Debates of Nov. 21st, 2023

Fall Economic Statement

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and address the fall economic statement.

We have certainly heard a lot of things in the chamber today, including some rhetorical flights of partisan fancy, the kind we have come to expect from the Conservative leader, with some very well-rehearsed chanting by the Conservatives at the end. However, I would like to be a little more serious than that in my remarks, because I recognize that Canadians are going through a very difficult time.

We have heard about it a lot. We have talked a lot about it in this chamber, and today was an opportunity for the government to show that it is not out of touch, to show that it is prepared to address the serious issues of our time with the sense of urgency that they deserve. I do not want to spoil anything for anyone, but I have to say it is a real disappointment. I am going to talk about some of the ways in which I think this is a very disappointing document. I will also have occasion to mention some of the things that I think the government has talked about here that are not bad things, but I think the overriding theme has to be one of disappointment.

What are the crises that we are facing?

Well, we are certainly facing a global climate crisis. That much is very clear for anyone who has been paying attention to the news. Unfortunately, one does not have to pay attention to the news if one's house is on fire to know how severe climate change is getting and the important personal and economic consequences that it is having for Canadians in addition to what it is doing to the environment.

We are facing a housing crisis. Again, we do not have to watch the news; we just have to walk out into our neighbourhood and odds are, no matter what neighbourhood one lives in, more and more neighbourhoods are finding that they have people, friends, neighbours and family members who have lived in those neighbourhoods their whole life who can no longer afford to live there. They do not know where to go. They are setting up camp in the park across the street, because they do not know where else to go, and they cannot afford to put a roof over their head.

These are the kinds of challenges we are facing as a country. It took a long time to get here. It took a long time to get here with respect to the climate crisis. My father mentioned the climate crisis in the parlance of the time in the early 1980s in this place and said that we needed to do things now. Members can imagine how cheap it would have been to address the climate crisis in the 1980s instead of waiting until now.

I also know that in the 1990s, when the Liberals cancelled the national housing strategy, the federal NDP caucus was talking about the crisis it would create in housing.

I cannot, from where I sit, pretend in this place that these are new problems or that it was the Conservative leader who, two years ago, foresaw the housing crisis. The NDP saw this coming in the 1990s. It is why we said that we needed to continue to invest in co-op housing. It is why we said that the federal government had to show up and continue building social housing.

We have been sounding the alarm for over 30 years that Canada was going to find itself in this situation. Why were we doing that? We did that because we knew we could not fix a housing crisis overnight. It is the kind of thing that needs continued, predictable investment year over year to continue to meet demand. Now we have found ourselves here in part because of the government that the Conservative leader was a part of, but not just that. It was the Liberal government in the 1990s and then the Harper government and now this government, which has had eight years to address this problem, but it has only gotten worse under the Liberals. These problems have been a long time in the making, and Canadians are beginning to really feel the hurt.

What did we hear today from the finance minister? We heard from the finance minister that Canada has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We heard from the finance minister that rating agencies are renewing Canada's AAA credit rating. We heard from the finance minister that Canada has the lowest deficit in the G7. What did we hear about the Liberals' trumpeted new investment in housing? It is not coming until 2025.

How is it that Canada could be in the best fiscal position in the G7 and not afford to begin investing right now in the housing that we need for Canadians, for vulnerable Canadians for sure, who do not have the means to pay rent in this economy, for working Canadians who do not have the means to pay rent or afford a mortgage in this economy? Also, businesses are telling us that the major barrier they face to growing their business is that they cannot find a place to house their workers, that the people they would like to have come work for them do not have a place to live and so they cannot come to the community where their business is.

How can Canada have a Deputy Prime Minister and finance minister with the gall to get up and brag about Canada's fiscal position in comparison to everyone else in the world, but then say the cupboard is bare when it comes to addressing some of the most important crises of our time?

I am quite familiar with the announcements she made in respect of housing, like the replenishment of the co-investment fund, because I have stood in this very place and called for them. I have sat across the table from Liberals and demanded that they make investments in social housing. I did not demand that they make those investments in 2025. We demanded that they make them right now.

It is the same with the replenishment of the RCFI, the rental construction financing initiative, which is a mouthful. It just means low-interest loans for people who want to build housing, whether they are building market housing or non-profit housing. What we expect in the future and have been advocating for is for post-secondary institutions, such as universities and colleges, to have access to that funding. The folks who want to build housing for seniors should be able to access that funding too.

