Debates of April 25th, 2023

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise this evening to debate Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

I would like to start by wishing my daughter, Julia, a very happy birthday yesterday. She brings us much joy.

The budget was tabled about a month ago. We have already voted in principle on these measures, but this bill is a chance to debate in more detail about the legislative changes needed to carry out the initiatives outlined in the budget.

The most impactful part of this budget is the full funding for dental coverage for all Canadians making less than $90,000 who do not already have coverage through an existing plan. This would change the lives of millions of Canadians.

I keep hearing stories from friends and constituents who grew up without dental care because their families simply could not afford to go to the dentist. One friend phoned me soon after she heard about the new dental care plan. She is retired now, but grew up painfully shy after having many of her teeth pulled out as a child because of the lack of regular dental care. That shyness changed her life and personality so much that she still avoids social gatherings. She was very emotional when she told me how much the new dental plan would really make a difference to the lives of Canadians of all ages, but particularly to those of young Canadians. Her example is a clear case of how the lack of dental care is the single visible mark of poverty for Canadians. This dental care program will change all of that forever.

This is an addition to our public health care system that New Democrats have been calling for ever since Tommy Douglas brought universal health care to our country in the 1960s. It would not have happened without the NDP using its power in the current minority government to force the Liberals to act. Both the Liberals and Conservatives voted against dental care in the last Parliament when former MP Jack Harris introduced dental care legislation in this very chamber.

The other missing piece in our national public health care system is pharmacare. Right now, Canadians can go to a doctor for free, but if they are prescribed medication for their condition, they have to pay for that themselves. Millions of Canadians cannot afford their prescriptions and end up in emergency rooms, putting pressure on the critical care part of our health care system, which is already overloaded. A public pharmacare program would provide free prescription medications to all Canadians, while saving us a minimum of $4 billion a year. It is a no-brainer. The Liberals have promised to bring in framework legislation for pharmacare by the end of this year, so it is really concerning there is no mention of it at all in this budget, not a peep.

There is good news in this budget about investments in the clean-energy economy. Significant tax credits will spur development in growth in this critical area. Thanks to the NDP, those tax credits will be tied to good jobs with good union-scale wages. Too often governments give out millions of dollars to big companies only to find that the funds went to executive bonuses and a boost in shareholder dividends. The strings attached to these incentives will ensure that workers are at the centre of the shift to a new clean-energy economy.

I used to work at the University of British Columbia, so I know first-hand how valuable investments in higher education can be. They are essential in this new knowledge economy. This budget has some help for post-secondary students. It will increase the Canada student grants by 40%, up to a maximum of $4,200.

However, the government totally missed the mark by not including anything to help graduate students who are living in poverty. Grad students work full time in their studies. It is their job. Many grad students across Canada are funded by scholarships from the federal government. These students are our best and our brightest, and these scholarships have remained at the same dollar figure and same level since 2003, for 20 years. Masters students are now trying to live on $17,500 per year. It is below the minimum wage. It is below the poverty line.

Students and researchers have been campaigning for over a year to change this. They had big demonstrations here in Ottawa last summer. They appeared before House of Commons committees. The science and research committee recommended that the government not only increase the amounts of individual scholarships, but also increase the number of scholarships. This would help us compete in the information economy and help us stop the brain drain of these young researchers moving to other countries that properly value their talents.

The students were profoundly disappointed when this budget had nothing in it for them. Students and researchers across the country will be staging a big walkout on May 1 to highlight this lack of recognition from the government and this lack of respect. They will not give up until the government agrees to pay them enough so they can live above the poverty line while they generate the innovations that Canadian companies need.

Canadians pay some of the highest interchange fees on credit card payments in the world. This is a real hardship for small businesses that increasingly rely on credit card transactions. New Democrats have been calling for reduced fees for years, for decades. Jack Layton was big on this point. We want to put us on the same level as other countries.

In my role as small business critic, I have talked to Visa, Mastercard, Moneris, the banks, Aeroplan and other players. I know it is a complicated issue, so I was very happily surprised to see that the budget announced real action on this. The lowered fees will save small businesses an average of 27%, which is over $1 billion over five years.

We have been hearing a lot about labour issues in recent days with the job action by the federal civil service. The ability to withhold labour in the face of unfair pay and work conditions is the only power organized labour has. Unfortunately, companies have often chosen to bring in replacement workers when faced with striking workforces. This flies in the face of the right of workers to strike and creates divisions within communities and between neighbours.

