of our digital marketplace. New thinkers have engaged in the debate.

As MPs who are members of this committee, we noted the deep concern of some people who testified. We did not change the coming into force date of this section of the bill, in order to give the Competition Bureau the opportunity to include all the elements required to implement these changes. Everyone expects a firm commitment and swift action from Commissioner Boswell, and everyone agrees that it is urgent that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry introduce a new bill on competition.

Significant amendments were proposed as a first step. They would enhance the Competition Bureau's investigative powers, criminalize wage-fixing and no-poach agreements, and increase maximum fines and administrative monetary penalties. They would clarify that incomplete price disclosure is a false or misleading representation. The amendments also would expand the definition of anti-competitive conduct, allow private access to the Competition Tribunal to remedy an abuse of dominance and improve the effectiveness of the merger notification requirements.

In conclusion, it is getting late, so I would like to sum up my thoughts on this bill. I wish I could say that all these measures will achieve the results that our constituents are hoping for. With the time I was given, I discussed only a few of the measures set out in the 400 pages of this bill. In this case, we tried to improve it as much as possible in the limited time we had, due to closure. We will have to be twice as vigilant and listen even more to the people in our communities.

Fortunately for the people in my riding, the Bloc Québécois is able to promote its recommendations. Again, the government was caught off guard. It tried to bury measures in a 400‑page tome. I can guarantee that, especially under the watchful eye of my colleague from Joliette, anything we missed this time will get picked up during the next round of legislative amendments.

I want to mention that introducing elements in a massive bill instead of having substantive, transparent debates in parliamentary groups always has dangerous consequences. Many people came to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology to tell us that.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the issues I have always comes up when members opposite stand in their place and share some thoughts. The member who spoke before this one indicated that the federal government has not planted any trees, for example, but we know for a fact that tens of millions of trees have been planted.

[An hon. member]

After how long?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, a tree starts from a seed, and it takes time to get it into the ground. The point is that the Bloc, much like the Conservatives do time and time again, tried to give a false impression.

I am wondering if my friend across the way would recognize that maybe the Bloc is wrong and we have planted literally millions of trees.

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

Madam Speaker, the program to plan two billion trees is a perfect example of a flawed federal program. The vision may be good in theory, but it is terrifying for residents in the regions.

Abitibi—Témiscamingue is a forestry and mining region, but it is also an agricultural one. Where are the two billion trees going to be planted? They will not all be planted in the city. If the government wants to meet its target, it will have to plant trees in the regions, and half of the trees that the federal government plans to plant in Quebec are in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. These trees will be planted on land that is not being farmed. Our ancestors, my grandparents, removed tree stumps from that land. Now the government is going to replant trees there? The people who cleared out these stumps are still alive. Could the government show a little respect and come up with a well-thought-out plan? Why not just develop an equivalent program to bring more land back into production? That would be a long-term solution.

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

Madam Speaker, it does appear that the parliamentary secretary was barking up the wrong tree here. The problem for the Prime Minister is that he appears to think that trees will plant themselves. The parliamentary secretary knows that trees can plant themselves under certain circumstances, so they are unlike budgets, which cannot balance themselves, as we have demonstrated.

I know that other members, such as myself, would have liked to speak to this bill at greater length. We will not be able to because we are under a very draconian programming effort by the government to limit debate on this bill.

I wonder if the member can comment on the overall fiscal framework of the government. Its spending is out of control, with more debt run up under the Prime Minister than all previous prime ministers in the country's history up until now. There is great concern. Members of the government think this is funny. It is not funny. My children are going to have to pay off the debt being run up today by the NDP-Liberal government. Can the member comment on the lack of any targets for any balanced budget at any point in time?

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

Madam Speaker, planting trees is not all bad. I would like to applaud the initiatives of Ramo and of Francis Allard, who are providing solutions in Abitibi—Témiscamingue to ensure that mining and other sites are reclaimed. This is an example of how sustainable development can be achieved by planting trees. There is some good happening.

Looking ahead, yes, I have concerns as well. If we look at the consequences of inflation, I am concerned about the government's lack of engagement. I am concerned about the government withdrawing from areas of intervention under its responsibility. Health care is the main one.

At least 50% of health expenditures should be covered by the federal government. What we have seen over the past 50 years is that this is no longer the case. Now the federal government is paying only 22 cents per dollar. That has consequences. Every problem in our health care system can be traced back to federal underfunding. That is one example of why I am so concerned about how much this government is spending.

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

Madam Speaker, in any case, one could argue that my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue can bury the government better than the government can plant trees. I salute him for that.

My colleague spoke at length about competition. There is a basic rule: The more competitors, small suppliers and small businesses there are, the better the prices. He talked a bit about solutions to create more competition.

I have the impression, however, that the Investment Canada Act favours monopolies, not to mention takeovers by foreign companies, which lead to price increases and often push businesses to relocate their head offices.