This low-interest financing should be made far more widely available so that it is not just a honeypot for developers but a place for proven organizations across Canada, including non-profit organizations building housing for the vulnerable, to access funding to ensure there will be more housing and housing on more accessible terms. It is a huge disappointment that it did not come now.

These are not my words, but I talked about what the finance minister and the Deputy Prime Minister herself had to say, which was about Canada's strong fiscal position. The question still is, how do we pay for it? How would we find the money? We already have a deficit, albeit the lowest deficit in the G7. Well, a one-point increase in the corporate tax rate in Canada, which I would remind members was 28% in the year 2000 and is only 15% today, would generate over $3 billion a year. The Liberals want to recapitalize the co-investment fund to the tune of $1 billion and not start it for two years, but we could triple the recapitalization and do it every year in perpetuity with a 1% increase.

A 1% increase in the corporate tax rate is not a bad deal for corporations that say they cannot find enough workers to keep making money because there is no housing. Let us ask them to help build the housing that will help them grow their businesses while we employ Canadians and make sure they have roofs over their heads. That is a fair deal. What is not a fair deal is to cut the corporate tax rate from 28% in the year 2000 to 15% today and not allow Canadians to find a home. That is not fair. That is not good policy.

Let us not pretend that Canada cannot afford to move and move with urgency this year on significantly increasing the number of social and affordable housing builds the federal government is going to directly finance in whole or in part. It is simply not true, and it is irresponsible of the Liberals to cave to the demands of the Conservative Party and multinational corporations that do not care what happens to Canadian housing as long as they are able to pay bigger dividends to their shareholders and larger salaries to their CEOs. That is the real coalition in Parliament, and it has been in power for far too long.

How else could we pay for housing? We have heard reports this year about tens of billions of dollars being paid to consulting firms like KPMG and others. Why are we paying through the nose for high-priced consultants when we have some of the best civil servants in the world who can do the work we need them to do, instead of paying high-class consultants big profits to tell us how to cut taxes and put more people out of a home? That does not make a lot of sense.

We saw that the Liberals are quite prepared to spend money on scandals like ArriveCAN. Why can they not spend it on housing instead? It is because their friends are already housed and they are looking to make a buck. However, that is not a good excuse for Canadians who are living on the street and wondering not when Canada is going to do something unprecedented or when Canada is going to do something new, but when Canada is going to start doing what it did for decades following the Second World War. We must simply do it again. If Canadians in the 1950s could figure out how to build a home for everybody, surely in the 21st century, with all the wealth and prosperity that Canada has enjoyed over the last 70 years, we can figure out how to do it now.

That is just the deficiencies of what they have announced. Never mind the fact that when we look to B.C., there is an NDP government that has taken it upon itself to start a non-profit acquisition fund. Why do we need a non-profit acquisition fund? We need it because, in Canada today, for every one unit of affordable housing we are building, we are losing 15. Why are we losing those units?

This comes back to the question that I had for the leader of the Conservative Party, which was why, when he was in cabinet, and in the time that he says he was minister of housing, the Harper government cut the operating grants to co-op housing and other non-profit organizations that run housing that made rents affordable. Why did they do that? The reason that we have lost hundreds of thousands of affordable units over the last number of years is that the operators could no longer afford to operate with the subsidized rent that they used to operate with. It is because the leader of the Conservative Party, when he sat at the cabinet table and was minister of housing, refused to renew the federal operating grants. Now what we have are companies that come in and buy those buildings because the current operators cannot afford to operate them anymore with the tenants who are there. The corporate landlords do not mind; they kick out the tenants, renovate the suites, jack up the rent and invite Canadians with higher salaries to come in to rent those spaces.

Therefore, who has the backs of the people who cannot afford to rent a luxury apartment in today's market? The NDP has their backs; that is for sure. What is becoming more and more apparent is that the current government, after eight years of trying, simply does not. Even if the Liberals had the good intentions, which one could reasonably call into question, the competence clearly is not there to deliver on a national housing strategy that could build enough units to ensure that the housing crisis does not stretch into my grandchildren's lifetime.

