Debates of April 17th, 2023

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, it is really a privilege to rise in yet another budget debate where we are taking time to analyze the budget. What also happens in these debates is that they reveal our visions, our values and our priorities.

I want to begin by commending the Minister of Finance for her excellent effort in having listened to Canadians and having tested the waters with experts and individuals in communities across this country in an attempt to craft a budget. This is an art that takes into account both the moment in life we are living and also how we are able to move into the future. It was not an easy task.

Obviously, our country is coming out of a period, with COVID, when we had extremely high expenses and kept the economy going and kept people going. We are now in a period of global recession with higher-than-normal inflation even while we have a period of very low unemployment. It is a risky time in the Canadian economy, and I believe that the Minister of Finance has crafted the fine art of targeting support for the most vulnerable, who are at the highest risk of problems during this recession, while also moving our economy into the future.

Budget 2023, “A Made-in-Canada Plan: Strong Middle Class, Affordable Economy, Healthy Future”, is that kind of artistic endeavour of a budget that attempts to target supports to the most vulnerable while creating a cleaner and greener economy. It would deliver on tax fairness, strengthen our health care system, develop a clean economy, and help us to invest in clean electricity. In particular, I would like to focus on a couple of things in this part of the debate, and those are our proposed support for low- and modest-income families and individuals and our plan to build a stronger and cleaner economy for everyone.

We have all just come back from two weeks in our constituencies. For me this was a time when I could meet with a number of people during the three Abrahamic festivals of Ramadan, Easter and Passover, when families gathered and there was much conversation and rich engagement. It gave me an opportunity to look at both the problems Canadians are facing in my riding and also the opportunities this budget would afford them.

This is a post-COVID-driven, recession budget. Canada's economy is showing signs of recovery from the pandemic, and we are in a much better position than other countries around the world. In fact, we had the strongest growth rate among G7 nations in 2022. However, as with many economic recoveries, not everyone sees these improvements equally in their day-to-day lives. Inflation has been decreasing, and we have noticed that steadily over the past eight months.

However, people earning low to modest incomes still need help with higher grocery prices, especially for fresh produce. Canadians are facing that. I face that. I go to the grocery store, just like everybody else, and notice the high cost of groceries. That is why we have been attempting to find ways, both directly, to deal with the high cost of groceries, and also indirectly, through a series of sustained long-term supports that are changing the world in which we live, at least in my riding.

I want to tell members that, when I started in politics in 2008 and I represented an area in Toronto called Thorncliffe Park, I regularly saw kids going to school without parkas, mittens or a full stomach from breakfast. That has changed dramatically in the past 15 years. With the onset and the advancement of the Canada child benefit, with other supports and with the increased Canada workers benefit, I see the children going to school in Thorncliffe Park, and elsewhere in Toronto and in my riding, with full stomachs, the right clothes on and opportunity for advancement in the world, where they will be able to make a difference.

I have often thought that the cure for cancer could be locked in the brain of a child who does not get advancement in the world. Through our targeted early childhood benefits, through the early childhood care benefit, through the Canada child benefit and through other targeted supports, that cure for cancer may be found in our lifetime, because it is no longer going to be locked in the brain of a child who does not get a chance to succeed.

This is not just about the grocery rebate. We can talk about that, but it is also part of a targeted response that would make sure that at least 11 million Canadians with low and modest incomes would be able to benefit from a targeted benefit.

Budget 2023 would also see, as we have said repeatedly in the House, the creation of the Canada dental care plan. I do want to acknowledge the work of the New Democratic Party on that important policy. It is one of the things the Liberal Party has wanted to do for some time and, with that encouragement, we have continued to develop it. In 2022, the plan was brought in. It will be improved in 2023 and it will continue to help Canadians have a fresh face and a fresh start as they continue in life. One in five Canadians delays seeing a dentist right now because of the cost. That will end, and that is the way Parliament should work. It is the way we should engage together as colleagues in this place.

Since federal dental coverage for children under 12 was announced in 2022, applications for 970 children in Don Valley West have already been received and processed. That is almost 1,000 children, and almost as many families have received a benefit that is making a difference in their lives. Everyone in the House should take credit for that, especially those who will support this budget in the coming days.

The economy and our lives coming out of COVID are profoundly affected by the COVID pandemic response but also by climate change, which continues to plague our planet. The world's leading economies are moving at an unprecedented pace to address climate change. We have to reshape our economies. We have to build net-zero industries for tomorrow. It is a goal of the government. Therefore, while we are doing targeted responses with respect to helping Canadians in a time of recession, we are also, at the same time, building for a greener future that will create better-paying jobs and will continue to help our economy evolve and change and keep pace with the world. We will create better jobs and we will get to net zero; those two things go hand in hand. It is the economic and social imperative of our time.

