Debates of March 29th, 2023

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no need to get angry.

My colleague started by telling me that the government is good at administering programs, and he spoke about employment insurance. I hope that the government will not dip into the dental care fund as it did with the EI fund, because it is not doing a good job of administering that.

Health care is a provincial jurisdiction and an area where the federal government often shows its incompetence. We know that from experience. What the Government of Quebec is saying is that health is important to us and that existing programs must be improved.

What Quebec is saying is that birthing rooms remain closed, there is a lack of palliative care, cancers are going undiagnosed, emergency rooms in the regions are struggling to stay open, and mental health services are unavailable. We are not saying that dental care is not important, but rather that the NDP is using this issue for electoral purposes. We see that clearly. That said, as public decision-makers, we must set our priorities. The NDP is making the next election its priority.

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

Madam Speaker, the government had signalled that it was going to move into an era of fiscal restraint, yet here we are with a deficit that is as large as ever. I wonder if the hon. colleague has any comments on the size of the deficit in this budget.

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

Madam Speaker, when we look at the debt and the deficit, we have to look at it in proportion to the ability to pay. Any banker who is asked for a $2,000 or $3,000 loan does not treat someone with an annual income of $10,000 the same as someone with an income of $50,000 or $100,000. The same applies to people with assets and people with no assets.

The first thing to look at is the debt-to-GDP ratio. The Conservatives go from dollars, which they call nominal, when it suits them, to the ratio when that suits them. A little consistency would be nice. Beyond that, public finances have to be looked at as a whole. It is important to be concerned about both the deficit and the federal debt, but if the provinces are going broke in the meantime and they have to borrow money, or choose between borrowing money and caring for their residents, that has to be taken into account.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today as the NDP finance critic to say that we will be voting in favour of the budget.

The budget includes initiatives that we think are very important. We worked very hard to ensure that they were included. There is a dental care plan for students, seniors and people with disabilities. The GST credit will be doubled for another six months, which is important right now because of inflation and the high cost of groceries, housing and many other things. There are requirements for the investments that the government is going to make in a clean economy. That will ensure that workers get their fair share, with good pay and benefits.

We are hearing rather common responses to the budget. We can be for it or against it. We have heard some contentious speeches, but the NDP is trying a different approach this time. At a time when hate, anger and polarization are increasingly seeping into our politics, we want to try to find a way to work together, even with people we fundamentally disagree with, on finding common objectives and making progress, instead of simply criticizing what is broken. There are plenty of things that are broken, but we need to find a way to set our differences aside and work together to make progress for the benefit of Canadians.

We are living in times when politics and doing politics are getting more difficult. There is a lot of anger, a lot of justified anger, with the difficult circumstances we are facing. There is a feeling of unfairness at the burden of things not falling equally on the shoulders of all Canadians. People should be angry about that, but it is not enough to just be angry. People have to try to find solutions, which means trying to bring people together, not dividing them.

New Democrats are prepared to support this budget, as we were prepared to enter into an agreement with the current government to not cause an election in exchange for progress on a number of key policy areas. We see some of those reflected in this budget, according to the timeline that had been agreed to in that agreement. First and foremost is dental care, which is a really important initiative that would allow millions of Canadians, who up until now have not been able to, to get their teeth fixed. Children, seniors and people living with disabilities are finally going to get access to dental care, which has been eluding them for a long time.

That has had real consequences. It has affected their ability to get and keep a job. It has affected their sense of confidence in socializing with others. It has affected the way people look at them. It has caused them pain. These are real things that we are going to help a lot of Canadians take on in their lives and find solutions to.

We are doubling the GST rebate, not for the first time but for the second time, because we recognize that, in a crisis of affordability, people need to receive help, and that help should be targeted in a way that does not simply pour more fuel on the fire of inflation. This is the best way to do it. Members do not need to take my word for it. They can take the word of many private sector economists who, incidentally, are not NDP members. They do not always have nice things to say about us, but they recognize that this is a way to get help to people who need it and to do it in a way that is responsible and reflects inflation.

Finally, as this is long overdue, the government is preparing to make some serious investments into the new energy economy that is coming. It must come if we are to reduce our emissions and avoid the worst consequences of climate change. As the government is doing this, we have been working hard to ensure that workers stand to benefit from those investments. They will benefit not because a cheque will be handed to corporations, as the Liberals so often do, and then we are left to beg them to do the right thing, but because it will be written into the funding agreements to pay prevailing union wages with benefits and pensions in those wage packages. This is so we will know that Canadian workers, when they show up to work to build the economy of the future, are going to be fairly compensated, that it will not be paid out in dividends to international or Canadian shareholders, the wealthy shareholders who hide their money offshore so we do not see a benefit here.

That is important as we move forward. One of the biggest concerns that workers have had about the changing economy and the changing role of fossil fuels in our economy has been that they would get left behind, and initiatives like this are what are necessary to make sure they are at the centre of that transition and that they stand to benefit as much as companies.

Those are some of the things we think are positive about the budget. I was saying earlier that there is a lot to be angry about now. We have seen grocery prices go through the roof, and that is affecting families. We know there are record lineups at food banks. We have seen a generation in Canada begin to give up on the dream of home ownership because prices continue to go up and up. We have seen indigenous people continue to suffer from the legacy of colonialism in so many ways, and we have seen them lose family members and friends far too regularly as a result of the intergenerational legacy of colonialism in Canada. People are starting to see the consequences of climate change and appreciate the enormous costs, both personal and financial, that are coming for all of us if we do not find a way to get on top of it.

As such, there is a lot to be angry about. I can get pretty angry about some of these things. I appreciate that members here who care about their communities and care about our future get angry about these things. However, I say to Canadians to watch out for the guy who is selling anger without any real solutions because to be angry, but to not try to channel the legitimate anger people are feeling about the injustices in Canada into a real solution, is to take us nowhere fast. When that anger turns in on itself, it is self-destructive, and that is why we need to take that anger and focus it on solutions so we can make real progress.

If we want to propose solutions, we have to understand the problems. Unfortunately, we do not have to understand a problem to get angry about it. We saw this earlier from the Conservative leader, somebody who is willing to get really angry about problems he clearly does not understand. If he does not understand the problem, it means he is not going to be able to find a solution to it.

What am I talking about? I am going to go through a list. First of all, I will go to the economy because the leader of the Conservative Party likes to talk a lot about the economy. He is right. Inflation is hurting people. We agree on that, but if we want to stop inflation from hurting people, we have to propose real solutions, and that means we have to understand the problem. He would have us believe that only government has caused inflation in Canada. That is not true. During the pandemic, we saw, across the world, manufacturing facilities shut down and shipping shut down. We saw all sorts of supply chain issues as a result of shutdowns due to a once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic.

