Debates of April 18th, 2023

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is important, in this House, that the government reflect all aspects of this country. I am hearing that my Bloc friends are also disappointed in this budget. We are disappointed in this budget. They are disappointed in this budget. If only we could get one more party on side to be disappointed in this budget, we might end up with a confidence vote and we might have an election. We might have somebody else in the chair to put forward a better budget that would be better received across the country.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I work with my colleague on many different items, like mental health, pensions and whatnot. We know that one-third of single women in this country are living in poverty. It is completely unacceptable. We know that pensions need to be increased.

One thing he talked about in his speech was around British pensioners who have retired in Canada. Public servants who worked in Britain and who receive a pension are restricted. They do not get the rate of inflation increase that Canadians get when they retire in Britain, for example. It is basically pension theft. It is leaving many British expats who live in Canada vulnerable to the costs of inflation.

Can my colleague speak about the importance of Canada and the British government working on a collective agreement? When we come forward with a trade deal, we want to ensure those conversations are part of it so that we do not leave British pensioners here in Canada in poverty, and so that we call out the British government for abandoning its own citizens.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a very timely question. I thank my friend from Courtenay—Alberni for raising it.

British pensioners are actually here in Ottawa this week. There are over 150,000 members who are not receiving proper British pensions. This is not a partisan issue. My friend from Courtenay—Alberni and members from the Liberal side have been advocating for this for years. I think it even goes back to former prime minister Jean Chrétien and Tony Blair sitting down and discussing this. It is unfair treatment of Canadian citizens.

They are here this week to push this issue. They are here this week to raise awareness. They are also here this week to flag the issue with the Minister of International Trade to make sure she is aware of the urgent need to see a change and see this reflected for the many pensioners being treated unfairly in this country.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the budget debate this morning.

It has been eight years since the Liberal government has been in office, which is ample time for people to step back and take things into perspective. Imagine for a minute a typical Canadian family that is driving an eight-year-old car. Let us say they decide it is time to buy a new car, so they head down to the local car dealership to walk through the showroom and maybe take a car for a test drive. What are some of the new features they would notice in a 2023 car that were not there in 2015?

For starters, the entertainment system has improved by leaps and bounds, with features like Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. It has never been easier to parallel park or fit into tight spots, with rear-view cameras, dash cameras and even 360° bird’s-eye view cameras. Gas-powered cars have never been more fuel-efficient, and more options for electric or hybrid vehicles are showing up in showrooms every year. Safety features have improved immensely as well, with motion sensors to tell us if another car is in our blind spot or if we are following the car in front too closely.

With all these improvements in cars that we have seen over the last eight years, I cannot help but wonder if we have also seen any similar improvements in the federal government. What does the federal government do today that makes the average Canadian pause and say that it is a big improvement from eight years ago?

Let us look at the passport office. I remember that just a few years ago, when I had to renew my passport, I was in and out of the passport office in maybe half an hour; my passport arrived in the mail in a couple of weeks. However, over the past year, the passport office has been a national embarrassment. People have been camping out in front of passport offices for days, only to be turned away because their travel plans have not yet been finalized. To this day, my constituency office still gets phone calls and emails from people asking for advice about how to apply for a passport so they do not have to cancel their vacation plans or camp out in front of a passport office for days on end.

Let us look at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the IRCC. If someone wants to sponsor a friend or family member to come to Canada and that person needs a visitor’s visa or a permanent residency card, it used to be a relatively simple process of filling out and rubber-stamping a few forms. Now it takes many months or even years of waiting. Literally every day, my constituency office receives multiple phone calls and emails asking what the problem is with the IRCC, why their cases are past their processing times, why it will not return their calls and when their loved ones will be allowed to come to Canada.

What about inflation and the cost of living? It used to be that anyone with a full-time job could at least put food on the table without having to turn to the local food bank for help, but that is not the case in Canada anymore. With the carbon tax pushing the price of groceries higher, more fully employed working families are turning to food banks for help. In my home province of Saskatchewan, food bank use was up 35% last year.

How about openness and transparency? The current Prime Minister once tweeted, “It’s hard not to feel disappointed in your government when every day there is a new scandal.” Today, the current government has been found in violation of Ethics Commissioner rules on five separate occasions and counting. However, that will probably slow down a bit now that the sister-in-law of a Liberal cabinet minister has been appointed as the new Ethics Commissioner.