Budget 2023 showcases Canada's potential to become a clean-electricity superpower with a more sustainable, secure and affordable electricity grid with better and cleaner electricity for all. Everyone would benefit. Resource industry workers who extract essential minerals would benefit. Engineers who design next-generation batteries would benefit. Auto workers, particularly but not exclusively in my home province of Ontario, would benefit. Secondary industries, including auto parts and all of the industries related to that, would also benefit. This is building an economy for the future, for Canadians of the future.

The investments made by the government since 2015 have built on Canada's existing competitive advantages, which have made our country a destination of choice for investment in the global clean economy. However, we recognize that we cannot sit on our accomplishments so far. As a country, we need to keep pace and we need to never fall behind. Our government has a plan, and the plan is to make Canada a leader in clean and affordable energy. Budget 2023 makes a series of major investments to ensure that Canada's clean economy can bring prosperity, middle-class jobs and more vibrant communities across the country. We will continue to do that.

Some members know that I was a member of Parliament, that I left and then came back. During my time out, I worked with the Asthma Society of Canada. What I wanted to do was push the problem of respiratory illness upstream. The reality is that asthma is related to climate change. If we do not invest in these technologies today, we will simply have more people demanding more health care, and more people dying. Every day in Canada someone will die of asthma. It is an environmentally driven illness, so we need to be invested in it in this place and across the country, ensuring that Canadians have a budget that will allow for the advancement of their dreams as individuals, with targeted responses, but also for an economy of the future. We will continue to do this, building measures that are widespread.

We have heard in this debate many members who have offered different windows into the budget. I will attempt to answer members' questions on these or other issues, and I thank them. This is an opportunity for us to engage in an important debate and an important subject.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for his excellent speech. I do enjoy working with him on the foreign affairs committee. I know a great organization that is potentially going to benefit from his talents during his next time out.

I have a question I want to ask. I had the opportunity to consult with my riding over the last two weeks. I had 13 meetings, and I heard much about the cost of inflation and how it was affecting families. In particular, I want to relate two comments I heard from the villages of Wheatley and Erieau. They have harbours, and they understand the concept of an anchor.

A year ago, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance made a commitment that Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio was anchored to a solid fiscal anchor and would not rise. The folks in Wheatley and Erieau understand that anchors are not supposed to float, so my question to my hon. colleague is this. Next year, what will be the anchor in this year's budget?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington for his interventions and also for a good, collegial approach to our work.

Canada is obviously part of a world economy. We see inflation as a worldwide phenomenon. We also see Canada's response to inflation being targeted and careful. I would describe this as a business-friendly budget, one that makes sure those who may be at risk of being left behind are not. Businesses will also have an environment in which they can flourish.

We are not an island. Canada is part of a world economy, and we will always continue to be among the best G7 and G20 leaders in debt-to-GDP ratio. We will continue to build, knowing that we need at times to invest, at times to save. Right now, we do not want to leave anybody behind as we grow our economy in a greener future.

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

Madam Speaker, we heard my colleague on the other side of the House talk about a clean, green economy. Why then is there not so much as a hint of any transition plan to end fossil fuel subsidies?

When I talk about ending subsidies, I do not mean tomorrow morning. People who work in the sector are not going to lose their jobs. They are not going to end up on EI tomorrow morning. However, having a plan means that, in a specific number of years, not a single penny more will be spent on this sector, and the jobs will shift to another sector.

Why is it not starting now?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, indeed, I actually believe we have already started on that practice. We have been engaged in it for the last seven and a half years. We have found a way to encourage investment in greener energies while continuing to support those who make their living in fossil fuels. That has been part of our goal.

The Liberal government is a government for all of Canada. This is a government for every part of the country where the economy is still dependent on fossil fuels. I am still, as a person who drives a hybrid vehicle, dependent on fossil fuels. We will continue to transition away from fossil fuels as we move to cleaner sources of energy, but doing it making sure we do not leave people behind. That is what we will do.

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

Madam Speaker, the people we do not want to leave behind are our own children and grandchildren, and at this point, we are running over them as we continue to support fossil fuels.