It is strange for me as the democratic socialist in the room to have to be teaching market principles to my Conservative colleagues, but anyone who understands the market will know that, when we have that level of significant supply chain disruption, we are going to see an increase in prices. That is going to happen. It is unbelievable to me that the so-called economic analysis of the Leader of the Opposition does not even take a moment to recognize the very real supply chain disruption we have seen as a result of a global pandemic.

The other thing he refuses to mention, which is just what the Governor of the Bank of Canada refused for months to mention until we squeezed it out of him at committee, is that corporate greed has been a significant driver of inflation. Even the Governor of the Bank of Canada has now said that companies have been raising prices beyond the increase in costs they have incurred and that the inflation happening because of the global pandemic created circumstances in which they felt they could raise their prices and get away with it because people would not know why the prices were going up. They might think it was justified. He said that, as inflation comes down, we may see prices come down even further, as companies no longer have a pretense to be raising their prices.

How does the Conservative leader pretend to have answers to inflation when he will not talk about corporate greed? Do members know who else will not talk about corporate greed? It is the Liberal government. That is something they have in common. It is a blind spot in their understanding of what is happening to Canadians right now, and they work together to try to silence the voices that would point out the role of corporate greed. I say shame on them both for that.

That is why we have made it a mission here to push the government to do things that it would not otherwise do. That includes the permanent 1.5% increase in tax on banks and insurance companies, which the Conservative leader loves to decry, but he never once has expressed support for taxing back some of the money that banks and insurance companies improperly took from Canadians during the pandemic. Do not tell me that guy has solutions; it is not true. He does not even have the decency to recognize a good solution when it comes up and slaps him in the face.

He likes to talk about housing, and rightly so. Canadians are rightfully angry about what is happening in the housing market. The Conservative leader likes to pretend that this is a product of the last eight years. In 2004, a house that sold for $30,000 in Winnipeg would sell for $60,000 in 2007, and then for well over $120,000 in 2012. Housing prices have been doubling in Canada for a long time. They doubled every few years under the last Harper Conservative government. Therefore, they cannot tell me that this is a product just of the last little while. It is a problem, and it is a growing problem, but it has been growing for a long time.

How do we solve the problem around housing? Browbeating municipalities into approving building permits for houses that will be built and that Canadians cannot afford is not a solution. Developers have been building a lot of houses over the last number of years. Do members know who has not been building houses? Governments have not been building housing. Before 1995, the CMHC, in partnership with provincial governments, would build 15,000 to 20,000 units of affordable and social housing every year, but they stopped when their funding was cut in 1995 by the then Liberal government. If we take the last 30 years and multiply the 15,000 to 20,000 units per year that would have been built, we land right around 500,000 units. Do members know what the deficit for affordable housing in Canada today is? It is about 500,000 units.

How did we end up with this deficit of affordable housing? It is not rocket science. It is because governments with the same philosophy as the leader of the official opposition cut and cut and cut the housing budget right out of the federal government's budget. That is why we have such a dearth of affordable housing today. That corresponds with the financialization of housing that we have seen, not over the last two years or the last eight years, but over the last 30 years. That is when it started taking off, because we no longer had more affordable housing being built at the bottom end of the price spectrum. That meant all those folks who otherwise would have moved into affordable or social units had to pinch their pennies and make tough decisions about what they could afford and what they could not, so that they could start to compete in the housing market. That is how we got to where we are.

Therefore, I will say “No thanks” to the leader of the official opposition, who runs around saying he is really angry about housing but does not even understand where the problem came from. He does not understand that policies like the ones he is preaching have caused the housing crisis we are facing today. It did not happen overnight; it took 30 years and, unfortunately, it is going to take a long time to fix. That is why we cannot afford to have somebody who is so ignorant about how we got here in the first place be in charge, because it would push us back another 10 years before we even start addressing the problem.

Let us talk about the indigenous peoples of Canada, who have suffered generations of colonial violence when the government determined to commit genocide, to take children away from their parents, to rob them of their language and to deny them access to their cultural heritage. We are still living out the consequences of that. The answer is not going to come without empowering indigenous people to be masters of their own economic destiny. Obviously, that is important when we talk about developing natural resources. It is important when we talk about the investment of $4 billion, here in this budget, for a “for indigenous, by indigenous” housing strategy so that indigenous people have the tools and resources to begin solving the housing crisis for themselves. That is important. If they can bring private capital and do some of that building, in addition to what the government can supply, that is a great thing. There are certainly examples of those successes.

We should not kid ourselves. Just as we cannot rely on the market that has created the housing crisis writ large to solve it without beginning to build again the kinds of affordable housing we had been building before, when times were better in terms of housing affordability, we cannot pretend somehow indigenous people now are going to rely on the market and market mechanisms to be able to house their people. If that was going to work as a strategy, I swear it would have been done already.

Indigenous people are not sitting around waiting for a handout when they have other solutions. What they are waiting around for is a government that is willing to work with them and resource them to be in charge of their own destiny and to be able to find the solutions in their own communities.

They have been economically sabotaged by the Canadian government since Confederation, when they started to have successful businesses and were told they could not take their products off the reserve, that there was going to be a pass system and they needed the permission of the Indian agent. We should not be surprised it did not work out. Now those are some of the problems we are trying to solve.

I hope that gives some understanding of the housing problem and what we are going to need to do in order to be able to fix it. I do not doubt a genuine desire to solve the problem, but I really do question whether the Conservative leader and his group have the intellectual wherewithal to be able to solve it. We would not know it by listening to what they have to say about the problem.

It is a similar thing when it comes to climate. The fact of the matter is we need to get our emissions down; there are no two ways about it. It has to happen, so we need to find ways to be able to do it. We need to find ways of doing it that put workers at the centre of that transition so they have good union jobs that pay well, that provide good benefits and that provide a pension for them when their working life is done, so they are able to support themselves in retirement and support their families along the way. That is how we are going to get this done.

If we look to the budget, how does this begin to assert some solutions? When it comes to Canadians who are making really difficult choices between caring for their teeth, buying their food and paying the rent, a national dental care program to cover children, seniors and people living with disabilities makes a difference. It makes a difference for their dignity. It makes a difference for their health, which otherwise deteriorates until they present in an emergency room because it has become so bad. We pay for it then, but we pay a lot more than what we are going to pay for some preventive dentist visits.

It is also a question of affordability. For those who are at the margin, who maybe have been able to afford some dental care in the past but for whom it has been difficult, this takes that cost off their plate and allows them to no longer need to put the care of their teeth in that delicate balance of costs they are trying to juggle in a time of increasing costs. The dental piece is very important.