Has the government at least made our streets safer? Are dangerous criminals being kept behind bars, or are tougher penalties deterring these criminals? Sadly, the answer is no. Year after year since the Liberal government was elected, violent crime rates have gotten worse than the year before. It is no longer uncommon to hear of a fatal stabbing on public transit or in front of a downtown Starbucks in broad daylight.

To continue our car shopping analogy, by any objective measure, the government has been a major downgrade compared to what Canadians had just eight years ago. Unlike that Canadian family that is shopping for a new car and checking out all of the new whistles and bells that did not exist eight years ago, Canadians are left wondering why the Liberal government cannot perform the basic functions that governments should. How is it that Canadians traded in a safe, reliable, dependable vehicle for a lemon that is always breaking down?

I think it is fair to ask this: If we are consistently getting so much less from the government, then are we at least getting what we paid for? Is the deterioration in government services the result of massive spending cuts and massive tax cuts?

If one takes a closer look at the numbers, that is not the case at all. Indeed, the Liberal government continues to implement higher and higher taxes. The carbon tax was raised yet again to $65 per tonne and will continue to increase up to $130 a tonne by the end of the decade. The excise tax on beer, wine and spirits was raised again by 2%. If that were not enough, in the budget, the government has also decided to implement a global minimum corporate tax, a share buyback tax and a tax on dividends held by financial institutions.

Therefore, the government is not getting taxes under control; in addition, it is not getting spending under control. Total expenditures for this budget would be just under $500 billion. That compares to a budget of just under $300 billion only eight years ago. This means that annual spending by the federal government has increased by nearly two-thirds over the past eight years.

When one looks at the details of where exactly these expenditure increases are coming from, the picture becomes much more troubling. This year, $44 billion, or almost 10% of the government spending, will go towards interest payments on the federal debt. In the past, the Liberals have said that the government's massive debt burden was nothing to worry about because of record-low interest rates. Sadly, the days of record-low interest rates are over, and Canadians are left paying the bill.

What is also troubling is the ever-growing size of the federal civil service. During the last term of Stephen Harper's government, with a consistent focus on efficiency, the size of the civil service was gradually reduced by 25,000 employees. Since coming to power eight years ago, the Liberal government has hired back more than triple that number. Perhaps if the government were not so obsessed with regulating social media newsfeed algorithms, confiscating hunting rifles and shotguns from law-abiding firearms owners, restricting fertilizer use by farmers or sending COVID cheques to dead people, we would not need this small army of federal civil servants.

While these times may be difficult, it is important to stay optimistic. For the 1.5 million Canadians who had to use the food bank last year, the thousands of Canadians whose vacations were ruined because they could not get their passports renewed and the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are trying to sponsor a loved one to come to Canada, I would say that they should not lose hope. This latest Liberal budget shows that it is time to trade in this old, broken-down, rusted-out clunker lemon of a Liberal government for a shiny, new, reliable, dependable Conservative government that people could depend on.

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

Madam Speaker, towards the end of the member's speech, he talked about the size of the public service and the individuals who work for the federal government to deliver the services that we provide to Canadians.

The member talked with great pride about Stephen Harper's legacy of reducing the public service size. I am curious as to where he thinks the best places to start eliminating jobs within the public service would be. Could he inform the House about that?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would say Bill C-11, with the new government policy of regulating social media newsfeed algorithms, is a very clear example of something the government has no need to do, no business doing and no need to even contemplate doing. If we were not so focused on Bill C-11 and social media newsfeed algorithms, a lot more federal civil servants could focus on issuing passports and doing the things that government should be doing.

I would also add the confiscation and buyback of hunting rifles and shotguns and the fertilizer restrictions on farmers. There are lots of things the government does that it does not really need to do.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague spoke against a number of government expenditures.

There is one expenditure that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to, and I would like to hear his comments on this subject. Billions of dollars are being allocated in a crafty scheme involving grey hydrogen and carbon storage. Around the globe, 100 carbon capture and storage projects have been abandoned. The U.S. is eliminating government incentives.

