House of Commons Hansard #175 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I find it sad that the member has been standing up here regurgitating the phony talking points of the Prime Minister for eight years, and all he has is a fake position not even halfway up the House of Commons. The member has done nothing but reinforce the inflationist policies that are robbing the paycheques of hard-working people right across this country.

On this side of the House, we stand for the common people, who actually do the work in this nation. We are going to lower the tax burden so that people can bring home more of what they earn. We are going to make this a country that works for the people who do the work, and that will happen as soon as we form a Conservative government.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leader of the official opposition for his very good speech, especially the parts in French.

As he knows, the French language has a very rich vocabulary. We have a recipe for shepherd's pie: beef, corn, potatoes. For big numbers we say: millions, billions, trillions. I invite him to repeat after me.

He began his speech with a lecture about consistency by using the Minister of Finance's own words. He pointed out inconsistencies and told us that we could no longer believe what the government says because it is not consistent.

Right after that, he quoted the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who he threatened to fire for incompetence a few months ago during the leadership race.

When I openly say that someone is incompetent and that the first thing I would do when I become prime minister is fire him—I can assure members that I will not be prime minister in this place—I do not quote that person. I do not quote incompetent people who I want to fire.

My question is the following: Does he still want to fire the governor of the central bank, whom he quoted in his speech? If he no longer wants to fire him, what thought process led to his change of heart?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, will I fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada? I have a few questions for the Bloc member.

If a mechanic does not do his job, what happens? He gets fired, right? The mechanic gets fired. If an electrician does not do his job, what happens? He gets fired.

If, instead of doing his job, which is to keep inflation at 2%, the Governor of the Bank of Canada borrows and prints money to fund the government's deficits and this leads to inflation that, now, is creating poverty among Canadians, yes, he will be fired.

In the real world, if someone does not do their job, they get fired. I will take the Government of Canada into the real world by firing people who do not do their job.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, the question was why quote someone as an authority if they believe that person should be fired.

However, that question was never answered.

I have to say that it is a little hard to know where to start. Obviously we are starting from different positions and indeed a different way of understanding the situation the country finds itself in.

The Leader of the Opposition had a lot of things to say. He said he would prohibit his ministers from participating in the World Economic Forum, I suppose as Stephen Harper did when he was prime minister, a time when he announced from Davos that he would be raising the retirement age in Canada from 65 to 67. That is what he did at the World Economic Forum. I am glad the member will not be sending anyone there so that when an announcement like that is made, the Conservatives can be held accountable in this place.

The member then talked about a blue seal program, which is a good idea and one the Conservatives promised in 2006, but after nine years of government, they did nothing for it.

Then he talked about giving $4 billion to the gatekeepers in this budget for housing. I presume the member means the “for indigenous, by indigenous” housing strategy being funded to the tune of $4 billion in this budget. He had the audacity to criticize that after he invoked the example of the Squamish Nation, which is doing a good job of building housing.

Should we be surprised that he does not understand what is in the budget when members of his party announced they were going to vote against it before they even saw it? No, probably not. However, the question is, after saying all of those things and given that he likes to point out people saying things and not following through, why should Canadians believe him when the government he was a part of did not act on the very things he is talking about today?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, to the first question on why I would quote someone I want to fire, I quote members of the Liberal government all the time, and it is my plan to fire them in the next election.

As for the blue seal, we did not promise that in 2006. We did promise to speed up foreign credential recognition, which we actually achieved. However, we need to go further, and in the last eight years, that has only gone backwards. We would bring in a blue seal standard, a merit-based standard, to test people who are professionals so they can qualify just like those who were born in this country.

The member finally said that I simultaneously criticized the government's spending on housing while praising the first nations that removed gatekeepers to get things built. Let us be clear. The first nations in Vancouver did not build housing with money from government. It is private financing that builds the vast majority of housing in this country. We do not have a lack of financial ability to build housing. The Liberals are spending $89 billion on it. The problem is that we ban housing from being built in the first place. If we get the gatekeepers out of the way, we will build more homes and spend less money. It is common sense. Let us bring it home.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Conservative

Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, when I speak in high schools, I ask the kids what they think about spending tens of billions of dollars on health care. I also ask what they think about spending tens of billions of dollars on debt. Then I get to say to them that they do not have to choose, because we do both.