There is another doubling of the GST rebate. The Liberals can call it a grocery rebate, they can call it whatever they want, but it is a doubling of the GST rebate. It makes sense. It is something that is targeted support that does not contribute to inflation. It is not going to households that have the ability to cause inflation; they could not cause inflation if they wanted to. They are just trying to buy the same basket of goods they used to be able to afford and no longer can afford. That money just helps them put most of the same things on the table.

I talked earlier about some of the investment tax credits and the labour conditions that are attached to those, because that is really important. It is also really important Canada begins to decarbonize and electrify. We cannot do that without producing significantly more power than we currently do. We need a grid infrastructure that can support that power if we are going to electrify not just homes and vehicles but industry such as aluminum production and steel production.

Canada has the capacity to be a world leader, so that means an opportunity for some folks to make a lot of money. This is an economic opportunity just as it was in the seventies when Peter Lougheed had the vision to make public investments in the oil and gas industry then to benefit his province.

I do want to talk about some of things that are not in the budget, but I will leave that for questions and comments.

The House resumed from December 12, 2022, consideration of the motion that Bill C‑215, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), be read the third time and passed.

Employment Insurance Act

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could say that I am pleased to be speaking tonight, but that is not really the case. I would have liked to have seen my colleague's bill, or my own bill, which was introduced in the last Parliament, passed by the House to allow sick workers to fight their illness, get healthy again and get back to work. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening. I am here again tonight, and I think this is my third or fourth speech on the issue of sick workers.

We are talking about seriously ill workers who have paid into EI their whole lives. That means that there is a deduction, an EI premium, on their paycheque. That means that the employer has also paid contributions. It is an insurance program. Currently, sick workers are entitled to only 26 weeks of EI sickness benefits. We know very well that is not enough.

I believe I have repeatedly asked whether this government is a heartless one. There is a story I would like to tell. We talk a lot about statistics and data and documentation, but tonight I am going to talk about one particular person who called me last week. He asked me to speak on his behalf tonight.

I am talking about one of my constituents, Normand Chevalier, who lives in Saint‑Polycarpe. He is a worker and has been working for 50 years. I think this is the first time in his life that he has had to apply for unemployment. He is not applying for it because he does not have a job. On the contrary, he had a very good job. Quite honestly, even at 65 years old, he would have liked to continue working.

Normand Chevalier called me last week and said to me, “Mrs. DeBellefeuille, I have tonsil cancer.” It is a serious cancer. He has been undergoing treatment for 15 weeks now, and it is costing him a lot of money. He lives in the country. Saint‑Polycarpe is a rural town in the Soulanges area of my riding. There is no public transportation to the hospitals in Montreal, so he has to drive himself. He told me that he has worked his entire life and this is the first time he needed help. He has been going to radiation treatments for 15 weeks now, and he has to keep going because it is not over. If he wants to have a chance to survive, he has to continue his treatments.

He said, “You know Mrs. DeBellefeuille, I've used up my benefits.” He thought that with the government's top-up, he would be entitled to 26 weeks, but that is not the case. He began his treatments before December 18, 2022, and is not entitled to 26 weeks. He is among those who believed that because the number of weeks was increased from 15 to 26, they would at least be entitled to the additional weeks of EI sickness benefits to continue their treatments, to fight and, above all, not to worry about how they would pay their rent.

Last week, this gentleman told me that he was a driver at a company in Soulanges, that he was well liked and that he could hardly wait to get better so he could return to work. However, he was very worried because he did not know how he was going to pay his rent next month. Everyone has a story. Mr. Chevalier lives with his 16-year-old granddaughter. She, too, does not understand what is happening. Why is her grandfather, who is sick, hard-working and brave, not entitled to 26 weeks?

The bill we are debating this evening calls for 50 weeks and we support that. Some cancers require 37 to 40 weeks of treatment to get better and to beat the illness. That has been documented.

Mr. Chevalier told me that he was calling because he was so angry and he found the government to be heartless. When the minister increased the number of weeks from 15 to 26, why did she not decide that anyone who was already undergoing treatment would be entitled to 26 weeks? He said, “I thought that was how it was going to work, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.” However, he realized that the exact opposite was true.

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

I would remind the member that she should not use members' names in the House, even if it is her own name.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Noted, Madam Speaker.

I know that Mr. Chevalier is listening to me, because I promised to speak on his behalf in the House of Commons. There is at least one person listening to my speech tonight. Mr. Chevalier asked me to speak on his behalf because this makes no sense. It has been documented that the government can afford to provide 26 and 52 weeks of benefits to workers who are sick. Our critic on this issue, the member for Thérèse-De Blainville, has said as much, and she is calling for it in committee.

Mr. Chevalier was telling me that he may be reaching retirement and that he has no intention of claiming his pension or his provincial plan benefits because he wants to keep working. There is a shortage of drivers, so he wants to stay on. However, the government is giving him a hard time and messing up his plans because it is not giving him an incentive to return to the workforce.

He told me that he is going to fight his illness and manage on his own, because he has always been self-reliant. It is important for everyone to know that this government had the means and could have done it. This could have been included in the budget. There are times when ministers get it wrong. The minister got it wrong by increasing the benefit period from 15 to 26 weeks.

Bill C‑215, which we are debating this evening and was introduced by the member for Lévis—Lotbinière, is a commendable bill that should make sense and could have been accepted and passed a long time ago.

Every member of the House, even on the government side, gets phone calls like the one I received from Mr. Chevalier. People do not understand why the government has not done something meaningful to encourage sick workers to get through their illness with dignity.

Today, I am pleased to be the voice of Mr. Chevalier, but I know that there are other Mr. Chevaliers in every riding who would have liked to congratulate the government for standing by them, as it promised, by helping sick workers recover with dignity and fight their illness without worrying. We know that EI sickness benefits do not cover 100% of a person's income, they cover 55%. That is not a lot. People already do their part, on top of all the expenses they have to cover to go see specialists.

In addition to fighting their illness, people like Mr. Chevalier who live in a rural area have to find transportation and pay someone to bring them to their appointments. I do not know whether my colleagues are aware, but people do not feel all that well after undergoing a radiation treatment. They need support. All of that costs money. In addition to having just 55% of his salary for 15 weeks, Mr. Chevalier had to use what little he had in his pocket to pay for all his treatment-related costs.

Mr. Chevalier told me today that he is going to have to move. He cannot afford his rent for the coming months. He is lucky that his landlord has a heart, unlike this government. The landlord let him out of his lease so that he could go live somewhere else where the rent is cheaper. Quite frankly, Mr. Chevalier does not have any other income. The only other option he has is to apply for social assistance.

What the government is telling this worker, who is in his sixties and who worked and paid into the system his whole life without ever getting an EI cheque, is that it has no heart. The member for Lévis—Lotbinière is trying, once again, to introduce a bill to fix that.