The NDP has been trying to get anti-scab legislation passed in this place for years. I remember one of the first private members' bills in 2016, when I was a rookie here, was anti-scab legislation brought forward by one of my NDP colleagues. Unfortunately, the Liberals and Conservatives voted against that bill, as they have for every other piece of anti-scab legislation. Again, I am happy to see that the NDP has used its power here to force the Liberals to bring forward federal anti-scab legislation.

The big disappointment on the labour front in this budget is the lack of any real employment insurance reform. One thing the COVID epidemic quickly taught us was that most Canadian workers are not covered by El. Only 40% are covered. We desperately need a new El system to protect workers for future job losses. If the predictions of some economists for a recession in the near future are correct, those job losses may be just around the corner. We must be ready to protect Canadian workers if that happens.

As I said earlier, while the NDP supports this budget, it is not a budget that an NDP government would table. That is clearly shown on the revenue side of the ledger. Every year Canada forgoes billions of dollars in taxes through legal tax avoidance by Canadian corporations and wealthy individuals. Every year the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The government has made baby steps to reverse the trend that has been going on for decades.

In this budget, the government changed the alternate minimum rate from 15% to 20.5%. That will raise the amount that wealthy Canadians must pay no matter what tax deductions they declare. It will recoup about $3 billion over five years, and 99% of that increase will come from people making more than $300,000 per year.

What we need is a wealth tax that will force super-wealthy Canadians to pay their fair share. What we need is legislation that eliminates the option for Canadian companies to hide their money in offshore tax havens. What we need is an NDP government and a real NDP budget.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay for highlighting some really important measures in the budget this year.

Given that this week is National Tourism Week, and I have the honour to work very closely with my colleague on the all-party parliamentary tourism caucus, I wanted to highlight some things in the budget that relate to tourism. There are some major investments being made in supporting local events, in attracting large events like conventions to Canada, and many measures that will make it easier to travel within Canada. This includes at airports to make sure that passengers are able to be compensated more easily if there are issues with delays or cancellations.

Could my colleague speak more to the importance of tourism and how the budget this year is going to help this critically important sector right across the country?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the work the member does with the all-party tourism caucus.

I come from a tourism riding as well. It is a big part of the economy in South Okanagan—West Kootenay. There are some things in the budget that would really help tourism. There is increased funding to Destination Canada.

However, when I talk to hotels and restaurants, all the businesses in my riding that depend on and grow with tourism, they say that what tourism really needs is a bigger, more available labour force, and what that labour force needs is more housing. There is very little in this budget on housing. That is at the core of so many of the things that are holding the Canadian economy back.

I would simply ask the government to be more bold with housing investments that would allow us to bring in more workers to create the wealth—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated my NDP colleague's speech. He talked about the widening gap between the rich and the poor in Canada.

The Gini coefficient indicates that, quite clearly, in the Liberal government's time in power, there is a wider gap between the people who are rich in this country and the people who are, as they would like to say, trying to join the middle class, although the middle class is the middle at the end of the day. Anyway, between the bottom and the top, that gap is widening because of measures put in place by the Liberal government.

One of the issues in this budget is, of course, the flow-through tax, the increasing flow-through shares available for critical mineral companies. That is targeted at rich Canadians.

Would my colleague consider, in an NDP budget that he supports the government on, withdrawing that huge tax break for the rich in Canada in order to develop critical minerals?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would say first off that the gap between the wealthy and the poor or less well-off Canadians has been growing for the last 40 years. It has been growing over multiple Conservative and Liberal governments. It is not a new phenomenon. It has happened ever since we started believing in trickle-down economics. Until we realize that does not work, that gap will continue to grow.

As for investments in critical minerals, that is something we have to do. It is something we have to encourage. However, what the NDP is concerned about is the wealth to individuals generated by that, to wealthy Canadians, should be taxed at a rate that does not make them uncomfortable but is their fair share of the tax. Too many people are—

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

For the last question, the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, last fall, I stood in the House and I asked a Liberal member if it was not time to eliminate fossil fuels. He said yes, in 2023, it is all going to stop, fossil fuels will no longer be subsidized. That is a promise that the Liberals made.

Unfortunately, in the budget, that is not the case at all. All sorts of direct and indirect assistance is still be provided for fossil fuels to companies that are already making astronomical profits. In 2022, Exxon Mobil made $56 billion in profits, Shell made $40 billion, adjusted to $36 billion, Chevron made $36 billion and BP made $27 billion.

There is a housing shortage in Canada, yet we continue to send billions of dollars to billionaire companies. I do not know what my colleague thinks about that.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is something the NDP has been calling for, for years. It is something the Harper government promised to the G20 to do years ago.