Why not do likewise and eliminate the incentives included in this Liberal budget?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am of the view that the natural resources sector is best left to provincial governments. The Constitution in this country is very clear, under sections 91 and 92, that natural resources are the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. In my home province of Saskatchewan, the natural resources sector is actually a major generator of revenue for the provincial government. It seems like a good idea, and it would make sense to me, if the provincial governments in this country were allowed to take the lead on managing their resource sectors. The federal government can best help by staying out of the way.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to a question from my colleague from Kingston and the Islands because the member really did not give an answer to the question. The question, as I heard it, was this: Which department in the civil service would the member cut jobs and fire people from?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I believe I answered the question adequately: Bill C-11 and the regulation of social media and newsfeed algorithms—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

There are no jobs there.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I see the member for Kingston and the Islands is chiming in.

I would also add the fertilizer restrictions on farmers that the government announced a couple of years ago. Those are totally unnecessary. There is no need for a single civil servant to spend one minute on any of that or the confiscation of firearms from law-abiding firearms owners and the money that the government would have to spend to buy them back. All of that is totally unnecessary, and those are things that the government does not need to be doing.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just came back from the association of Vancouver Island municipalities event. There, we heard from municipal governments, especially mayors and councillors who were in attendance, about their concerns over the federal government not supplying municipalities with adequate funds to cover the new increase in RCMP policing. I think we all agree in this place that RCMP officers have been highly underpaid, and we are glad to see them unionized.

Does my colleague agree that the federal government should have provided the top-up to local governments instead of downloading it on them, where they collect only about 8% of the overall taxes in this country?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think we need to support our law enforcement officials, including the RCMP. I would add that, as we have seen with the Mass Casualty Commission's report on the Nova Scotia shootings, we need to improve police and RCMP training in this country. I would also add that the RCMP Depot in Regina is the best place to do that. The proposal in the Mass Casualty Commission's report to shut down the depot in Regina is misguided, and we should be proud of our RCMP officers.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

We are entering an age of uncertainty, shrouded in secrecy and danger. Since 1989, some political thinkers have seen in liberal democracy the spirit of an unstoppable force that would conquer the entire world and bring prosperity, spiritual and material well-being, and safety to one and all. It was the advent of the advancement of enlightenment, the end of history. Peace and wealth would spread and we would not have any problems.

One has to admit that this narrative has been compromised on several fronts, first, because of the rise of authoritarianism in some areas of the world, both near and far from our borders, and second, because this promised prosperity and progress seem to have come about to the detriment of our sustainability on Earth. Social tensions are also rising everywhere, even within our young democracy. That is not to mention a pandemic that put stress on public finances throughout the western world and elsewhere. There is also the return of war in Europe. In short, the reality of the past few years reminds us that the world is a tough place, where we need to fight for what we want and for our values.

Dealing with these uncertainties requires money, forward-looking and responsible financing, targeted investments and, finally, a lot of compassion. This budget brings all these qualities together. I would like to elaborate on those elements in the House, as this financial plan is our way of making the lives of all Canadians more affordable and of implementing an action and management framework for future generations.

First, in this uncertain times, we had to give direct assistance to families. Food is one of the main things people stress about. Thanks to the grocery rebate in our budget, 11 million low- and modest-income individuals and families across the country will receive financial assistance based on their circumstances.

People also stress about dental care. It is vital that our children not be judged by their smile in a G7 country. This is why funding for more affordable dental care, especially for younger children, is an important part of this budget plan. To make dental care affordable for more people in the country, the federal government is committed to covering the dental care of uninsured Canadians with a family income of less than $90,000 per year, starting with children under the age of 12.

Mental health is another important issue that needs attention. Households in Canada are filled with families with children, as well as adults, who are seeking their place in this world, who are facing daily challenges that erode their happiness, or who are simply struggling, despite themselves, with mental health issues. That is why our budget will do more, including through $5 billion in funding to the provinces and territories, to improve community-based mental health and addictions services.

In addition, a solid and effective public health system is essential to the well-being of Canadians and is an important pillar of a prosperous and growing economy. That is why the budget is implementing the federal government plan to provide an additional $195.8 billion in health transfers over 10 years to the provinces and territories to ensure that all Canadians can receive proper care.