What we want is for those on the other side of the House to wake up and for the government to provide royal recommendation to allow Bill C-215 to pass, to allow people who are sick to be treated and often to fight for their lives, to beat the illness and, above all, to return to work.

I implore the government once again to give royal recommendation to Bill C-215, for all workers and for Normand Chevalier and everyone like him. If the minister does not intend to give royal recommendation, I hope she will go back and say that anyone who is currently receiving treatment is eligible for the 26 weeks.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière for introducing this bill, which would extend workers' benefit period for illness or injury to 52 weeks.

This change is long overdue. It will have a significant impact on the lives of Canadian workers who have an illness or are injured, who are willing to work hard but unable to do so because of a condition beyond their control. I think this change would show compassion, as my colleague said. Moreover, the workers are paying for this. They want to know that they have some insurance if they lose their paycheque because of illness or injury.

For a long time, the New Democrats have been advocating for an extension of the EI sickness benefit. We know the difference it will make in the lives of Canadians who are suffering from all sorts of conditions, not least of which is cancer. People cannot go to work when they are sick with cancer, and we want them to be able to take the time they need. In many cases, courses of treatment for cancer go well in excess of 26 weeks, so we are setting people up to fail by telling them there is a sickness benefit for them when they need it that we know very well is not long enough to take them through the course of their treatment. It is heartbreaking to hear of workers who lose their home because they are not able to work and do not have an income when their EI sickness benefit runs out. This is something we know the government can do, something it should do and something we have been calling on it for a long time to do, and I think it is about time.

I am grateful to the member for Lévis—Lotbinière for having presented the bill. However, I also want to take a moment to comment on what I think we also need, which is a larger reform of employment insurance.

It is nice that there is a private member's bill coming from a Conservative member in respect of EI. I note that we just heard the leader of the official opposition speak about the budget. He made a reference to EI, but I think people might have missed it because he used a euphemism, not the actual term for employment insurance. He talked about payroll taxes, and that is the only time we will hear him talk about employment insurance.

The leader of the official opposition only refers to EI as a payroll tax, when in fact it is a premium that workers pay to be insured against loss of work so that when they lose their job, they do not lose their home. EI premiums are actually lower now than they were under the Conservative government, but the only words he has to say about EI are about payroll taxes. I say shame on him for that, because we need far more widespread employment insurance reform as the country faces a recession and as we come out of a pandemic. It was made very clear that our system prepandemic was inadequate, and now we have the same system all over again, with not a whit of difference. The entire lesson of the pandemic was forgotten overnight last September when the Liberals cancelled the temporary employment insurance measures.

It is hard to believe that this is more than a sporadic fit of compassion coming from a Conservative member given the Conservatives do not talk about the need for meaningful employment insurance reform. The only mention they make of employment insurance outside of the bill is as a payroll tax. We will not be able to support the employment insurance system well unless we talk about how we pay for it. That is part of the important conversation we will have over modernization.

There are folks who believe, as the NDP does, that the government ought to come back to the table as a funding partner in employment insurance in order to provide more training opportunities. Now, that is less about folks who are sick, and hopefully when they recover, as we hope they will, they will be able to return to the job they had before. However, for many people, when they lose their job, sometimes that job is not available anymore. Sometimes the industry has changed and they need retraining to be a good fit for another employer, possibly in a different industry.

People on employment insurance are not well supported, just like the many people who were on CERB or the CRB who saw their industries, like tourism, devastated by the pandemic, industries that are still struggling postpandemic. There were no training offers from government. It did not say it would train people off CERB to meet the employment demand of employers who are complaining they cannot find qualified people; rather, it wanted to starve them off the CERB. It cut it off and then expected them, when they had no income to pay their rents or buy their groceries, to go out and learn new jobs at the same time.

Guess what happened. It did not work. The government ended the CERB program with very little notice and a lot of support from the Conservatives. Did it help with the labour shortage? It did not, because it was never a plan; it was just a cruel assumption that somehow people were staying at home sitting on their hands, uninterested in working, when in fact a lot of them did not have jobs to go back to because they came out of industries like tourism and hospitality, which are still struggling to recover from the days of the pandemic.

Therefore, I appreciate a Conservative MP's bringing forward what I think is a decent proposal for one aspect of the employment insurance system, but if government really wants to do right by Canadian workers, it is going to take a hell of a lot more than this, even just with respect to employment insurance.

I hope that when the Liberals are having conversations internally about this bill, they will start to talk about the larger employment insurance system and how it is not simply a payroll tax but an important insurance product that helps Canadians transition from industry to industry, job to job or, in an industry like mine, construction, when there is a slowdown in work. We are always working ourselves out of a job in construction. Eventually we finish the job. That is good. We want projects finished on schedule and on budget, but that sometimes means there is a pause between one project and the next one, and employment insurance has to be there for people so their families are not on the line while they are looking for that next project to build.

Let us have a far more fulsome discussion in this place about employment insurance than this bill represents on its own, even as we vote to make this bill law.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to this bill. I really do appreciate the comments from the member for Elmwood—Transcona prior to me in regard to the manner in which Conservatives often refer to employment insurance as a payroll tax. It is not a payroll tax. It is a program that is funded by both the employer and the employee, and it is a program that is used as an insurance mechanism to take care of individuals when they reach a point in their working career when they need to access that employment insurance. It is a critical program, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill.

I would remind the House that this is not the first time this bill has come forward. This bill came forward in another form previously. I believe it was Bill C-265. Unfortunately, at the stage after debate on the bill in its previous form, it ended up not being able to proceed because it did not have the royal recommendation required in order to proceed.

Members might know that royal recommendation is required for any private member's bill in Private Members' Business that comes forward that is expending money on behalf of the government. One cannot do that within a private member's bill. It requires a royal recommendation from cabinet in order to proceed. The reality is that very few bills that come from Private Members' Business actually get that royal recommendation.

As a matter of fact, early in my time in this House, in 2016, I brought in a bill related to employment insurance as well, which required royal recommendation. It did not get that royal recommendation. I was not able to convince the government to do that, even as a member of the governing party. Luckily, I was able to allow it to continue to pass at various stages with the assistance of all the opposition parties and the majority of the backbench on our caucus, but the reality is that one will eventually get to a point where one cannot proceed any further.

I think it is important to do that. If it was not done, then every single bill that came forward would be a bill authorizing the government to spend money, and one cannot do that through Private Members' Business.

The only difference, in my understanding, between this bill and the previous version is that it has added two more weeks to it. The previous version talked about 50 weeks of employment insurance, and this one talks about 52 weeks.