The Liberal government has not even come up with a definition of what a fossil fuel subsidy is, what an inefficient subsidy is.

We see that the cost of the Trans Mountain pipeline is now at $30 billion. People complain about how much dental care—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns regarding the budget implementation act, 2023, No. 1. This type of bill obviously concerns me as the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, and I will explain why.

First of all, I find it hard to understand why such a fundamental segment of our society, the people who built our identity and to whom we owe so much, is once again being ignored in the measures announced in this 430-page tome. The government has thought of amending 59 laws, as well as tax regulations, and yet it has not provided anything for seniors, who are increasingly marginalized. This is totally unacceptable. It is crucial that budget bills be carefully scrutinized and that citizens be given the opportunity to voice their concerns, which does not appear to be happening. How else can we explain that the government has completely ignored seniors?

With that in mind, let me explore some of the issues that many of us have raised and that motivate our party to vote against Bill C-47.

This is not the first time that changes have been made here by the Liberal government through this process, but there is something pernicious about going about it this way. First, where is the transparency? Where is the predictability that people so desperately need to make decisions that affect their lives? It is simple. There is nothing in the bill for seniors, housing, long-term support or health care funding. That much people understand.

The bill also creates infrastructure for agencies that are not accountable to Parliament to manage the billions of dollars the government intends to invest in the green economic transition. No one can make me believe that there are not people who will just smell the money and not really care where that money goes.

I did manage to find some measures that are of particular interest to me, and I want to highlight them. After talking repeatedly about farm succession and the plight of our agricultural producers, one measure is worth mentioning, namely removing the uncertainty surrounding the taxable capital gain on intergenerational transfer of small businesses. This is a decades-long battle that I was part of and that many other colleagues, long before me or with me, were able to fight.

The text of the bill deals with a variety of issues related to agriculture in Canada, and I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to speak to the nuances that the government must consider if it wants to serve the interests of many ridings, including my own.

Nearly 50% of the land in Abitibi—Témiscamingue is undervalued. We still have a long way to go to ensure that our agricultural land is valued and used to feed the people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Quebeckers, Canadians and others. We must first ensure that we work on classifying agricultural land through a fund dedicated to the safeguarding of agricultural land. Such funding would allow Quebec and its municipalities to begin this important, or even critical, process.

Then, to encourage recultivation, subsidies comparable to those offered for reforestation must be introduced. This funding would allow our grain producers to increase their production, for example, and would allow our cattle producers to create new pastures for raising their livestock. Above all, these subsidies would be a more important lever for our young farmers by making it easier for them to access land. With this simple measure, our farmers would be able to put more of their products on the tables of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Quebec, Canada and the rest of the world, in addition to ensuring the sustainability of our villages and our rural communities as well as real and sustainable land use.

It is also important that the program to plant two billion trees be amended to exclude devalued agricultural land from the areas that are targeted by the program for tree planting. In my riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, the people who cleared that land are often still alive.

The government also announced $333 million dollars over 10 years for the dairy innovation and investment fund to help producers reduce the amount of solids non-fat that is sold for animal feed or disposed of and to increase their revenues.

The Bloc Québécois welcomes that compensation but strongly maintains that no amount can compensate for the breakdown of the supply management system and that the government should pass Bill C-282 to protect the system during future negotiations. In that regard, I want to thank most of my colleagues for supporting this bill.

With regard to the higher prices for nitrogen fertilizers because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the government is currently proposing to add $34.1 million over three years to the on-farm climate action fund to support the adoption of nitrogen management practices by eastern Canadian farmers. The Bloc Québécois finds this measure to be ineffective and even ridiculous and believes that the government should not be proposing such measures while imposing a 35% tax on fertilizer. Furthermore, it is important that the government make cash available to our farmers. Almost a year ago, I gave a speech calling on the government to set up an emergency account, similar to the one we had during the pandemic, to help our farmers, who have likely been the hardest hit by input and fuel costs.

According to a study by the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA, farmers are in such dire straits that one farm in 10 could go out of business within 12 months. That is serious. UPA's president for my region was quoted in the newspaper Les Affaires. I recommend that my colleagues read the article. It said that the increase in interest rates and in the cost of gas, inputs and fertilizer are taking a toll on farms' profit margins, which are already very narrow and, in some cases, non-existent. Furthermore, higher insurance premiums and stricter requirements imposed by insurance companies, which want changes made in very short time frames, are resulting in significant costs. For that reason, the government must create an emergency business account for our farmers.