Let us now talk about housing measures. In the 2022 budget, the federal government announced significant investments to make housing more affordable, including by helping Canadians buy their first home, curbing unfair practices that are driving up prices and working with provincial and territorial governments, as well as municipalities, to double the number of new homes that Canada will build by 2032.

In the budget, the government is proposing new measures to continue this work and support its efforts to make housing more affordable from coast to coast to coast. These measures include, for example, new tax credits, homelessness reduction objectives and research and development in housing affordability.

In the budget, the government is also announcing that it will consult on changes required to remove regulatory barriers for homebuyers from diverse communities seeking access to alternative financing products.

This budget is also a thoughtful response to several international problems that are affecting Canada as well as other countries that have to deal with the challenges of climate change. The budget is an even more ambitious continuation of our climate policy.

To illustrate my point, I would like to talk about the G7 summit that was held in Cornwall, in June 2021. At this summit, participants were already talking about the need to implement internationally the concept of “the wealth economy” introduced by the Bennett Institute for Public Policy at Cambridge University. This institute claims that we need to invest in productive and sustainable natural capital to generate sustainable prosperity. That is what our budget 2022 did and that is what our budget 2023 will continue to do.

The report also mentions the need to shift from reaction mode to action mode in addressing the health crisis. This will ensure that government finances have the long-term resiliency needed to help address future problems and structural challenges. This includes resilient, inclusive growth for an effective response to future public sector indebtedness. The dilemma lies in the fact that these actions will create even more indebtedness, and the experts point out that nations will have to apply a macroeconomic lens to manage the temporary debt increase. This is what we are doing.

In the months and years ahead, Canada has to seize the outstanding opportunities arising from two fundamental shifts occurring in the global economy. The first is the race to build true 21st‑century economies. The second is the increased push among allied nations toward friendshoring by building their vital supply chains around democracies like Canada's.

I cannot say whether the end of history heralded since 1989 will actually occur, or whether the obstacles facing Canada and the international system are merely bumps on the road in the long global march towards liberal democracy. One thing is certain, our government will always be there for Canadians. We will be there for the caretaker and the baker with two children who just want to take a vacation, for the firefighter who can no longer go to work because of an illness, for the single mother working two jobs and for the young girl who is a newcomer to Canada. We will look after them today and in the future.

I have two beautiful granddaughters, Livia and Leya. I want to be able to look them in the eye in a few years' time and tell them that we did the right thing on climate change, that we invested in the right places while there was still time, that we took smart, targeted action, that we did not shy away from these huge issues, that we faced them head-on. Under our leadership, Canada will always be the little light that shines through the darkest storms, guiding the way towards a future in which we may not have everything, but we have everything we need.

As the great theologian Reinhold Niebuhr said, “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I cannot accept, and wisdom to know the difference.”

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things we have been pointing out with the budget is that there is a $43-billion deficit and deficit spending continues to drive inflation. I am wondering what my hon. colleague across the way has to say about the deficit and inflation.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can say that there is no deficit in Canada. Our position is that we are investing in the well-being of Canadians.

Let us take the pandemic as an example. This government helped all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, so it is an investment. If we abandoned Canadians during the hard times, like the pandemic was, half the country could go bankrupt. The Canadian government did not abandon anyone.

That is what we did, and that is what we will continue to do to serve Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. His riding is is quite close to mine. I have a question for him about his government's willingness to be there for Canadians.

As we know, there are some social programs that fall under federal jurisdiction, such as old age security and employment insurance. Can my colleague explain why there is nothing for seniors in the last budget, nor anything relating to EI, despite the promises his government made in 2015, 2019 and 2021 about looking after workers?

On the other hand, why is there more than $13 billion in the budget for dental care, which is definitely not a federal jurisdiction?

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can assure my colleague that this government's approach to providing support for Canadians across the country is very clear.

Let us first talk about the grocery rebate, which will help 11 million low- and modest-income individuals. For example, a couple with two children will receive up to $467, a single person without children will receive up to $234, and seniors will receive $225 on average.

I would also like to highlight something. Has my colleague forgotten our rapid housing initiative? Has she forgotten the $10-a-day child care to help parents work without worrying about child care?