This budget expands subsidies for fossil fuels by accepting the notion that we can use fossils to create hydrogen. We do that with so-called abated sources. Those are basically weasel words for saying we are going to use fossil fuels to create hydrogen. At the same time, we are expanding access to carbon capture and storage as public subsidies to private sector interests to expand and continue fossil fuels.

Could the parliamentary secretary explain how the Liberals can talk out of both sides of their mouth on climate?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I actually think we are very consistent.

I want to thank the member for her earnest and always important contributions on climate change and on a greener economy. However, I would like to take the opportunity to get to a paragraph of my speech that I was not able to put in due to time. That is our proposal in the 2023 budget to introduce a 15% refundable tax credit for eligible investment in clean electricity projects. This significant investment is being extremely well received in the business community. It includes zero-emission electricity generation systems, emission-reduced natural gas-fired electricity generation, stationary electricity storage systems that do not use fossil fuels, and interprovincial and territorial electricity transmission equipment.

We will continue to build the economy of the future while we help it in transition, leaving no one behind.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government has touted this budget as a budget that will tackle the high cost of living. Observers could be excused for thinking this meant the government would actually take substantive steps to address the underlying factors that have caused the historic rise in the price of food, heating, gas and other everyday essentials. Unfortunately, Canadians did not receive such a budget, and as a result, their confidence in the competence of the government's economic management continues to dither.

Instead of taking care of the issues of the day, the government has burdened future generations of Canadians with billions upon billions of dollars of unnecessary debt. It should not be up to Canada's sons and daughters to foot the bill for a government looking for a quick vote today.

Canadian families are suffering. That is the bottom line. This we know; we hear it every day. I can recite countless examples locally of small business owners or farmers who have had to make extremely difficult decisions in order to stretch their dollars further. However, there is one group of Canadians often overlooked in these discussions, a group of Canadians that has been treated as an afterthought by governments and looked at as an easy source of money when it needs to be found: our armed forces and its members.

Over the past couple of weeks, my office has been inundated by an alarming number of CAF members expressing grave concerns over numerous issues, most recently the replacement approved by Treasury Board of the post living differential to the Canadian Forces housing differential. The push-back on this new policy has been astounding.

One person, who granted me permission to use their quote, wrote, “ Many are losing money. The sliding scale it operates on has newly joined members making more money than those that have been in for 12-15 years. This means as you work hard, strive to lead and progress you will actually lose money. In what world does it make sense that as you promote into higher positions you take a pay cut? You have members who will lose money because once they move up in ranks and strive for more, they no longer qualify for the CFHD benefit and the raise does not match what they were receiving from CFHD. I'm talking about a decrease in pay anywhere from a couple dollars to 500 dollars a month. The CFHD benefit goes away for people who live in the same area for 7 years or more. Sure, many members get posted. But the Navy folks on ship are only stationed on each coast. Things don't change for those folks after 7 years for cost of living. Well it does. It gets more expensive but let's take away an allowance.”

I want to personally thank this person for being courageous enough to reach out to my office to share their concerns. If politicians never actually talk to our soldiers, sailors and airmen, regardless of rank, how will we ever know the issues they are facing and how can we begin to start working on them to solve the problems?

While I am sure the objective of this government was to increase the draw of new recruits into the forces, it has done this at the expense of keeping the ones we already have. The 7,700 troops who currently receive the post living differential will not qualify for the Canadian Forces housing differential. For them, it is just another benefit axed. For members living together who do qualify, that benefit is halved, and at a savings of $30 million. I can promise everyone in this House and everyone watching that the long-term effects in talent and investment we will lose as a result of this will far exceed that amount. That is only what we can realistically monetize in training costs. The amount of damage done to morale cannot have a dollar value attached to it.

It also unfairly targets the navy, as the new differential expires after seven years in the same address, and the navy is notoriously non-transitional in postings. The government needs to commit to communicating with our troops and ensuring that they will not be unfairly nickel-and-dimed to pay for over-budget programs like the Canadian Coast Guard Arctic and offshore patrol ships, AOPS, which just had its program cost quietly and unceremoniously increased by half a billion dollars, especially at a time when we are in a recruitment and retention crisis. The only solution for the reconstitution crisis is to take the stopgap that exists at the recruitment phase and put it into the retention phase so that there are more soldiers in and fewer soldiers out. The CFHD fails in that objective.

What we need is better equipment. We need to start replacing our Victoria-class subs and our aging Auroras, expand our over-the-horizon radar capabilities and commit to spending 2% of our GDP on national defence. Our troops need better incentives, better pay, better housing, a fair and timely recruitment process and a quick and compassionate transitioning process. We also need to remember that the government’s solemn responsibility to our soldiers, sailors and airmen is not nullified as soon as they leave the CAF.