Part of that is just a fascination and a fixation with only market solutions, which is another thing that is shared between the Liberals and Conservatives in their coalition. As I said, there was a time when the Canadian government built a lot of units. It did not build all the units; Canada has always had mostly a market for housing. However, we used to build enough non-market housing that the people who could not afford to pay in the market could still get a home, and they were not sacrificing their food or their prescription drugs to try to get into a housing market that they could not really afford while paying for all the necessities of life. The issue is that we are not doing that anymore and we have to be doing it.

If only it were not for the actions of the leader of the Conservative Party and his government, or if the current government had made good on its promise to renew the operating grants. This is what I mean when I talk about the real coalition in the House of Commons. It is Tweedledee and Tweedledum. The one party says, when it is not in power, that what the other is doing is so bad, really terrible, and that it is going to fix it when it gets in. Then it gets in and, lo and behold, it carries on the policies of the previous government, so Canadians never know how to get a break. Tommy Douglas used to tell the story of Mouseland, which puts this point very well. I encourage anyone watching, when they are done listening to this speech, to look that up on YouTube or elsewhere, and it will pain them to see how very relevant that very old story truly is.

We also think that it is high time the real estate investment trusts stopped getting the sweetheart tax deal they have had since the 1990s, because they have been part of the renoviction problem as well.

When the Liberals indicate notionally in the fall economic statement that they are excited to get the Canada Infrastructure Bank involved, all we can do is cringe. The Infrastructure Bank has hardly delivered a successful project even where it has tried. Even within its mandate, it has struggled to deliver a project. Telling Canadians that it is good news that the Infrastructure Bank is getting involved is so out of touch that I do not even know where to begin. It raises an important spectre, which is the public infrastructure that is required in order to build more housing. Whether that is bigger sewer pipes, better waste water management or all the things that are needed in order to support a number of units, it raises the spectre that the current government is not interested in seeing municipalities own that infrastructure as they properly should, but is instead interested in using federal public dollars to finance the takeover of municipal infrastructure by private investors who are going to be interested in seeking a profit on that.

We know, from many examples of P3s across the country, that when one gets the private sector involved in what should be public infrastructure, one pays more to get less. That is by no means a hopeful thing for Canadians, who want to see the kind of infrastructure development we need to expand our housing stock. When we talk about municipalities and housing, I think this is important.

I was at breakfast with the Association of Manitoba Municipalities today. What are they talking about? They are talking about their very sincere and real desire to get more housing in their communities because it is a barrier to investment. They have businesses that want to invest, that want to build new facilities, but, as I said earlier, cannot do it because they know that there is not enough housing for the workforce that they want for their business.

Are these municipal politicians celebrating this? Are they shouting for joy and saying, “This is great. We are keeping the investment out by not having enough housing”? They are absolutely not.

It is strange that one should have to say such a thing, but with the leader of the Conservative Party spending so much time in here pretending that municipal politicians do not care about being able to get more housing in their communities or are not interested in attracting that investment to their communities, I think it is high time somebody set the record straight.

I can tell members that, for a community that is already so cash-strapped it cannot build enough housing to bring in the kind of investment that it wants to see their local economy prosper, slashing its resources is not going to help it build more units the next year. It is only going to compound the problem. It has got to be one of the dumbest ideas on offer in Canadian politics today.

We talk about investment and Canadian businesses, and there are a whole bunch of businesses that started up when the Canada greener homes initiative got started because they wanted to become the folks that do the evaluation of how well insulated a house is or they wanted to be the person who came in and installed the heat pump or the person who helped Canadians save on their energy bills and reduce their emissions. We do not see in here a commitment to renew that program.

We do hear outside of this place that there are a lot of businesses that are concerned because they thought the Liberal government had a long-term commitment to reducing emissions. They thought it was not a gimmick. They should be forgiven for thinking that. It is not too late for the Liberals to do the right thing and commit to renewing this program, not only so that Canadians can continue to have access to the funds they need to renovate their homes, reduce our emissions and save money on their heating bill, but also to save the businesses that have invested, in good faith, in the skills and equipment they need to be the people to drive that forward.

What else could we do for businesses that is not done in this fall economic statement? An extension of the Canada emergency business account, the CEBA loans, for the repayable period would make a huge difference not only to those businesses that are in serious distress and are deserving of having that credit extended but also to the government that presumably would like to be paid again. I do not know how a government could think that forcing businesses that they have loans with into bankruptcy is a way to get the money back. Who would benefit?