This all adds up. I believe that is a very clear answer.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing we have heard loud and clear from many anti-poverty advocates in our country is that there is a need for a national school lunch food program. Lush Valley, an organization in my riding that supports local food growers to get food to people who have low incomes and challenges getting food, has been pushing for this program.

In 2018, the World Health Organization cited that one in five children in Canada is at risk of going to school hungry. That is not acceptable. We have been calling for the federal government to step in and fund a national school food program. We need federal funding, and school lunches could help take the pressure off of families right now.

Will my colleague speak to this important need? When will the government answer the call to action so children are not living in poverty, and so they get the best start in life?

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, financial assistance from the Government of Canada is available across the country.

Budget 2023 proposes new investments to ensure Canadians can count on fast measures and tangible services from the federal government and receive the benefits to which they are entitled. The Government of Canada will always ensure that Canadians have that right.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is much I want to say and it really is my honour to rise as the representative of the people of the great riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill to address budget 2023, a budget that will benefit those living in my riding and all Canadians. It is a budget that defines the middle way.

We have heard a lot this morning already from people who want more in the budget, things we have missed, and people who would like us to spend less. Many members have criticized what we have, and it is easy to do that. It is easy to point out things that could be there. I listened to the member for Courtenay—Alberni and agree that a school lunch program is very important. However, we find ourselves in a time when we are facing serious challenges.

We are still in the postpandemic economy, as is the rest of the world. We are facing high inflation, we are facing high interest rates and we are trying to address serious issues that have been made clearer through the pandemic. We can maybe talk about new bells and whistles on a car, how perhaps we would like to have Apple play or a better sound system. I think perhaps that is what defines the difference between the Conservatives and Liberals: we are more concerned with every Canadian having a way to get to work than having bells and whistles on a car. This budget addresses the very important needs that are facing us today, while at the same time trying to contain spending and being aware of the fact that our deficit has been large throughout COVID and we have to bring it down.

As I said, we are in a postpandemic economy. The shutdowns prompted by the pandemic have led to a reduction in production and imposed significant stresses on the global supply chain, as we all know. Although the opposition likes to blame actions taken by our government for this worldwide inflation, I know as well as they do that, as the middle power, Canada does not have the ability to create inflation worldwide. In fact, if we had that kind of economic power, we would be using it for the good of Canada and would probably be putting in place a lunch program and others that we would like, including employment insurance. However, that is not the case.

It is also not the case that the price on pollution has caused inflation. The price on pollution did not increase between April 2022 and April 2023, yet inflation was rampant. In fact, with the most recent increase, we have seen inflation declining. Even on a simple basis of correlation, it does not stand, never mind causality. Rather than talking about opting out of inflation through cryptocurrency and other things or cutting programs, we are investing in Canada. We are trying to build the economy, to continue on a program that has been in place since 2015 to make sure that our economy is green, that it is inclusive and includes all Canadians.

Speaking of crypto, just in the last two weeks, I have received emails in my riding from people who have lost their life savings after investing and using crypto as the way to do it. There is no redress, there is no way to follow it and they are out their life savings. In one case, it is almost $1 million and in another case $8 million. We cannot just opt out of programs like that. We have to be serious, not reckless, and follow this path.

We are not only dealing with global inflation. The COVID-19 pandemic also underscores fault lines in our society, in particular, around health care. We know the problems that were there before were exacerbated through the pandemic, so this budget focuses on health care. It is the largest part of the budget and is much needed. The provinces have been asking for increases in the Canada health transfer, so we have included bilateral negotiations with provinces to respond to their needs. There is $25 million for mental health in those bilateral negotiations and the provinces can spend the money where they see it is most needed.

Health care was one of the very important things that we had to address. Given that, the affordability crisis is ongoing. As I said, we are in a postpandemic economy, so we needed continued supports, such as the new grocery rebate. However, that is in addition to ongoing programs that have been instituted since 2015, programs like the Canada child benefit and the dental plan, which is expanded in budget 2023 to people living with disabilities and seniors. There are programs in place like the Canada child benefit, which this government put in place and has been helping to bring people out of poverty.

When comparing a 2018 model to a 2023 model, Canada is much better in that we have decreased poverty among children significantly and among seniors. To me, that is far more important than the bells and whistles on a new car. Those basic things that we have done are making a difference to Canadians across this country.