At this point, I want to thank my two colleagues, the members from Banff-Airdrie and Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, for their excellent work in advancing veterans issues and being staunch advocates for our former CAF members.

Canadians, regardless of job, have been struggling. This budget was an opportunity to provide relief to those who have been dealing with these costs since well before the last election. Instead, we have a government that chooses to run up billions in new debt while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the harsh realities facing everyday families the country over, including those in uniform.

The country is facing crises on many levels. The government came out with a pay raise for our forces members and almost immediately negated that net increase by completely revamping their housing differential in the middle of a cost of living crisis, a recruitment crisis and a retention crisis. They expect our normally stoic forces members to be happy about this newest slap in the face. Struggling Canadians both in and out of uniform deserve better than a complacent government content with the status quo.

When he retired, Jim Flaherty was, as many opined, a “steady hand at the tiller”. During the last economic crisis, the prudent and conservative approach he took showed Canada to be an island of stability in a global sea of uncertainty. It is crucial that the government of the day, regardless of its stripe, ensures economic stability and does not fall pray to the siren calls of political gamesmanship. It is for these reasons that I will be voting against the budget.

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

Madam Speaker, I recognize that the member has spoken at great length about our armed forces and the supports they need, and I appreciate the intervention today, but I would like to ask her a question that relates more to her riding specifically.

This budget has a lot in it for electrifying the grid throughout Canada and is about preparing for the future of electric vehicles. No riding in this country, at least currently, stands to gain more from that than her riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington. In fact, she was there in the summer when Umicore announced that it was going to be building the largest battery manufacturing plant in North America in her riding.

This budget has a lot in it to advance Canada and push us in the direction of that evolution. I am curious if she can at least comment on whether she thinks moving in the direction of electrification and supporting industries linked to the $1.5-billion manufacturing plant in her riding are a good idea.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that Umicore, the battery materials plant, is the first of its kind in North America, and I applaud the member opposite for raising it. I was there and I welcome that. It is expected to launch in the fall of 2025. I will certainly celebrate the small wins from the government and recognize that locally in Hastings—Lennox and Addington we celebrate when things go right.

I would like to acknowledge that it is a good win, and members on either side of the House need to recognize and applaud when things go right, not just knock heads. They should respect each other.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her enjoyable speech. We see that she is very passionate about the Canadian Armed Forces and their importance. I share her desire to support our veterans, especially the members of the armed forces who protect and serve us every day.

There were some things missing from the last budget. The omissions were rather striking. We are currently experiencing a housing crisis. There is a crisis going on across Canada and Quebec, affecting a number of regions, including my own, the Lower St. Lawrence. It is undeniable. There is also another crisis, the labour shortage. My colleague briefly touched on it when she was talking about the need for the Canadian Armed Forces to attract and retain service members. There is nothing in the budget, no key measures. The Bloc Québécois has proposed several, including tax incentives to allow experienced workers to work a few hours or days a week. There are other measures that could give some breathing room to people who want to join the workforce to help our business owners.

I would like my colleague to share her point of view on the complete absence of measures to deal with—

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

The hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is definitely no secret that Canadians are stretched in every possible regard, whether it is with housing or labour issues. The bottom line is that the budget that was presented is not responsible. It is a budget funded by Canadians suffering from inflation. Rather than providing real solutions, this NDP-Liberal government has unleashed an avalanche of uncontrolled spending.

From my perspective, Canadians cannot afford business as usual. No democracy is perfect, but all are perfectible.

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

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned at one point in her speech that this budget is “turning a blind eye to the harsh realities” of ordinary Canadians. One of the harsh realities that ordinary Canadians face is the fact that millions of them cannot afford to get their teeth fixed. This is something that my constituents speak to me about on a regular basis. I wonder if the same is true for her constituents. If so, how does she explain to those constituents who cannot afford to visit a dentist, or those who cannot afford to take their kids to the dentist, or the seniors who cannot chew their food that she will be voting against expanding our health care system to include dental coverage?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, after two weeks of meeting with people, businesses and families in my constituency, I can say that the consistent message is that Canadians need a break. Canadians need a responsible government to step up.

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

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Centre, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, The Environment; the hon. member for North Island—Powell River, Women and Gender Equality.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak to budget 2023, which is yet another high-spend budget that will likely make life more expensive for Canadians.