What message of hope do we have from this side of the House for our young people?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. The member is quite right in pointing out that every dollar we have to give to bankers and bondholders is money we cannot spend on hip replacements, heart surgeries and other necessary care in our hospitals.

What is astonishing to me is the wealth transfer endorsed by the NDP and the Liberals. They have no problem taking money away from treasured national social programs to give it to the wealthiest bondholders and bankers. Even the most famous global left-wing economist, Piketty, from France, has pointed out that debt interest is a major wealth transfer from the working class to the super-rich. We are the only party against adding this debt. The other parties want to continue to add to it.

We on this side of the House will bring hope to young people by capping spending and unleashing the productive forces of our talented people so we can produce more of what cash buys rather than just create more cash. We are going to make this a country that works for the people, where it does not matter if a person's name is Martin or Mohamad, Singh or Smith, Poilievre or Patel. As long as they are prepared to work hard, they can bring it home and achieve their dreams.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the ineffable member for Mirabel.

Looking at the budget—

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

Order. I would ask members who are talking to take their discussions outside.

The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on a point of order.

Notice of Closure MotionMotion No. 2—Senate Amendments to Bill C-11Government Orders

5 p.m.

Ajax Ontario

Liberal

Mark Holland LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the consideration of Motion No. 2 regarding Senate amendments to Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, I give notice that at the next sitting of the House, a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that the debate be not further adjourned.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government, and of the amendment.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am flabbergasted. They just announced yet another gag order, as I understand it. That is how eager the government House leader is to shut down debate yet again. Muzzling the House is unacceptable.

About the budget—

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh!

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue with my speech, even though there is a hubbub coming from the Conservatives. Excuse me, it was not the Conservatives. It was the Liberals.

On page 25, there is a chart that shows the forecast for the government's projected debt, despite the large expenditures that were announced in this budget. What it shows is that, in 30 years, the federal debt will be virtually paid off.

Here is the situation. There are so many resources at the federal level—that is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us year after year in every one of his studies—and Ottawa has so much leeway that it will be able to pay off its debt, the one it has had since Confederation, in about 30 years, at the rate things are going.

At the same time, the Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us that at the rate things are going, the provinces will no longer be able to provide the services they need to provide. They will be technically bankrupt in a few decades. This goes back to the unfortunate fiscal imbalance. The federal government is not sharing enough resources for the provinces to deliver the services that are in their jurisdiction and for Ottawa to do the same.

In this budget, health care funding is six times less than what was requested by Quebec and the provinces. It is six times less. Quebec agreed to take that money because it was either that or nothing, but we know that it will not solve the problems in health care. This is a major issue.

When we look at the deficit in the budget, it is $40.5 billion for this year. That is what was announced. However, when we look at lapsed funds, meaning the items that were voted in the House and those that did not need to be voted, for the last year available, the total is $41 billion. This year's deficits and the lapsed funds cancel each other out. Using this approach, we can say that despite this year's record spending, the budget is practically balanced because there is money in Ottawa. I consider that to be very problematic.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has told us that if Ottawa wants to maintain a stable debt-to-GDP ratio, there is another $40 billion that it could use to lower taxes or increase spending or transfers. When we add those numbers together, there is $80 billion per year in fiscal room.

Yesterday, I asked officials at the Department of Finance where to find the lapsed funds in the budget. They could not answer my question. They said it was very complicated and that those funds were not necessarily in the budget. At least, that is what I am given to believe until I get a more satisfactory answer.

When Paul Martin was finance minister, he would underestimate the true revenues in his budget by approximately 2% every year. He would present a deficit, saying that we needed to tighten our belts and continue to cut funding for services to the provinces. He would say that we had a deficit and that things were not going well. At the end of the year, he always had good news to announce. He would say that, in the end, the situation was a lot better than it seemed. We figured out his trick. He was lowering the estimated revenues by 2% every year.