Workers lose their jobs. Owners lose their business, and the government does not get the money. This is a win situation for nobody, and it is confounding that the government has not put that together. I think it owes us all a much better explanation.

Of course, when those workers are put out of a job, what are they going to need? They will need employment insurance. Where is the government on employment insurance? It is adopting another boutique change to the program that is good for the people that it affects. New Democrats have supported an adoption benefit under the EI program, but we want an adoption benefit under a new modernized EI program, the kind that the Liberals have been promising for over eight years now, so that the whole program serves workers better instead of just adding more things onto a system that the Liberals admit is broken. It does not make sense.

Better than employment insurance is a job. We have supported investments in battery manufacturing plants across the country, but now we hear that those jobs may not be for people already in Canada after all.

That is a serious problem because it speaks to the government not having done its due diligence with these companies in ensuring that they are going to be hiring Canadians who are looking for work to do these jobs.

It also bears mentioning that a lot of those workers are not necessarily coming through the TFW program. They are coming under the auspices of labour mobility sections in trade agreements negotiated by Liberals and Conservatives alike, in this case, the South Korean trade agreement that was negotiated when the Harper government was in power and the Leader of the Opposition was at the cabinet table.

I want to mention the Canada disability benefit, because no folks in Canada are more hard hit by the current economic circumstances than are Canadians living with disabilities. They were promised a new benefit, and the government has not delivered.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been a parliamentarian for a good number of years, and during the early 1990s, I was the housing critic in the Province of Manitoba. At that point in time, the coalition was the NDP, the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives, who all said that the federal government had no role in housing. It was a sad time. It was a time when I debated, for the riding of Winnipeg North, against the NDP, saying, yes, it should have a role to play.

When the member talks about the lack of interest in housing, I can assure him that, in the last 50 or 60-plus years, no government has invested more money in housing than this government has in the last five years. In this fall economic statement, there is a tangible commitment, for example, for non-profit housing, including housing co-ops.

Would the member not acknowledge the fact that there is substantial money going toward non-profit housing co-ops in Canada in the fall economic statement?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to figure out how the Liberal government is so ineffective at delivering new housing. I think it may be that it is spending all its time thinking about Manitoba provincial politics in the early 1990s. I do not know. I was seven or eight at the time.

I would encourage Liberals to pay attention to the economy today. Yes, there has been a lot of fanfare and announcements, but I would say to the member for Winnipeg North that when they look at the details of the program, such as, for instance, the announcement made today that they will be out trumpeting, they should look at the details and the table. The table very clearly says this money is not coming for another two years. It should be now, and there should be more of it.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we can agree today that the word urgent does not come to mind after this economic statement.

The situation for our local media is urgent. Last week in my riding I went to Sherbrooke, where the media were gathered and calling on the government to take action. There is nothing.

The homelessness situation is urgent. This week, Granby is organizing a forum on social housing. These people do not need to be dumped on or for the government to interfere in their jurisdiction. They will come up with solutions. The government should have contributed its share of the effort for housing within its own jurisdiction.

The Canada emergency business account repayment situation is urgent. I am getting ready to go out with the Haute‑Yamaska chamber of commerce and industry. The NDP said that it also wanted this measure to help our businesses get through next year to prevent 20% to 30% of bankruptcies.

The situation for seniors is also urgent. The NDP voted in favour of my Bill C‑319, which called on the government to do something in this inflationary context where seniors on a fixed income are especially affected. They needed help. Every senior 65 and over should be getting a higher pension.

My NDP colleague supported my last two points. Where in the fiscal update are the CEBA repayment issue and the seniors issue, if the NDP managed to negotiate something with the government?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her private member's bill, which I was very happy to support.

I think it is pretty clear. There are plenty of things the NDP would like to see a federal government do that the Liberals are not prepared to do. We are asking them for things they are not prepared to do. Negotiation involves finding a way forward that enables us to get results for Canadians despite the fact that the Liberals are not prepared to do many of the things they should do. If the Bloc Québécois wants to try negotiating, that is up to the Bloc. I am very proud of the fact that, even though we cannot get everything we want, our negotiations can still produce results for Canadians.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, for his excellent analysis of the fall economic statement.

I want to be very clear in saying to the Liberals that I want them to turn their minds to page 31 of the fall economic statement. In terms of more financing for apartment construction, for 2023-24 and 2024-25, there is zero in both of those columns. In terms of building more affordable housing, there is zero in both columns. Then we turn to the co-op housing piece: For strengthening the co-operative housing development program, there is zero in both columns.