I find it unfortunate that the sponsor of this bill, despite the fact that it is a well-intentioned, well-meaning bill that warrants serious consideration, is doing the same thing that was previously done. Ultimately, when tabling this bill, the sponsor must have known the outcome of it and how the Speaker ruled on it the first time.

I understand that there was also, if I recall correctly, an opposition day motion from the Bloc Québécois on the exact same issue. We have seen the issue come forward several times, and we have ended up in the exact same place every time.

Having said that, I think it does warrant real consideration. As we modernize our employment insurance system, we should be looking at opportunities where we can improve. I think it is worth pointing out that we have, as a government, improved those EI benefits, for starters, on maternity leave. This is something I was targeting in my private member's bill.

It used to be that the only people in the skilled trades were men, but now we are seeing more women enter the trades. The reality is that if a woman is a welder, for example, as in the case that inspired my bill, and if she were to become pregnant, she would not have the ability to take leave and still get paid, still have that income.

If a woman is pregnant, she is not sick, but she might still have barriers to work. The employer that Melody had was a very reputable company in my riding of Kingston and the Islands, but it was just not large enough to sustain a full-time employee who was off on leave. She looked for ways to use EI, but she was unsuccessful in doing that. At the time, I was able to convince the government through the issue. Even though it would not give royal recommendation, it did agree to extend the number of weeks so that if an individual was in the same circumstance as Melody in my riding, EI benefits would apply long enough for her to get to full term with her pregnancy.

That is just one way that we have expanded the EI sickness benefits, extending it from 15 to 26 weeks, to fulfill our 2019 platform commitment. We know that this extension will benefit approximately 169,000 Canadians every year. It is part of our long-term plan for EI modernization, and I believe that together, we will continue to build an inclusive, flexible EI system that all Canadians will benefit from, particularly those who need to access it, for years to come.

I admire the resiliency of those who keep bringing this issue forward. It is unfortunate that the government will not be able to support it given the fact that it requires royal recommendation. I should not even phrase it like that. It is unfortunate that it will not even get to the place where we can have another vote on it. Since the precedent has been set for the exact same bill, the Speaker will most likely turn it down based on the requirement for royal recommendation. However, as I have previously indicated, royal recommendation is very seldom, if ever, given to private members' legislation. Nobody knows that better than I do. I brought forward a bill on EI specifically in the very early years of my time here, the first year in which royal recommendation was required. Given that fact, my bill was not able to continue down the necessary path.

I encourage members to continue to talk to the ministers responsible about this issue and see if we can move in a direction that helps to modernize EI. We know that the labour force is changing. I only gave one small example, that of more women working in trades and the different requirements they might have when it comes to taking time off as a result of becoming pregnant, in the example of my bill. We need to continue to modernize our employment insurance system, and input from all members is very important in that regard. Therefore, I encourage those who are passionate about this issue, as I am, to continue speaking about it.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to speak to Bill C-215, sponsored by my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière, because I have had experience with some really difficult situations involving the duration of EI sickness benefits. The people I know, as well as the people who came to my office, did not ask to have to deal with these terrible illnesses one day. I am mainly going to speak about cancer because that is what most of these people were dealing with.

These people never expected that one day, they might have to choose between focusing their full attention on healing and slowly dying while trying to heal because they could no longer afford their treatment. For some, the treatments are very long.

I was listening to the speech given by my colleague, who had a lot of empathy and compassion for people in such situations. Unfortunately, the government could have granted a royal recommendation and allowed this bill to be voted on so it could finally be passed after many years of trying. I will have the opportunity to speak to that in my speech.

The fight to help people with these serious illnesses get access to money from employment insurance has been going on for years. Most of these people contributed their entire lives to a system that is supposed to be there to protect them. Unfortunately, when the time comes for some people to be able to benefit from it, the system simply does not meet their expectations.

I wanted to commend my Bloc Québécois colleague from Salaberry—Suroît, because she has worked very hard on this file. She talked about Normand Chevalier, who was listening to her speech and may have been patient enough to listen to the other parliamentarians until my speech. I want to say hello to him. I can tell him that there are people working very hard on this issue, as my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière has been doing ever since he had the opportunity to introduce this bill. There are people working very hard to change things. Unfortunately, as we have seen, things are not changing.

I am directly and indirectly involved in the Relay for Life. Every time I participate in a Relay for Life event, I am always amazed to see that a town as small as Plessisville has the largest Relay for Life in Canada. This shows how willing people are to support cancer patients and survivors.

It is heartbreaking to walk the Relay for Life route and see the thousands of little luminaries lit for people who have cancer or survived cancer, or for families and people who have lost a loved one to cancer. Everyone should come to Plessisville to see how big this event really is. Luminaries line the entire two-kilometre route, creating a mosaic of light, and each and every one of those luminaries is dedicated to someone. How many of these people had to make a difficult choice between treatments and work?

The answer is too many. I do not want to get into a fight over numbers. We do not need to argue about whether it is 23% or 30%. Either way, it is too much. Nobody knows how long treatment will take. Nobody knows how to cure each of these diseases. Nobody knows how each person is going to respond to treatment.

One thing is certain. These people are forced to choose between devoting themselves 100% to their recovery or devoting themselves 50% to their recovery and 50% to their work, because they have no income and they cannot go through such an ordeal without income. This can affect young people, but it often affects women or men, mothers or fathers. It can affect people who have a family to support, whether they are men or women. There are not many Quebeckers or Canadians who can afford to go an entire year without earning a cent.

That is why I think the right thing to do would have been for all parliamentarians to finally pass Bill C-215. The government had promised on several occasions to agree to this request, which came in particular from two people whom I would like to salute today.

Marie‑Hélène Dubé started a petition that was presented here in the House. It was signed by over 600,000 people and calls on parliamentarians to set aside their differences and partisanship and finally recognize the needs of people with cancer who have to undergo treatment so that they can focus on getting well. Ms. Dubé has helped draft many bills. She herself has had cancer several times and she has never given up, but I think that she is a bit discouraged that parliamentarians have not yet found a solution. I have never spoken to her, but I saw her in the media. I looked at her website. I saw everything she has been doing to try to convince parliamentarians.

There is always a parliamentarian who is ready to take up the torch. When one party is unable to introduce the bill because of the way the lottery draw for private members' bills goes, someone else takes up the torch. This time, it was my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière. He and the member for Salaberry—Suroît both worked very hard on this bill. I want to recognize the work of Ms. Dubé, who has not given up, even though she may be a bit discouraged. Today, I read her most recent post on the website 15weeks.ca. I will read it even though it is not that recent.

We are currently on the 14th bill to amend the act to increase benefits to more than 50 weeks, after 13 years of vigorous campaigning. If you can believe it, this campaign that I have been waging by myself since 2009 has been going on so long that I have qualified for my first FADOQ card. That's crazy! I was 38 years old when I gathered the first of the 619,000 signatures… I am honestly so exhausted, but I could never abandon you.