What concerns me about this government is that it votes for more money than it needs for its expenditures, which means that it has money left over at the end of the year. When it presents the budget, there is a deficit, and things do not look good. Then, at the end of the year, it has more money than expected. According to the most recent data available, it is $40 billion a year. When we add that to the other $40 billion that the Parliamentary Budget Officer says is needed to maintain a stable debt-to-GDP ratio, that makes $80 billion.

That is three times as much as Quebec and the provinces asked for to fix the health care funding problem and to provide adequate services to the public. Unfortunately, this goes back to the sorry issue of the fiscal imbalance that I was talking about. Ottawa has more resources than it needs to provide its services, while it is the opposite in the provinces.

Here is the proof: Chapter six of the budget says that, with the snap of its fingers, the government is going to spend $20 billion less a year by cutting expenses related to McKinsey, ministerial travel, and so on. The government is going to save $20 billion a year doing that. It is as easy as that.

Compare that to the austerity budget of the Couillard government in Quebec. The government chose to cut homework help at elementary schools to save hundreds of millions of dollars, which sounds like peanuts by comparison. That is not on the same level whatsoever. Here in Ottawa, it is easy to do things to spend less, but in the provinces, to save a dollar, they are no longer trimming the fat. They are down to the bone. That is the fiscal imbalance.

The fiscal imbalance means that Ottawa is not being careful with its spending, that it is not controlling costs. The examples I am about to give are not exact comparisons, but they will put things in perspective. When Ottawa handles an EI case, it costs two and a half times more than when Quebec handles a social services case. It is not exactly the same, but it gives us an idea. It costs this government two and a half times more to provide a service that is similar to one provided by Quebec. It costs Ottawa four times more to issue a passport than it does for Quebec to issue a driver's licence. Everyone remembers the passport crisis. Perhaps there is a bit more checking involved, but again, these examples put things in perspective. Ottawa is not careful about costs because it has plenty of resources.

I was very sad to see that funding for health care allocated in the budget is six times lower than the amount needed to provide better services in Quebec. Since the provinces do not have sufficient resources, Ottawa is using this as an opportunity to buy itself areas of jurisdiction. We know that Quebec and the provinces are responsible for health care. Here, the coalition is putting a dental care system in place. The Constitution, which we have not signed and that was imposed on us, states that the provinces are responsible for dental care. Ottawa thinks it has so much money that it will implement this. Ottawa is buying areas of jurisdiction.

At Confederation, the choice of having a federation was a historic compromise to get my nation to embark on this adventure. That way, we would have our government at least, which would be sovereign in its areas of jurisdiction. Since my election, no matter what parties are in power, there is always a move toward centralization, toward the famous legislative union that Macdonald dreamt about. In the context of that centralization, Ottawa would be above other governments, and my government, my National Assembly, would no longer be sovereign in its areas of jurisdiction. When I read the budget, that is what I see.

Ottawa wants to create more programs in areas under the jurisdiction of other governments. Meanwhile, it is bungling the services that it is responsible for. Take employment insurance, for example. We are experiencing inflation and there is a risk of a recession. The budget doubles the GST tax credit, which is a measure that we support. However, other than that measure, there is nothing to indicate that we are in a crisis. Given the risk of a recession, it is urgent that the EI system be reformed. What is this government doing? What is the Minister of Finance doing? They are doing nothing at all. If the country goes into a recession when the EI system is broken, it will not be good.

What is worse is that Ottawa has decided to cover all of the costs incurred during the pandemic, except the deficit in the EI fund. It is making workers pay higher premiums to pay it off, even though when there was a surplus in the EI fund in the Paul Martin years, the government was dipping into it to pay off the debt. That is unacceptable.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting and very important speech.

I would like to ask the hon. member from the province of Quebec, one of the signatories of the health care agreements, a question. We have come to an agreement with all 10 provinces and territories. The federal government will have an additional $198 billion, in total, of health care spending over the next 10 years to the provinces. With the negotiations for the child care agreements, I obviously salute the province of Quebec. It was a first mover on a child care program for its residents.