The big joke is that the Liberals actually announced $309 million for co-ops. That was a promise back in 2022, which they have slow-walked and not delivered on. They are now announcing it as though it were new money, and it will not even roll out until 2024.

The other thing that is missing here is this: Why is the government not stopping corporate landlords from renovicting people, buying up low-cost housing and displacing people, by saying no to them?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Vancouver East for all the excellent work that she does on the housing file.

There is no way that Canada can meet the deficit of affordable and social housing that we have if we are going to lose 15 for every one that we build. That is why it is imperative for the government to find a way to stop big corporations from acquiring buildings and kicking out the tenants. It could be done by a moratorium.

The way the government should have done it eight years ago was by renewing the operating grants. The fact that those operating grants were allowed to expire is what put so many affordable units back on the market. The Liberals promised to undo that measure of the Harper government, but they completely failed Canadians. We have seen hundreds of thousands of units pass from the hands of non-profit and co-op operators, who were offering affordable rents, to those of giant corporate landlords, which are more interested in paying big dividends to their shareholders.

We cannot continue like this. It is why we are seeing so many people on the streets in all our communities across the country. It has to stop, or the problem will continue to get worse and the tent cities will continue to grow.

The Conservative leader likes to talk about tent cities, but he does not like to talk about the things that have to be done in order to properly close them and make sure the people there have a place to go. The policies of the government he was a part of built those cities. It is going to take an NDP government to take them down in the right way.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I really wanted to recognize that there was no spending in the housing budget for the next two years in those particular areas.

I am very concerned about the fact—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Order. When everybody gets an opportunity to ask a question, I am sure we will all stand up and ask questions.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the fact that, in this fall economic statement, the Liberals are talking about how the cost of health care next year will be exceeded by the debt payments made by the government. It will cost more to pay the debt down than it will for the health care that is being put forward. At the same time, the Liberals are increasing the revenues from employment insurance by about 30%.

Does my colleague have anything to say about that and, particularly, the concern about health care?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question that the federal government has an even bigger role to play when it comes to funding health care. One of the best ways it could do that would be to establish a national pharmacare program.

This would reduce the amount that Canadians are already spending on prescription drugs. We know, and Conservatives like to remind us in other debates, that there is only one taxpayer. There is only one taxpayer when it comes to pharmacare too. The fact is that those taxpayers are paying a lot more for prescription drugs, having 10 individual provincial pharmacare plans or having to pay premiums into a workplace plan, than they would under one national pharmacare plan.

The single best thing that the government could do to increase health services and save Canadians money at the same time would be to institute a national, universal, single-payer pharmacare system. It is why we are holding their feet to the fire on that and expect them to deliver.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words from the member for Elmwood—Transcona on calling out the extent of the disappointment on housing time and again. We saw it again this afternoon. I give credit to the NDP on Bill C-56, which was able to negotiate a fix to ensure co-ops would have access to that really important measure.

When we see this happen time and time again, at what point is enough enough? At what point do we say that the juice is not worth the squeeze and that we need to make sure more gets done on housing, along with so many of the other challenges our country faces, and we need to make sure the government does better and more?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada has been kicking the can down the road when it comes to addressing the need for social affordable housing and more market housing for far too long. We should not be kicking the can down the road any further.

We do not want to trade a Liberal government for a Conservative government and then a Conservative government for a Liberal government because that has been the problem. It is how we came to where we are now. We are going to take the time we need to talk to Canadians to let them know there is an option for a real NDP government that would do what it takes to build the housing Canadians need.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues in the House. After reading this important fall economic statement, like many of my opposition colleagues, the member for Elmwood—Transcona in particular, I am disappointed. We have an opportunity to do important, urgent things, but it is being ignored, overlooked. Why? I do not understand it. As the other members have already said, we have the ability to do this. Our fiscal position would make it viable, but it is being ignored.

We are disappointed that there is not more in this fall economic statement on the urgent crises facing Canadians on health care, housing, affordability, and especially on the multiple ways in which the climate crisis is costing us. It is referenced in the fall economic statement that one reason food prices have gone up is from multiple climate events, which have caused crop failures, and that caused prices to go up. Putin's invasion of Ukraine has obviously caused energy prices to go up.