I do want to point out that the budget does increase the interest-free portion of loans granted under the advance payments program from $250,000 to $300,000. However, once again, the government is focusing on producers' debt rather than their cash flow or the possibility of providing additional income.

There are measures for mining. One of the interesting measures in the budget is the tax credit for the development, extraction and recycling of critical and strategic minerals. The problem is that there is no mention of it in Bill C‑47, the first budget implementation bill. Is this going to be a repeat of what happened with the mineral exploration credits? As far as I know, none of the measures presented in last year's budget were implemented. The money for mineral exploration is therefore impossible to access. Is the same thing going to happen when it comes to applying these credits for businesses that recycle minerals, for example?

Abitibi—Témiscamingue is home to the only copper smelter in Canada. The smelter is working to reduce its greenhouse gas and arsenic emissions, and the new 30% tax credit could help it speed up its work. Furthermore, I know from my study at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology that we need to figure out how to boost metal recycling in Quebec and Canada, given that only 10% of the electronic devices recycled in Rouyn‑Noranda come from Canada.

In addition, our region currently has the only active lithium mine in Canada, in La Corne. Sayona Mining is an important player for the Abitibi—Témiscamingue region, and its willingness to process the resource close to the source is noteworthy.

Although the government is providing additional funding to the critical minerals centre of excellence, I still believe that it is essential that this centre have a presence in the mining regions. It needs to forge strong ties with our universities, such as the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témicamingue, and our colleges, such as the Industrial Waste Technology Centre, or CTRI, and the Cégep de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue, especially considering the Abitibi-Témiscamingue mining innovation zone project that is being developed in our region.

This mining innovation zone project could play a cutting-edge role in the mining industry in Quebec and Canada. It is immensely important in the sector, which is located near very large Canadian mines such as Agnico Eagle.

When representatives of Glencore appeared before the committee, they also mentioned this point and how important it is to the Quebec, Canadian and global mining ecosystem. The entire battery industry would benefit from having part of the critical minerals centre of excellence in Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Finally, the budget mentions the government's efforts to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples by providing $4 billion over seven years for urban, rural and northern housing. I welcome this. However, there is no new funding for on-reserve housing despite the urgent need. Once again, in my region, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, housing is a very important issue.

We have had a housing shortage for quite some time. Even before the pandemic, we were having difficulty building enough housing to meet demand. Rising interest rates are hurting construction and hampering our economic development. It is increasingly difficult to attract workers. I really do not want to see my region become a fly-in, fly-out community.

In closing, where is the money for housing in this budget? It is likely in the same place as the money for the most vulnerable seniors aged 65 and over, which is to say, nowhere.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, with regard to affordable housing, does my colleague want to see more housing co‑ops? I know that there are many housing co-ops in Quebec. My colleague is from a rural riding. What would the solution be with respect to housing co-ops in a riding like Abitibi—Témiscamingue?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Milton for his interest. Yes, the co-op model is really great.

I am going to stray from the topic of the budget. We had an interesting problem with the Coopérative d'habitation Boréale. The reality of co-ops in rural areas is that we cannot have 200 or more units, as is the case with other co-ops. With roughly eight units, there is relatively the same proportion of units as there is in Montreal and Rouyn-Noranda, all things considered. However, CMHC has difficulty adapting budgets to the reality of regional co-ops. Changes are definitely required in that regard if we want to improve our rental capacity. Yes, the co-op model is part of the solution, but we must lower prices. The way to do that is to boost supply by building housing.

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

Madam Speaker, the NDP obviously has a nuanced view of the budget. There are some good things in it, mainly because we forced the Liberals to include them. Take, for example, the dental care plan for seniors and teenagers and the doubling of the GST tax credit, which will help those most in need. There is also the anti-scab legislation that is coming. We are going to force the Liberals to introduce it, even though they have always voted against that type of legislation.

One of the points that my colleague raised and that the NDP is also raising is that there is nothing in the budget about an EI reform, which many groups and unions in Quebec have been waiting for for many years. What would my colleague like to see in an EI reform that would meet the needs of workers in his community?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, the matter of EI reform has been very important to me ever since I got into politics. A few months ago, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and I marched with the unions that were calling for EI reform. I went to see the picket lines in Rouyn-Noranda. I almost posted on Twitter that the member was not there, but I held back.

This issue is essential to me. I want to rise in the House to call for EI reform. It is unacceptable that so many workers who paid into the system all their lives so that they would have a social safety net are not eligible. That is completely outrageous. Things need to change. It is a matter of dignity.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, if a country fails to preserve its food security and to value and support the people who make that food security possible, then no one will. At the end of the day, that country is only hurting itself.