I ask my hon. colleague across the way if he is not in favour of the health care agreement the Province of Quebec signed with the federal government, which is contained within budget 2023.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple: No, because it is not enough. It is six times less than what Quebec and the provinces are asking for to prop up the health care system.

What is Ottawa doing with this agreement? It is stabilizing the proportion of support it provides to the health care system. In 2015, when this government was elected, the federal government was funding 24% of health care spending. With what is being proposed, it will still be 24% in 10 years.

To restore fiscal balance a bit, it needs to be 35%, because it is not enough. The Government of Quebec told us that given the choice between this and nothing, it decided to take this, but it is not enough and it is not going to solve anything.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy listening to my colleague from Joliette because he is very well versed in public finance. I congratulate him on his speech and thank him.

I would also like to remind members that the member for Joliette and I were elected for the first time in 2015. He will remember that, in 2015, the members opposite got elected by saying that they would run three small deficits and balance the budget in the fourth year. It was true in 2015. That is the reason they were elected.

Over the course of eight years, there has been one colossal deficit after another. Today, we have a $43‑billion deficit and $44 billion in debt servicing costs, which is twice as much as last year.

My colleague will be pleased with my question, because it will indulge his sovereignist inclination. Here, in the House of Commons, he spoke about “my government” and “my parliament”. He could have gone to the National Assembly of Quebec, given that elections were held in Quebec a few months ago, but he decided to stay here. I do not have a problem with that because he is a nice guy.

As a sovereignist, what does he think of the attitude of this government, which is intruding in the jurisdiction of health care by becoming involved in child care services and dental care, among other things?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I salute the hon. member in return. I enjoy serving with him in the House of Commons.

I am here to defend the interests of my nation and to make sure that its priorities are at least heard, even if they are not always respected. This is obvious from the budget and from the examples that my hon. colleague gave.

The point I would like to make here is that, yes, we have a government that spends recklessly. Yes, we have a government that interferes in areas of jurisdiction that are not its own, while failing to look after its own affairs.

My point is that, despite all of this and despite the $40‑billion deficit, it still has fiscal flexibility in the short, medium and long term. As I said, the $40‑billion deficit this year is offset by lapsed funding. On top of that, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said, if we maintain the debt-to-GDP ratio, that is another $40 billion of fiscal flexibility. That is three times what was needed to pay for health care.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the member for Joliette regarding the problems with the current EI system.

I would like him to talk a little more about the importance of a good EI system in a country that is facing a recession.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for his question and his legitimate concerns.

The government has been promising to reform the EI system since 2015. Since last fall, analysts and economists have been telling us to be careful because there is a risk of a recession. Whether big or small, there is going to be a recession.

We know that the most important automatic stabilizer in a recession is employment insurance. We know that the EI system is not working. Just four out of 10 people who lose their job are covered.

Things have gotten so bad that Minister Morneau suspended the program at the outset of the pandemic because it just was not working. He decided instead to implement costly, improvised short-term programs. That cost a fortune and it was not effective.

The EI system needs to be reformed now.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, on February 14, I wished the NDP and the Liberals a Happy Valentine's Day. Today, to look at the budget document we have before us, I think that the union has been consummated. It is clear.

What we learn from reading the budget document, which was summed up well by my colleague from Joliette, is that the federal government has a tremendous amount of means and that, with the help of the NDP, which is not surprising, it is having a hard time spending and investing those means wisely in the priorities of people on the ground who are dealing with real problems when it comes to employment insurance, seniors' return to work, or health. There is absolute disparity between the government's financial capacity and the real needs on the ground. It is not for nothing that when the Liberals toss $4 billion to provinces that are asking for $28 billion and tell them to accept it or get nothing, they have the nerve to stand up and say that it is an agreement. They have the nerve to do that. I know that they are not lying. They believe themselves and that is even worse.