However, one key reason food prices have gone up is that climate events around the world are causing breadbaskets to produce less. Places that produced a lot of food are now producing less. There are ways we could have used this moment of fiscal restraint to improve our climate record.

This may be the last chance I have to speak at any length about the climate situation before I am no longer able to speak in this place. That is not because of a health issue, but we do not allow Zoom from foreign countries, and I cannot participate virtually from COP28, which will take place in Dubai from November 30 to December 12. It usually runs late so perhaps December 13.

This is a moment when the Government of Canada should really be looking in the mirror. I mean, usually we would stop with the G7, because Canada has the worst climate record of any country in the G7. However, the United Nations just released a report on the eve of COP28, which assessed the climate records and performances of every country on earth and the gap between rhetoric and action. Out of every country on earth, not just the G7, Canada is maintaining the horrific record of being the worst. On the gap in the United Nations' “Emissions Gap Report 2023”, Canada has a 27% gap between promises and reality. The next worst is the United States with a 19% gap, then South Korea with an 18% gap and the U.K. with an 11% gap. All the countries of the developing world, known in UN parlance as the G20, have a 4% gap.

What do these gaps amount to? The Paris commitments that we took in 2015, which are legally binding commitments, were not to any particular target of x% reductions against x year, because the incoming Liberals in 2015 kept in place the Harper target from May 2015. It was a weak target, but it was not replaced until 2022, so there were seven years of the same weak target. The Liberals are not close to hitting the previous Conservative government's weak target.

We often say in this place that Canada has never hit a single target it has put forward on climate, but I will be more specific: We have never gotten the direction right. When we say we missed the target, it is like we were on a dartboard with the typical bull's eye effort and, “Oh darn, we were close”. If we were firing darts, the bartender had better duck, because we have never gotten the direction right. When we promise that our emissions will go down, they go up.

What we are shooting for in the Paris Agreement is hanging on to global civilization. There was an opportunity in the eighties and nineties, which my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona talked about, when his dad was in this place, the very Hon. Bill Blaikie, who was the environment critic for the NDP in the eighties when I first knew him. He talked about global warming and what we had to do to avoid losing our glaciers and avoid warming temperatures around the world. We had a chance to avoid all those things. We no longer have the chance to say that we can avoid the climate crisis.

Our addiction to fossil fuels and our greed are driving those in big oil, who say they know science but do not want to talk about it because all they care about is delivering profit to shareholders. That is not good law. In Canada, the law requires that corporations think of other things and that directors of corporations consider all stakeholders. By the way, future generations should count for something, but we have, in the last number of decades, lost the opportunities we once had to avoid climate change and global warming altogether because of greed, the addiction to fossil fuels and a commitment to developing them and continuing to shovel money to the wealthiest in the world. The billionaire class has a priority that we do not understand when compared to our own children and grandchildren.

Right now we had an opportunity to pay attention to this report from the United Nations on the eve of COP28 and reflect any of its urgency in this economic statement. We lost that chance too. I am always torn between anger and grief. How do I talk to my kids about this anymore? How many of our kids do not want to have kids because of what they see in this world? The opportunity was there for the Minister of Finance to cut costs.

We need to take a “green scissors” approach. We need to cut costs and save the billions of dollars that are currently shared among fossil fuel companies and no one else.

This fall economic statement talks about responsible fiscal management, yet, at the same time, the government continues to pour billions of dollars into fossil fuels through funding and subsidies. Why not stop the $31‑billion Trans Mountain pipeline project, which flies in the face of indigenous rights and impacts the future of our children and our own grandchildren?

We could cut costs and have more money for the things the government says it cares about: affordable housing, reducing costs for Canadians and cutting the costs of forest fires from one side of the country to the other. I noted a reference in the fall economic statement at page 6, which looks at what has happened to global economic activity and the contracting of the Canadian economy. It says, “part of this decline was tied to temporary factors, including a record-breaking wildfire season”. I do not think that is so temporary.

We have not hit a new normal. Some people are attempting to use that language. We are experiencing precursors of what will only get worse. As I started to talk about, our commitment in the Paris Agreement for all countries all over the earth was to avoid going above a 2°C global average temperature increase and try to hold to 1.5°C. This latest report from the United Nations says we are on track to over 3°C.