My colleagues are applauding her and I think she deserves it.

How far will we have to go? How long will we have to wait? There have been committee studies and unanimous motions adopted in the House, where all parliamentarians said they agree with the principle of 50 weeks. However, no government has made a move to change things. It is not a matter of money, because we can make it happen by using the EI fund. It is not a matter of politics, because everyone knows someone, like a family member or a friend of a friend, who has had to go through a difficult situation because of EI benefits.

I know there is not much time left, about 15 minutes, but perhaps someone on the government side will hear this final appeal from Ms. Dubé, from my colleagues and from all those who have championed this bill and its previous versions. I hope that the bill will finally receive a royal recommendation so that these people can focus on their recovery. It will send a message of hope to their loved ones. Let us send hope to all those who have had this disease and survived and to the many others who will one day have to deal with this terrible disease.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too will speak to Bill C‑215, which is being debated today in the House.

Bill C‑215 seeks to make a change to employment insurance. I am getting tired of having debates on employment insurance. I wonder why we are talking about employment insurance in the Canadian federal Parliament.

In 1867, when Canada was founded, there was a division of powers set up. The federal government took care of the money, the army, international border contacts and customs, but all the social affairs fell under the responsibility of the provinces. The reason employment insurance is a federal jurisdiction is that someone pulled a fast one in 1940. The economic crisis in 1929 was still having ill effects, the Second World War had just started and, in the meantime, there was a Liberal premier in Quebec, Mr. Godbout, who did not necessarily want independence for Quebec and let it drop. That is why the federal government is responsible for employment insurance today.

I would like to use an analogy about the federal government. I have a five-year-old son. Sometimes when a few children are playing together, we often see one of them go over to a friend who is playing with toys and snatch the toy away from them. He will go over to another friend who is playing with a toy and snatch that away. He will want all the toys that his friends are playing with. He will take them all, he will not be able to hold on to any more toys, but he will still try to take some more. That is classic behaviour. Eventually, the toys will quite simply gather dust. He will no longer play or be interested in them.

That is more or less how the federal government operates. It tries to take on all the responsibilities, keeps taking a few more here and there, but then neglects them. That is happening with EI.

Employment insurance is not working. The federal government is not working, and I believe that there is no desire to see it working. That is sad.

That is not just for employment insurance; there have been problems with passports and the Phoenix pay system. The problems keep piling up. This sort of thing is always happening with the federal government, but that does not stop it from wanting even more responsibility. It tries to tell us how we should be running our hospitals. It decides to launch all kinds of programs that it should not be launching. Meanwhile, the EI system is not working. The government is not carrying out the reform that people have been calling for for years.

That is unfortunate, because every time there is an election the Liberals promise to reform the EI system. They hold consultations and then more consultations and in the end they do nothing to reform the system.

As a result, right now, only about half of unemployed workers are covered. That means that one out of every two people who lose their job is not covered by EI even though it is an insurance plan and they should be eligible. The federal government was even siphoning money off the fund, which ran surpluses for years. From 1996 to 2009, $60 billion were siphoned off the EI fund. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives put unemployed workers' money directly into their pockets and left workers in the lurch.

Today we are talking about Bill C‑215, which seeks to amend employment insurance, more specifically sick leave. Sick leave is another thing that is not working. A person who gets sick gets only 15 weeks and that is it. It is a season, nothing more. They can spend the summer recovering, but if they are not better at the end of the summer, then they do not get any more money.

It is sad because if someone loses their job and is the one person in two who is covered, they can usually get quite a few weeks of benefits, maybe even up to 50 weeks. I do not remember exactly how many weeks are available these days, but it is somewhere around there. A person can go about a year with that. However, if that person gets cancer and has to stop working, they are entitled to only 15 weeks. That is an inequity that does not work. The purpose of Bill C‑215 is to correct this inequity. This is not the first crack at this.

My colleague, the member for Salaberry—Suroît, introduced a bill in the House during the last Parliament to fix this. In her case, it was not about getting to 52 weeks, it was about going from 15 weeks to 50 weeks. If it were 52 weeks, that would be even better. We could applaud that. We support this initiative, obviously.

However, this shows how hard she worked at the time. Her bill was even known as the Émilie Sansfaçon act. Émilie Sansfaçon was a woman who was on sick leave. It is called a leave of absence, but really, it is a forced resignation due to illness. She was on EI for too short a time and eventually passed away. She did not live to see Bill C-265, introduced by my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît, pass.

It is sad, because her father, who supported the Bloc Québécois, later ran for the Bloc Québécois and hoped that this bill would eventually pass. My colleague from Salaberry—Suroît worked hard. The bill passed first and second reading, was sent to committee and returned to the House for third reading. It went through all the stages. What was missing? Royal assent was missing. It just needed the government to say yes, nothing else.

That did not happen, which is sad. The Senate could have helped, too. It is sad, especially when we look at all the people who have supported this over the years. My colleague from Salaberry—Suroît, who introduced the bill, was not the first to come up with this idea. Yves Lessard, a Bloc Québécois member for the Belœil region, had already introduced a similar bill. Paul Crête, a Bloc Québécois member for the Bas-du-Fleuve region, had also already tabled a bill on this subject. Robert Carrier, a Bloc Québécois member for the Laval region, had already introduced a bill on this subject. Jean-François Fortin, a member of Parliament from eastern Quebec, had also introduced a bill on this subject.

The Bloc Québécois has repeatedly called for this problem to be fixed, for sick leave to be given to people who fall ill and for them to be supported during this difficult time. It is not a luxury for them to be able to eat, pay their rent and receive 50% of their pay, if not less, because it is 50% of the eligible amount. All we have been asking for is support to get them through a difficult time. By not giving them the money they need to heal, the government is adding to the stress they are under. It is sad.

I spoke about the members of the Bloc Québécois who worked on this, namely MPs Lessard, Crête, Carrier and Fortin, but there were also members from other parties. I must admit that we are not the only ones who had this idea. I could talk about the NDP MP Dawn Black, who introduced a bill three times to remedy the problem with sickness benefits and to provide more support for these workers. There was Fin Donnelly, a member who introduced a bill to resolve the issue four times. The next person that I name should certainly help the government understand that it needs to support this bill. Denis Coderre, a Liberal Party MP, once introduced a bill to resolve the issue with sickness benefits.

It is fascinating to see that members from all political parties have introduced bills year after year. This has been going on for what must be over 20 years now, maybe even 30. This is a problem that members are trying to solve. Unfortunately, they are not succeeding, either because their bills do not receive royal assent or because the party in power decides not to support them.