The budget document is clear. It seems to be very much like what the Parliamentary Budget Officer described, and my colleague put it well. It states that, in 25 years, if we include the new financial commitments, Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio will be zero even in the worse case scenario. There is no other industrialized country that plans to reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio to zero, which means that there will be no debt, without looking after its people. No other developed country is doing that.

There is fiscal flexibility in the budget. The Parliamentary Budget Office has done the calculations. Those people are paid to provide Parliament with information. They are competent. They are quite right in saying that as the government eliminates its debt over time, the provinces will find themselves in more and more trouble, and that when the federal debt is eliminated, the provinces will be technically bankrupt.

The federal government tells us that there is no fiscal imbalance because this year, the current year, some provincial governments are running small surpluses while the federal government has a $40-billion deficit. All of this is without recognizing that the problems we are experiencing in health care today are the same problems that could not be solved 25 years ago when the Liberals began cutting the transfers. By repeating the same thing today, they will create even more serious problems 25 years from now. In their minds, there is nothing dynamic. They are always thinking six months ahead, to the next election, and it is exactly the same with the NDP.

There is $40 billion in lapsed spending from last year. We have the figures and the public accounts. That is $40 billion that was not used. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that another $40 billion could be used to help the provinces with health care and other things. Even so, the federal debt-to-GDP ratio would remain the same and the provinces would be able to take care of people. We are talking about $80 billion.

We can add to that the fact that inflation is estimated to be 3.5% this year. That number is way off, which means that there will be additional tax revenue. That puts us at more than $80 billion, which is far more than the $28 billion the provinces were asking for. They would have $50 billion or $60 billion left over while allowing us to take care of our people. This is no joke. They could keep lowering the debt-to-GDP ratio while taking care of people.

Allow me to summarize. The Liberals had an opportunity to relieve the suffering of Quebec's patients. Instead, they decided to relieve the electoral anxieties of the NDP. That is essentially what they did. I can understand why the NDP is crowing about it. If I were them, I would be happy too. That is the reality.

What will the NDP tell us? The NDP is going to tell us that they got us dental care. The budget says that Health Canada is basically going to turn into an insurance company. If you have tried to get a passport, Mr. Speaker, you have every reason to be concerned. By the end of the year, it looks as though Health Canada will become an insurance company. They are going to call all the dental associations in all the provinces and they are going to negotiate agreements. Then we will be able to start submitting dental bills, all by the end of the year.

That is the promise that they are going to make to us, but they need a reality check. The federal government is so bad. The Liberals have no idea how to do anything. They are so far removed from what they are good at—and one has to admit that there is not much that they are good at—that the dental care program is not even included in the budget implementation bill.

They are going to implement the budget without even knowing how to do so. The dental care program is not even there. That will bring us to the summer. We will come back in the fall and there will not even be a dental care program because they just have no idea how to implement one.

There has been no talk of seniors because the Liberals created two classes of seniors, those aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and up. There is nothing in the budget for seniors aged 65 to 74. They are taking the injustice they created and indexing it to inflation, and yet this government is supposed to have an aversion to injustice.

When it comes to inflation, the NDP has spent all year getting worked up into a lather over grocery store owners. The Liberals decided to make the NDP happy. They are going to take the GST rebate cheque that they doubled, as the Bloc Québécois has been asking them to do for a year and a half, they are going to issue it early in the year—we asked them to increase the frequency of the cheques—and they are going to call it a grocery rebate. It is a great victory for the NDP. We congratulate them.

On employment insurance, this system that insures one in two people and leaves half the people behind when they lose their job, they are saying that there will be a recession, but no EI reform.

If I were looking to insure my house and the insurer told me that I had a 50% chance of my claim being rejected if my house burned down, I would switch insurers. That is exactly the situation that the unemployed are facing. The Liberals say that, according to actuarial forecasts, the EI fund is good for another 10 years before it needs to be reformed. There is nothing in the budget about getting experienced workers back to work without penalizing them for offering their strength, intelligence and experience to our businesses. When I walk around Mirabel and other places in Quebec, everyone talks to me about it. Everyone is talking about it except for the Liberals and the NDP.