These are not political commitments. These are moral commitments based on the science that says if we do not act now, the window closes on our kids having a livable world. Many colleagues in this place talk about their fear of what the Conservatives would do after the next election. I have certainly heard from people a lot about that. It is so extreme that people are prepared to ignore the fact that those who are responsible for condemning our kids to an unlivable world are sitting on this side of the House in the Liberal caucus. We cannot ignore the reality that it has been on their watch, with the people who claim to be climate leaders. The Liberals should thank the Conservatives for the only thing that makes the Liberals look good, for every time that the Conservatives have stood up to say that they do not want any carbon pricing.

A better argument could be made. We could do things other than carbon pricing to reduce emissions. As I said, we could start cancelling billions of dollars to fossil fuel companies. We could put in place what the hon. member for Kitchener Centre has put forward in Motion No. 92, an excess profits tax on the obscene profits and war profiteering of big oil. We could do that, but we cannot continue to ignore it.

I know there are many Conservative members of Parliament who care about the climate crisis and their own kids. They want to be able to stand up and talk about that, but it is not the current brand. I know there are many NDP members who would also want to cancel the TMX pipeline, but then they would get in trouble with Rachel Notley. This is an insanity that we are in right now.

I want to say that there are some things in the fall economic statement that are good, and it is about time. I am grateful that, at least, they are finally cracking down on Airbnb and the profiteering on short-term rentals that takes affordable housing out of our markets. I am glad to finally see that it takes the GST and HST off of mental health services, particularly for therapists and for going to talk to a psychotherapist or to a counsellor. I cannot believe it has taken so long. Astonishingly, that is it for measures for public health in this fall economic statement.

Again, the Green Party has consistently, in every platform over many elections, called for a national pharmacare plan, not filling in the gaps for people who do not have access to drugs. We are the only country in the world with universal health care in which coverage of pharmaceutical drugs is not automatically included. If we did that, as we know from the Hoskins study or the report that came out of a number of major universities called “Pharmacare 2020”, it would save us billions of dollars each year in the health care system. That is not mentioned either.

When we look at what is here, there are many good words about caring about affordable housing and co-operatives, as well as co-op housing as a way of going forward. However, we have tent cities springing up all over the place in this country. Greens believe that it takes the kind of concerted effort that takes place after a major disaster, when people are living rough. What does one do? What did we do as a country? Can we remember? It was a long time ago when the Halifax explosion occurred. I know the hon. member will remember the stories of that time. Obviously, he was not there then, but within months of that explosion, the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia built housing for thousands of people because it was an emergency.

Now is an emergency, and I hope that we will see better. The Minister of Finance ended her speech by saying that “better is always possible.” Better is possible but not very likely, unless we raise holy hell about the crises we face.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Mr. Speaker, it is the first time I get the chance to say, “Welcome back to the House” to my friend and colleague. It is good to see her happy and healthy and standing in the House of Commons. The House of Commons is so much better with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands here; I have to say that. It is great to be in a conversation where we talk about how we fight climate change and not whether we fight climate change, and I know we can always count on the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for that insight, perspective and strong advocacy.

I am glad the member spoke about co-op housing. I am never shy about the fact I am a proud co-op kid. My family grew up at the Chautauqua co-op, and my mom still lives there. My mom also runs co-ops and has been building co-ops, and she texted me today after some remarks yesterday in the House of Commons, to say to keep talking about co-ops because we need to keep investing in them. I was so thrilled to see an additional $309 million for co-operative housing. This is a non-market solution to a market-based problem, and it is so critical that we invest where we can and that we build long-term affordability into the housing system. I am thrilled there is additional money in there. With respect to affordability, we know that climate change presents an existential threat not just to our species but also to affordability. The number one reason food costs are up is climate change.

I am glad to see the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands back and healthy in this place. I thank her for her advocacy. If she wants to share any insights on co-ops in Saanich—Gulf Islands or anywhere in Victoria, I am happy to listen.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words of my colleague from Milton. At the time that I had a stroke, a number of members of this place sent me nice notes and prayed, and I appreciate that a lot.