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

Madam Speaker, one need not be as clever as the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to see that we need solutions. The Competition Act, like the Investment Canada Act, clearly needs to be reformed.

I think this is a perfect opportunity to figure out how, and I am willing to work on it with the minister, as he knows.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pride to rise in the House of Commons to talk about the budget and how it would strengthen communities like mine in Windsor—Tecumseh.

Budget 2022 is first and foremost a jobs budget and a workers budget, and it is a budget that would make life more affordable for millions of Canadians.

This spring, I was proud to stand on stage with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Innovation to announce two once-in-a-generation investments in my community. The first was a $5-billion investment by Stellantis and LG to create a battery plant that would create 3,200 good-paying auto jobs. The second announcement was a $3.7-billion investment at the Windsor assembly plant that would bring back the third shift and create another 2,000-plus auto jobs.

Taken together, this almost $9-billion investment represents the largest auto investment in the history of Canada, and it represents the largest-ever investment in the history of Windsor—Tecumseh. Those two investments would create over 5,500 jobs in my community, cement Windsor-Essex as the automobile capital of Canada, and secure the prosperity of Windsor-Essex for generations. That was made possible, first and foremost, because we have the best and most skilled workforce that builds things better than anyone else in the world, and second, because our federal government has made historic investments in fighting climate change, well over $100 billion, and that includes investments in the transition to a zero-emission future.

This budget continues those historic investments, which are transforming Windsor—Tecumseh into a leader in the green transition. That includes a $15-billion Canada growth fund to leverage private sector investment in the clean-tech sector. We could ask our friends at WEtech Alliance and Invest WindsorEssex how important capital is to growing and attracting good, clean-tech jobs and businesses. It also includes $1.7 billion in incentives for the zero-emission vehicles program, because we want to encourage Canadians to buy electric vehicles built by Canadians in communities like mine.

More than just electric vehicles, our community has an opportunity to be a leader in the protection of Canada's lakes, rivers and oceans, including the Great Lakes. There is an awesome opportunity for Windsor—Tecumseh in Canada's blue economy. The Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research at the University of Windsor is Canada's leader in Great Lakes and clean water research. It will have a key role to play in the newly established Canada water agency, which would be up and running in 2022, thanks to this budget. The potential to build a modern research and innovation hub for clean water technology in Windsor—Tecumseh is enormous. This budget opens that door through the clean water agency and the creation of a Canadian innovation and investment agency.

Speaking of water, I had the opportunity recently to tour the docking, fuelling and warehousing facilities of companies operating along the Detroit River at the port of Windsor, companies like Morterm and Sterling Fuels. Through this budget, and the last, we are investing $2.4 billion in the national trade corridors fund that has the potential to supercharge ports like Port Windsor into a true multimodal transportation hub in the North American supply chain. That means more jobs and more investments back home.

As we create thousands of jobs locally and generate billions of dollars of investment across Windsor-Essex, we will have to turn our attention to two growing challenges. The first is affordable housing. Like many communities across Canada, Windsor—Tecumseh has a housing crisis. One important piece of the puzzle is to build and renovate more affordable housing. In just the last two years, I was proud to announce over $200 million for affordable housing in Windsor-Essex. That is a record for affordable housing in Windsor-Essex. We know that more needs to be done, and more needs to be done faster. This budget launches a new $4-billion housing accelerator fund to help municipalities like ours build more homes faster. To help more people purchase their first home, we introduced the tax-free first-home savings account and a homebuyers' bill of rights.

The second challenge we will face, especially as our local economy ramps up, is the need for skilled workers. We are seeing labour shortages across Canada. We will need more apprentices and more skilled workers to construct homes and build electric vehicles, batteries, charging stations and other infrastructure. I was proud last week when our government announced the $247-million investment to establish a new apprenticeship service that would create over 20,000 new apprenticeships by providing small and medium-sized businesses with up to $10,000 to hire a new apprentice. At the same time, in this budget, we are doubling the union training and innovation fund, because we know that unions like the IBEW, LiUNA, UNIFOR, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners know how to train skilled workers for today and tomorrow.

Since my election, I have been pushing hard to put more money into the pockets of skilled workers, including those who have to travel out of town to a job site. I am pleased to see a labour mobility deduction in this year's budget that will allow skilled workers and apprentices to deduct $4,000 of travel and temporary relocation expenses.

Of course, what is going to make life more affordable for so many families and allow so many moms and dads to go to work or go back to school to gain the skills they need is our federal government's historic $10-a-day child care plan.

Communities like mine in Windsor—Tecumseh are entering a golden age of prosperity. No doubt there are many challenges ahead, but we are a community that pulls together, neighbour looking after neighbour. With historic investments and leadership by this federal government, we are ready to meet those challenges and take full advantage of the opportunities. That is why I suggest we support Bill C-19.