What we have now is a bill introduced by the member for Lévis—Lotbinière. It is important to highlight that it is his bill. We are at a point where this is coming from a Conservative member. We have reached a point where the Conservatives are also saying that the problem must be fixed. When everyone says that the problem must be fixed, there is no reason why it should not be fixed. It would be truly sad if the Liberals did not want to fix it. That would make the Liberals look more right wing than the Conservatives, more heartless than the Conservatives. I find that hard to believe. I hope that is not what happens.

Deep down, no one wants to leave sick people in the lurch. No one thinks it is okay for sick people to be in a position where they cannot afford to buy food, pay for groceries, be able to take the transportation they need, put gas—or electricity, I hope soon—in their car, so they can get where they need to go to receive care. It is sad. I hope that once the debate on Bill C‑215 is over, things will not end there. I hope we will finally find a solution and manage to do something positive for these people.

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

The hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, now the die is cast. After a year and a half of work, we are the end of the process with my Bill C‑215.

I want to thank everyone who contributed from near or far at every stage of the bill and who participated in the deliberations on this important issue of ensuring the financial security of people living with a serious illness requiring a period of convalescence that goes beyond the 26 weeks being offered.

I would have liked to see in yesterday's budget an openness by the Liberal government to help seriously ill workers who are asking for EI benefits for a period that goes beyond the 26 weeks that were hard-won in December.

That being said, we have made progress in the debate on this social security issue that is important to all Canadians. I greatly resent the requirement to obtain royal recommendation from the government, one that has blocked the wishes and a majority vote of the House in favour of Bill C‑215. My thoughts are with all those who have a serious illness who will not get this financial help that would have given them a little more room to breathe.

Every year we lose special people to cancer. I would be remiss if I did not mention my friend and neighbour Roger Flamand, who has cancer. Roger is fighting for his life right now, surrounded by his wife Lorraine, his daughters Annie and Marie-Josée and his entire family.

With courage and resilience, Roger is going through a difficult time, and his qualities as a fair, helpful and generous man are serving him well during this trial. Family, friends and neighbours, above all neighbours, are supporting him day after day. Our thoughts and prayers are with him as he continues his personal journey with respect and compassion.

I would like to personally address the man who was the very best neighbour for 50 years. I remember the warm summer nights when Roger and my father Armand had long conversations. What a beautiful and close friendship they had. It was really heartwarming to see them.

When my father passed away, Roger often told me that he considered Armand, my father, to be like a second father. This evening, I can tell him that my father considered him to be one of his sons. Roger's presence will always be a source of comfort and solace. On behalf of Chantal, my children and myself, I thank him for being a part of our lives. We love him dearly.

With that, I will conclude the debate.

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

The following is a statement from the Speaker on Bill C‑215:

It is my duty to inform members that the notice requirement in respect of a royal recommendation has not been met. Pursuant to Standing Order 79(2), the question on the motion for third reading of the bill will not be put. Accordingly, the order for third reading is discharged and the item is dropped from the Order Paper.

(Order discharged and bill withdrawn)

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

If you seek it, you may find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House call on the government to provide a royal recommendation for the bill.

[An hon. member]

No.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Finance

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise at this hour to bring forward a question I asked the Prime Minister on February 1 of this year.

The budget was tabled yesterday, so when I referenced it in my question, it was in the drafting stage. I had thought that one might, in drafting the budget, look to the previous promises made by the governing party to see if they did not create a framework or guidance to assist the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance in drafting the budget.

I suggested that, for instance, if times are tight and we want to contain spending, it would be a good idea to cancel spending money on fossil fuel infrastructure. The government had suggested, in previous election campaigns, that it was a priority to meet climate targets and follow the advice of scientists. I also asked the Prime Minister if it was not a good time to stop spending money on the Trans Mountain pipeline. Between the time I asked the question and today, it has risen in its estimated cost to over $30 billion.

Its original price tag, back when I intervened at the National Energy Board and it was a private sector project being run by Kinder Morgan, was approximately $5 billion, so that is a six-fold growth in the price and a remarkable $12-billion increase since this time last year. That is really quite astonishing.

I also asked if it would not be a good idea to save money by cancelling buying the F-35 fighter jets, which remain controversial in the United States, where Pentagon critics are wondering if they are good value for money because the F-35 is still plagued with problems.

I asked whether, going forward, we should not deliver on the promises the government has made, such as funding the disability benefit, following up on promises for pharmacare, and delivering on an independent Canada water agency and the promises to live up to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. My closing question to the Prime Minister was whether he would use the budget to deliver on his promises.

Now, we know the answer, and it is a partial yes. I will start with the good news. At long last, the budget does commit to, along a specific timeline, the Canada water agency. I will congratulate my friend, the hon. parliamentary secretary, who is here tonight to respond. The Canada water agency is something he cares a great deal about. It is now to be based in Winnipeg.

There is more funding for fresh water than we have seen in some time, although not as much as was promised in the Liberal platform, but let us say that is a partial delivery on a promise. I hope my question helped. Who knows if it did? The Canada water agency is an important promise. It will be independent, and it will see legislation brought forward. Again, the clock is ticking on that. I hope when they say “soon”, they mean “really soon”, and not “two years soon” like the last ones.

The Trans Mountain pipeline is not mentioned in the budget. We know the price and the cost of that are falling on Canadian taxpayers because it is now a Crown corporation. We know the debt load from buying it definitely falls on the government. The various promises to not spend money on it really ring hollow, as construction continues against the interests of sovereign first nations, such as the Tsleil-Waututh, Musqueam, Squamish and W̱SÁNEĆ nations, which absolutely protest its existence. We know it is a climate killer.

There were various ways we could have reduced fossil fuel subsidies, but in the budget the government expands them, as we are now seeing dirty fossil fuel used to create hydrogen, so it is no longer green hydrogen. We also have seen, and this is the worst part of the budget for me, a commitment to open the Arctic offshore to oil and gas development.

I will close there.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, indeed it is a pleasure to participate in tonight's debate and talk about budget 2023, a made-in-Canada plan for a strong middle class, an affordable economy and a healthy future.

I am going to respond to a few of the promises the government made that are referenced in the member's original question. One of those was regarding funding for a Canada water agency.

We know how essential healthy lakes and rivers are to Canadians, communities and businesses across the country and we know the threat that climate change and pollution pose to our fresh water. This is why, in budget 2023, we are moving forward to establish a new Canada water agency, which will be headquartered in my home community of Winnipeg.

I really want to thank the hon. member, leader of the Green Party, for her steadfast support of the concept of a stand-alone departmental agency, independent of Environment and Climate Change Canada, reporting directly to the minister. This will be a legislated Canada water agency, and that legislation will, I hope, be introduced soon. Meanwhile, the Canada water agency will be operable in a form that will be effective until it formally becomes that stand-alone agency.