There is nothing for the aerospace industry. The minister was telling me that he is talking to CEOs and inviting them to invest. The minister is not a lobbyist. His job is not to be a chargé d'affaires but to ensure that the investment climate is favourable to investment, in order to have investment, research and development, investment funds, credits for research and development, and to fix the implementation of this luxury tax, which is about to kill 2,000 jobs in Quebec. People will go elsewhere to buy planes.

We are the laughingstock of the G7. The Liberals tell us that aviation is important, but they are closing the control tower in Mirabel. They have shut down light aircraft access, our flight schools and a runway. The industry's strategic infrastructure is now managed by a board of directors that takes care of Montreal and whose CEO is a former accountant from Coca-Cola. Nobody is accountable and nobody knows anything about aviation. They appear to be really good at this. When they do not know something, it is scary.

With regard to energy, the budget gives $18 billion in subsidies to oil companies, which have money. When it comes to taxing luxury jets that are used to transport passengers and that harm our industry, there is no problem. They are for equality. However, when it comes to giving subsidies to companies that are making tons of profit, that could invest in reducing their emissions if they wanted to avoid the carbon tax, but instead the government gives them subsidies so that these CEOs can buy private jets to go to their cottages, that is not a problem for western Canada.

Now there is an election coming up in Ontario. Their 15% and 30% clean energy subsidies—because when we get right down to the nitty gritty, CO2 is all that matters to them—are going to go to Ontario's nuclear plants. Oddly enough, there is an election coming up in Ontario. Oddly enough, the majority of the next Canadian government is going to be in Ontario.

We are willing to collaborate and we are willing to vote in favour of measures that are good for Quebec. That is what we do, but our goodwill is like an elastic. There is a limit.

Since my time is almost up, I will move the following amendment to the amendment:

That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the words “since it” and substituting the following:

fails to:

(a) immediately reform employment insurance and increase old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74;

(b) fight climate change by ending fossil fuel subsidies; and

(c) increase health transfers to 35%, preferring instead to interfere in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, such as by creating dental insurance without giving Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

The amendment to the amendment is in order.

Questions and comments.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Outremont Québec

Liberal

Rachel Bendayan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made it very clear that he is going to vote against accelerating the green transition, the grocery rebate and dental care for more Quebeckers, but is he really going to vote against the $50 million that we are going to invest in the Mirabel airport in his riding? That $50 million will make it possible to expand the capacity to export goods, create warehouse and storage facilities and create jobs in his riding of Mirabel.

Will my colleague from Mirabel vote against that measure in our budget?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Madam Speaker, last week, the member for Kingston and the Islands tweeted so much misinformation that Twitter had to put a warning notice on his post. I just realized that the Liberals are okay with that way of doing things. That way of doing things has spread from Kingston to Outremont.

I am going to set the record straight on a number of things. We never said that everything in the budget was bad. However, we made very clear, specific pre-budget requests. In a budget, there is what is included and what is missing. Are the Liberals telling me that it is okay to refuse to grant health care transfers, to reject our seniors and to leave half of unemployed workers out in the cold? Are they telling me that all those things are okay? In any case, that is clearly what the member for Outremont is saying. The member for Outremont is rejecting the needs of Quebec, and that makes me sad.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed working with my hon. colleague on the health committee.

I am a bit disappointed in my friend's pessimistic view of the efficiency of government. He seems to think government is not capable of delivering programs. He was highly skeptical that the federal government could deliver insurance for a dental plan.

However, we know the federal government administers employment insurance for millions of Canadians. It administers the Canada pension plan for millions of seniors. It administers old age security for millions of citizens, and these programs include many people in the province of Quebec.

I know he is a separatist, so it seems strange that he thinks the Province of Quebec could form a nation, but does not seem to think a nation-state is competent to deliver programs for citizens.

My question is on dental care. The NDP's dental plan would mean that about two million Quebeckers at the end of this year, including seniors, children and people with disabilities, would be able to go to the dentist and have the federal government pay 100% of that cost.

Can he tell the House why he is opposed to having people who are suffering in Quebec get the dental care they need at zero cost to the Government of Quebec?