I have spent time over the last couple of weeks talking to people across my amazing riding of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake to hear their opinions on this budget. I have heard from families, individuals, businesses and organizations alike that are struggling to make ends meet due to record-breaking inflation, and they are really having a hard time right now. Their paycheques do not stretch as far as they used to, between the increased cost of heating, the skyrocketing grocery prices, and the overall cost of living, which seems to be ever-increasing. These hard-working people I have chatted with just want to see lower taxes. Specifically, the thing I hear resoundingly throughout Fort McMurray—Cold Lake is that they want to see the carbon tax axed because it is a tax plan, not an environmental plan. It is inevitably going to raise the price of everything, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown it has already done and will continue to do as we go forward.

One thing I hear loud and clear from people across Fort McMurray—Cold Lake is their concerns about the ever-increasing crime. For far too many years, families and individuals across rural Alberta have been complaining about the revolving door of criminals being caught and released back into their communities without so much as a slap on the wrist. The catch-and-release policies of the Liberal government mean that more Canadians do not feel safe in their homes, their communities, their streets and their country. Recently, we have been seeing an ever-increasing rate of high-profile violent crimes in the news. These are now happening in cities and are random. There are random stabbings happening on transit and in the streets. This is not gang-related violence that is terrorizing everyday Canadians, but just random crime.

One thing that is so terrifying and that I have heard so many people say they are concerned about is the fact that many of these crimes were committed by people who were released on bail or out on parole. After eight years of the current Prime Minister and his soft-on-crime policies, our communities just feel less safe, and the Liberal government is doing nothing to stop it. Sadly, it is making it worse. Violent offenders are thrown back into the streets, sometimes within hours of their arrest.

Conservatives believe in jail, not bail for violent repeat offenders, and I think it is really important to stop this revolving door of catch-and-release criminals. In the eight years since the Prime Minister has taken office, violent crime has increased by 32%, and gang-related murders have doubled. Canadians deserve to feel safe in their communities. Conservatives will restore their trust in the legal system and ensure that violent repeat offenders stay behind bars, where they belong.

The people I talked to were also really concerned about government censorship. Specifically, their concerns were with respect to Bill C-11. They made it clear to me that they do not want the current government, or any government for that matter, making a decision as to what they can see or say online. We now have proof that the current Liberal government has unashamedly asked tech giants to make news articles that it does not like simply disappear. We have proof that this has been happening under the current government. Bill C-11 would make that much easier, and the government would be able to control more of what we can see and say online.

I am proud to say that a Conservative government will repeal Bill C-11 and protect the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians. It is a shame that the Liberals are more concerned with catchy talking points than addressing the real issues facing Canadians. They are more concerned with keeping their partners in the costly coalition happy than helping everyday Canadians.

Conservatives made three requests of the federal government in order to gain our support for the budget: one, lower taxes; two, end inflationary deficits that would increase the cost of goods; and three, remove the gatekeepers that would prevent more homes from being built, allowing home prices to drop. However, none of those conditions were met, not a single one of them. As such, it is pretty clear that Conservatives simply cannot support this big-spend budget.

It is truly time to speak out against the injustices we face under this current administration. With budget 2023, the Liberals are continuing their war on work and imposing higher taxes that are punishing hard-working individuals, rather than listening to the needs of real Canadians. It has never been so good to be a Liberal insider, and it has never been so bad to be an average Canadian. That is wrong, and it should not be the case in 2023.

The price of food and groceries has skyrocketed. I am not sure if the Liberal members hear the same thing I do when I am back home, but just about every person I talk to talks about how expensive gas is and how expensive groceries are. I constantly see posts on social media from friends of mine who have kids about how their grocery bill has gone up by another $100 this week.

Living in an isolated, rural community, I see even more expensive groceries than what many of my city counterparts would see, just by the nature of the fact that the groceries need an extra five hours to get to where I am, which is an end-of-line community.