This is in addition to proposing major investments to strengthen our freshwater action plan. For example, we will invest $650 million over 10 years to monitor, assess and do restoration work on the Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg, Lake of the Woods, the St. Lawrence River, the Fraser River, the Saint John River, the Mackenzie River and Lake Simcoe. These are water bodies from coast to coast to coast, and these investments will support better coordination of efforts to manage and protect fresh water across Canada.

Again, I want to thank the hon. member for her support of our freshwater investments. I agree with her that we need to go further and faster. Indeed, there are future budgets where I certainly hope those investments will be considered.

The hon. member also asked about seeing progress on advancing reconciliation. Since 2015, the federal government has worked with indigenous partners to advance reconciliation and make significant distinction-based investments to respond to the unique histories, interests and priorities of first nations, Inuit and Métis communities. Through budget 2023, the government continues to advance reconciliation by supporting healthy communities and investing in self-determined solutions. For example, budget 2023 proposes investments to improve safe and affordable housing, which is critical to improving health and social incomes, and to ensuring a better future for indigenous people and their communities.

I will end there and continue my remarks after the next question.

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

Madam Speaker, it is good to be able to recognize progress on a key commitment, the Canada water agency, but nothing is more pressing, particularly in light of the intergovernmental panel on climate change's last report, which says that we are absolutely running out of time. There is no wiggle room and there is no time for procrastination.

I have to say that I was deeply shocked to find, on page 117 of this budget in case others are looking for where they might find it, a commitment to Arctic offshore oil and gas. This runs counter to everything we know, just like opening up Bay du Nord for offshore drilling. Opening up our Arctic for more oil and gas in the region, the part of this world most changed by the climate crisis, to start thinking we should be drilling for oil and gas there, is an abomination.

We know that what we have to do is to cut emissions. The only way to cut emissions is to be bold and stop being cowardly.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, budget 2023 will make targeted and responsible investments to build a stronger and greener economic future for all Canadians. In the end, these will make Canada a better place to live, work and thrive for everyone.

I am proud of the fact that budget 2023 will mean better public health care, progress toward truth and reconciliation, new opportunities for Canadian workers and, as I think the hon. member wishes, as do I, building a stronger, cleaner, greener and more sustainable 21st century economy.

Climate Change

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the climate crisis is more urgent than ever, with deadly heat waves, summers of smoke and wildfires, extreme flooding and hurricanes. These events are happening now, and they are only getting more frequent and more severe. While the Liberals say they believe in climate change, they are unwilling to take the action needed at the scale and with the urgency that matches the crisis we are in.

In this week's budget, New Democrats were able to successfully push the government to invest billions into clean energy, sustainable jobs and green infrastructure, but I was very disappointed that there was no concrete action on eliminating fossil fuel subsidies in Canada. We have heard promise after promise, but instead the government is headed in the opposite direction, with more handouts to profitable oil and gas companies, ostensibly to provide them with financial help to reduce their emissions. Why would the government not regulate this? Why not make them reduce their emissions and pay for it themselves?

U.S. President Biden's budget eliminates billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies, and he has talked about how these companies are making “more money than God”. In contrast, the Liberals think the Canadian taxpayer should be helping out these rich oil and gas CEOs.

A report earlier this month by Canada's spy agency, CSIS, warned that the climate crisis poses a profound national security risk. This confirms what scientists have been saying for decades. It also confirms what many indigenous communities have been warning us about: the melting of Arctic ice and permafrost, rising sea levels for coastal communities. These changes will threaten the Inuit, Métis and first nations ways of being and ways of life, many of which have been in place since time immemorial.

Droughts, flooding and extreme weather in Canada and around the world will mean decreasing food supplies, which means increasing costs for groceries. CSIS highlights the likely increase in violent extremism because of the climate crisis, as well as migration we have never experienced before, with millions of climate refugees, people who will be displaced due to climate disasters and famine, or simply fleeing areas that are too hot to live in.

Our world is changing rapidly and people are scared. They are scared for themselves, for their children and for their grandchildren.

The world’s top climate scientists have made it crystal clear that we must reduce our emissions now. Given the urgency, scale and gravity of the crisis we are in, why would the government continue to hand out billions of dollars to the profitable oil and gas industry? These companies are making record profits. They made more money last year than they have ever made before. Why would the government not force these companies, which are fuelling the climate crisis, to pay to clean up their own pollution?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the hon. member's questions and enjoy working with her on the environment committee of Parliament.

To start, the Government of Canada is taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector. We are not giving it a free pass, as is implied in the question. We have committed to cap and cut oil and gas emissions at a pace and scale necessary to achieve Canada's 2030 and 2050 climate targets. We are doing this in a way that allows the sector to compete in a global economy that is transitioning to net zero, and of course, keeps good, green jobs growing here in Canada. This policy will send a clear, long-term signal to invest in clean technology, low-emissions energy assets and supporting infrastructure while avoiding investments in oil and gas production that do not incorporate best-in-class technologies and infrastructure.

We are working closely with industries, provinces, territories, indigenous partners and civil society to design this approach. Putting a price on carbon pollution creates a financial incentive throughout the economy to reduce emissions and invest in clean innovation. Heavy industries across Canada, including oil and gas activities, are subject to carbon pricing under the federal output-based pricing system, or OBPS for short, or equivalent provincial systems.

We are taking action to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. Current federal regulations require the oil and gas sector to reduce methane emissions by 40% to 45% below 2012 levels by 2025. In 2021, Canada joined the Global Methane Pledge, which aims to reduce global methane emissions by 30% below 2020 levels by 2030. As part of this pledge, Canada committed to develop regulations to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by at least 75% below 2012 levels by 2030.

Implicit in some of the member's questions is that the government is not doing enough. I would emphasize for the hon. member, and I know she has heard this from me before, that I think we would agree on this side of the House that we need to do more. However, we are working very hard to cap oil and gas sector emissions; we are implementing a clean fuel standard; we are investing in carbon capture and storage, which is going to be very important, as pointed out by the IPCC; and indeed, we should be phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2023. That is this year, and it is two years in advance of the G7 target that was set some years ago.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member. I enjoy working with him on the environment committee in Parliament.

The member brought up the oil and gas emissions cap, and I want to briefly touch on that.

We know that the Liberals have been dragging their feet on this, and that the oil and gas companies have been aggressively lobbying for delays, loopholes and more subsidies. Therefore, we need a strong oil and gas emissions cap if we have any hope of reducing our emissions.

However, the member did not answer my question, and so I will give him another opportunity. Why not force these rich oil and gas companies, which are making more money than God, to pay to reduce their own emissions?