With respect to co-ops, we had a commitment to $1.5 billion in budget 2023, and that money has not started to be spent yet, if I get that right. We do have new money announced in the fall economic statement, but why have we not moved things faster? The model of co-op housing is a perfect model. CMHC used to build a lot of co-op housing. Why are we not building co-op housing as fast as we possibly can? Why are we still allowing real estate investment trusts to keeping housing as a place for speculators to make money? We need to have homes where, as much as possible, we are making sure people are not investing in a speculative way such that homes for people to live in are used as a mechanism for corporations to increase their profits. I do not know where I am going with this, but sometimes I think of how we could just deal with the word “greed” by changing one letter, getting rid of the "d" and adding an “n”. We need to have policies that are designed for people who care about each other more than they care about the expanding wealth of the top 1% or .01%, whose wealth keeps growing while the lowest-income people struggle.

I was so disappointed that the fall economic statement does not provide for school lunch programs or school breakfast programs. The people in low-income communities need to know that if their kid goes to school hungry, somebody will give them something to eat before they start trying to learn.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to welcome back our colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. I am pleased to see her back on her feet and looking strong. That is what we want.

This economic statement shows that the Liberal government is moving closer to the centre. It has even introduced certain measures that were proposed by the Conservative Party. Meanwhile, the Liberal Party is forgetting a very important concept: equality for all. More importantly, it is ignoring environmental issues, which affect us all equally. The impact of climate change has been felt everywhere, especially in Quebec with this summer's forest fires. My colleague mentioned a number of issues. If she could have chosen one issue to be included in the economic statement and addressed quickly, what would it have been?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

There are a few issues, Mr. Speaker, but since I have to pick one, I have to say that I am surprised to find no mention in this fall economic statement of the need to allocate more funds to the Canada greener homes grant, which is a program designed to make each home more energy efficient with the help of each homeowner. It is bizarre, because considering the recent announcements on carbon pricing and home heating costs, it is clear that this program is urgently needed, but most of the money has already been spent. The coffers are empty. We need a program that will allow every homeowner to green their home by making it more energy efficient, but no such program can be found in this economic statement.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the story of northern Ontario is that we gave away the gold, the timber and the hydro, but the greatest resource we gave away, year after year, was the talent of our young people. That is why the investment in education was so fundamental.

We saw the destruction of Laurentian University through the exploitation of the CCAA and the destruction of the Franco-Ontarian programs, the indigenous programs and the midwifery program for northern women. New Democrats said we had to deal with it. We called for an emergency debate in the House. New Democrats brought forward legislation to call for the loopholes to be closed and to protect public institutions.

Finally, we are seeing the Liberals recognizing that there is a problem with the exploitation of the CCAA against post-secondary institutions. They have not included in their fall economic statement the need to protect all public institutions so that we do not have Danielle Smith, Premier Moe or Doug Ford putting hospitals and other institutions under CCAA to strip them, destroy them and take them apart.

Is my colleague willing to work with the New Democrats? We are going to fight to ensure that what happened at Laurentian University is never done again to a public university or any kind of public institution. Public investment will remain, and opportunities will remain in this age of privatization and corporate backroom deals.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be honoured. The Greens commit here and now to work with the NDP to make sure that public institutions, such as Laurentian University, never face the threats of insolvency and bankruptcy, and the scandalously bad management, that left students high and dry. I remember that debate. I remember so well what was done. Finally, we see something in this fall economic statement to end that kind of practice of predatory bankruptcies.

Let us keep working to keep what is public, public. Common sense is a good thing, and it sounds great, but let us return to common decency.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one element of my colleague's speech that I really appreciated was the framing that this is not as simple as what we choose to spend or not. It is also about what we should be cutting, including subsidies to oil and gas, for example, to the tune of $22 billion. What could we invest in if we were not wasting funds there?

I would like to hear more on the calls tonight to ensure we end legislative poverty for people with disabilities. The government has promised this many times over, but has yet to show any commitment in dollars for the Canada disability benefit. Could she share her reflections on that?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to my colleague from Kitchener Centre for his consistent hard work to make the disability benefit real. He has been working tirelessly to get the Liberal government to keep its promise in this area.

We also had a promise from the Liberals, in I cannot remember how many campaigns, but starting in 2015, that they were going to get rid of subsidies to fossil fuels. Instead, they have expanded a number of them. They have promised to deliver this benefit to people who are disproportionately living in poverty or people who are living with disabilities. It is time to get that disability benefit. It is time to see it. I honestly cannot believe that it is not in the fall economic statement. Let us see it ASAP. Let us get it delivered to the people who need it most.

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

I would like to thank everyone for their interventions this evening.

It being 6:35 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 9, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:35 p.m.)