In my riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, almost 2,000 children have been able to get the dental care that they were unable to get prior to having this dental plan in place. That is significant. It is clear to us that the health care system was in need of more transfers. We put that money in place and are working co-operatively with the provinces on that.

The other area we knew we had to continue with was the greening of the economy. We have programs in place to ensure that we do our part as a country to move Canada forward. Countries around the world are recognizing that things have changed and we have to change with them. We cannot be left behind. We know the price on pollution is the most efficient market mechanism to try and make some of these changes.

We are investing in clean tech. This budget has significant investments in clean technology to encourage businesses to invest. Through the Canada growth fund, we are working with the Public Sector Pension Investment Board to attract additional private capital to Canada to green and clean our economy.

We are laying the foundations for a made-in-Canada solution to tackle climate change. This is a federal responsibility. Members can say that we should leave these things to the provinces.

I was in an environment committee meeting yesterday listening to first nations in the region around the Kearl Lake tailings pond spill. It was heartbreaking to listen to them. We heard witness after witness talk about the provincial regulator that had not done its job and had not protected these communities from these spills from these tailings ponds, and this continues.

As a federal government, we have an obligation to protect Canadians, their health and safety, and I am not okay with leaving it to the provinces when it is, in fact, a federal responsibility. Cutting back our spending by exempting ourselves from our responsibilities and stepping back is not okay with me, and neither is slashing programs. We have to live up to our responsibilities, and we are doing that in this budget.

We know we cannot afford to maintain the status quo when the world around us is changing due to the climate crisis and the response of most advanced economies to it. We are making significant investments to ensure that Canada does not fall behind. We know that the Canadian economy will be stronger when all Canadians are able to fully participate in it and benefit from it.

We are continuing to ensure that indigenous communities, women, people living with disabilities, the 2SLGBTQA+ community and other under-represented minority groups are participating fully in the process of shaping policy priorities that support them.

Budget 2023 continues to implement the plan that was set out in 2015 by this government. We need steady progress on these goals, not knee-jerk reactions that slash programs and go to alternative methods. We must continue to do this and it is only by continuing on this path that Canada will reach its full potential, achieve greater prosperity and fairer responsible economic growth.

We are well positioned, as a country, to capitalize on the many advantages we have, and they are numerous. If we continue to support one another and work together, we will build an economy and society that will be second to none, one that will be shared by all Canadians.

At a challenging time, in a challenging world, there is no better place to be than in Canada.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the areas I want to focus on in the budget is specifically with respect to Lake Simcoe. I know the government has allocated a multi-million dollar fund for freshwater lakes and watersheds across the country.

One of the things that we are focused on locally, and I would consider the member to be part of that in central Ontario, is specific funding for Lake Simcoe and the reinstatement of the Lake Simcoe clean-up fund. As we know, a previous Conservative government invested close to $60 million and saw measurable improvements in phosphorus and fish habitats were coming back.

There were numerous councils around the Lake Simcoe watershed that passed motions asking for direct funding for Lake Simcoe. Why would that not have been specifically indicated in the budget as a direct funding mechanism for Lake Simcoe?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, in fact the Lake Simcoe watershed is in my backyard. I do live in that area and I am very concerned about it. Like I said, there were many things that were not included in this budget, but we have funded a clean water agency for the first time in the history of Canada and have put significant money into clean water. It is up to that agency to determine how that money is spent. There are many individual requests that were not met.

I would like to add, however, that the provincial government's decision to build on farmlands, wetlands and greenbelts, and to continue to build highways across farmlands that specifically affect Lake Simcoe is adding to this problem, not helping. We have to work together.

The Bradford Bypass was a disastrous decision and Highway 413 is going to follow in its steps.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague with whom I work on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I really enjoy the work that we are able to do together, but when it comes to the budget, we have differences of opinion on the matter of the environment.

How does the government not see that carbon capture and storage is just a greenwashing campaign dreamed up by the oil and gas industry in an attempt to appear willing to work towards net zero? Over 400 experts and academics have criticized this technique and have urged the Minister of Finance not to fund it. Other countries around the world are gradually abandoning this technique. Even the United States is doing away with the financial incentives for it.

Why is Canada rushing headlong into a mirage?