The carbon tax actually adds a unique perspective. Not only are the farmers taxed to make the food, and then the people who produce the food are taxed on all the energy it takes to manufacture it, but the hard-working truck drivers who bring the food from distribution centres and farms to my community are also taxed. The grocery stores have additional carbon tax. That little bit of carbon tax, which is just a tax plan, is multiplied so many times over, and the farther Canadians are from a distribution hub, the more that has an impact on them.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it very clear that Canadians will, in fact, pay more than they receive back in this carbon tax scheme. In fact, for the average Alberta family, the net cost of the fuel charge is $2,773. It is $1,723 to the average family in Saskatchewan, another $1,490 to the average family in Manitoba, an extra $1,820 to a family in Ontario, an extra $1,513 to a family in Nova Scotia, an extra $1,521 to a family in Prince Edward Island, and an extra $1,316 to a family in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I repeat those costs because it shows that families are not better off, if the average family in that many provinces is going to be paying that much more. Most of the families I have talked to over the last two weeks do not have an extra $2,700 lying around to pay for the extra cost of the carbon tax. They do not have it. They are already struggling. They are already making the hard choice of whether they are going to pay their heating bill, pay for gas so they can get to work, or put groceries on their table.

We have a record number of people skipping meals in this country: one in five Canadians is skipping meals. We have a record-breaking number of people visiting food banks right across this country every single month so that kids get nutritious food. We are in a crisis right now with affordability, yet the government seems to think that this is not really a huge problem. It did put forward a small win with a grocery rebate, but with the additional costs I cited, that will evaporate before a couple of months is up.

While it is definitely going to help in the short term, in the long term families will still be worse off than they were before. That is not even taking into account that because of all the extra spending in this budget, the average family is going to have an extra 4,200 dollars' worth of costs to pay for all the spending in this budget. Most of these families do not have that kind of money.

This is the part where I think there is a huge disconnect between the talking points and the reality. Canadians are struggling today and the solutions are not here. I will be voting against this budget.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to highlight one particular issue. The member said that it is time to get rid of the gatekeepers and build more houses in our country, from one province to another. Before coming to this place, I was involved in municipal politics. I was the mayor of my hometown, the second-largest municipality in the province of Newfoundland.

Is she implying that we should take over the responsibility of issuing permits and regulations when somebody comes in to apply to build a home? I do not think that is where the federal government should go. It does not have the people on the ground to do it, and the municipalities in every province would not be happy with the government taking over that responsibility.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, prior to being elected to this place, I served as a provincial member in my home province of Alberta. Municipalities are the creation of provinces, and as such I am not suggesting that we take over the individual permitting. What the leader of the official opposition has suggested, and it is very smart, is to tie federal infrastructure money to having high development permits in certain areas, allowing us to have more homes being built in some of these communities where perhaps they are selling out and having a bit of a NIMBY perspective on it.

This is not about the individual municipalities. The reality is that, since the government took office eight years ago, home prices have doubled in this country. Canada has tons of land, yet land costs have gone through the roof. We really need to do more to make houses more affordable so people can afford to live in this country.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

Clearly, we are not going to agree on certain things, such as Bill C‑11 and all the disinformation around it. No, Bill C‑11 will not infringe on freedom of expression. However, we do agree on the issue of security, and I am very interested in hearing her talk about that. For example, it is deplorable that there is still no independent inquiry on Chinese interference, which is quite serious. We might have expected an announcement about some action being taken on this issue. Concerning arms trafficking, there are no measures to strengthen the control of gun smuggling across the border. That is very worrisome.

I would like my colleague to talk about that.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I think she mentioned several issues that are top of mind for Canadians across the country and that were not addressed in the budget. One thing that struck me is that there are a lot of expenditures in this budget but no money to tackle Beijing's interference. There is also no money to reduce crime rates across the country. That is an area where more work needs to be done in order to ensure that Canadians have everything they need.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech. However, there is a difference between an expenditure and an investment, especially when it comes to investments in people, particularly in our seniors, our elders, who deserve respect.

We in the NDP successfully forced the Liberal government to implement an actual dental program that will cover the bills for seniors who are living in poverty and need dental care. Is the member telling us that she is going to go back to her riding and tell seniors in precarious situations and those living in poverty that she does not want them to get their teeth fixed?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is absolutely hyperbolic from the NDP. Frankly, the Canadian Constitution is extremely clear that the delivery of health care is the sole jurisdiction of provincial governments. Provinces and territories all across the country have dental programs. Had the federal government wanted to have a well-costed program, it could have worked with provinces and territories to establish a program. Instead, the Liberals are saying what everyone in my constituency is always terrified of, which is, “I am here from Ottawa, and I am here to help.”

Frankly, I do not trust a government that has not been able to figure out how to pay its own employees over the last six years, having not been able to figure out the Phoenix pay centre and paying its own employees, will somehow administer a program this large and be successful. Therefore, no, I am—

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

The hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington is rising on a point of order.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to seek unanimous consent concerning a vote held earlier today on Bill C-34. I would like to mark my vote as affirmative.