We need farmers three times a day. Can my colleague offer one or two solutions for alleviating the burden on our farmers, including when it comes to the fertilizer they ordered before the war between Russia and Ukraine and have paid dearly for?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is terribly shocking to see who are the real victims of the measures that had to be taken. These economic sanctions against Russia in the context of the invasion of Ukraine had economic repercussions that rippled all the way to our local farms.

The reality for farmers has changed, especially in Abitibi West, where fuel distribution networks do not reach naturally. With the massive increase in costs, one farmer told me that he used to pay $30,000 for diesel fuel, but his budget this year is up to $70,000. His bottom line and his survival are at stake. He had 200 head of livestock, which he will have to reduce to 125 because he can no longer afford to keep up an average-sized farm. He has to reduce the size of his farm.

All this is because the government's measures are not adapted to the reality of remote regions, and that is definitely a problem. Insurance costs will have to be adjusted to this reality. An emergency account will need to be created that will help our farmers access cash flow when they need it.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank all who will be listening and my husband at home, who I know stays up late. It means we are 52 years old, when it is 10 to nine and I am calling it “late”.

I really want to start this speech off by looking at where we are, looking at an Auditor General's report that just came out a month ago, and looking at how we have to move forward. I want to start by reading into the record the report called “Global Affairs Canada is unable to show the value of Canada’s international assistance in support of gender equality”. I want to read a bit of this report into the record so that we can understand setting this up. Really what I am looking for is accountability, transparency and fiscal responsibility, some things we have not seen from the government.

It reads:

A report from Auditor General Karen Hogan tabled...in the House of Commons concludes that Global Affairs Canada was unable to show how its implementation of Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy had contributed to improving gender equality in low- and middle-income countries. The department is unable to [see] the information contained in its files to report on the value derived from the approximately $3.5 billion spent yearly on bilateral development assistance projects or to provide Parliament and Canadians with a complete picture of the outcomes achieved for women and girls.

I am going to go to another part where it also found that Global Affairs Canada did not meet two of its three spending commitments under the feminist international assistance policy:

The department fell short on funding projects that directly supported the empowerment of women and girls or that were located in sub‑Saharan Africa, where the benefit in terms of reducing poverty and advancing gender equality is typically higher.

The reason I am bringing this forward is that it kind of sets the stage for where we are with the government. As we are looking at the budget, I put on the lens of the shadow minister for women and gender equality and youth, looking specifically at what the government is indicating in its budget. Knowing the Auditor General's report, I think we need to start looking at what is going on with the government.

As I look at the 2023 budget, this is something the government has indicated as part of its foreign aid feminist international assistance policy goal for 2030. We are talking about the government continuing to give out money, but we expect results, we expect accountability and we expect that when we ask how money has been spent, it would be able to show how the people in those areas have been impacted.

However, we have none of that information. I see a budget that says the government is going to go do all these wonderful things, but I do not see any of the tangible results, and that is why I absolutely oppose so many different things in the budget. I do not think the government understands fiscal responsibility, and that continues to be one my greatest challenges.

I have heard many people talk about the food bank. I think one of the saddest stories I heard was from a person from the food bank in our area who shared with me that another person who had gone to the food bank owned a home in our area that cost $800,000. However, this man was not able to put food on the table. There are many reasons, but I look at the fact that this man, who had purchased this home for his family, unfortunately was not aware of the variable or fixed interest rates.

I have a real problem with the fact that there was no customer service to help this person, who came to Canada and purchased a house, understand those things. There are lots of concerns there, and I do not want to point the finger, but at the same time I am finding that when this man had purchased a house for $800,000, he was able to do so because he came from a two-income family with a six-figure income. Subsequently, his family could not meet the goals of paying for their mortgage any longer.

Under the government, we have seen inflation go up so much. For example, a person had a mortgage that they paid biweekly. At one time, and I believe it was probably in April of last year, the principal, taxes and everything totalled $753. After everything going on with inflation, when they went back to the bank to renew their mortgage, their new mortgage rate was at $1,050. That is a substantial increase for anybody who is paying that type of money.

I want to also look at so many different things here. I submitted an OPQ a few weeks ago. I want to look at government accountability. I submitted an OPQ on March 2, and the question was, “With regard to the federal government’s funding of Gymnastics Canada being frozen in July 2022: (a) what was the original reason the government froze this funding; and (b) despite allegations of abuse and maltreatment within the sport still being unsettled, has this funding been reinstated and, if so, (i) on what date, (ii) for what reason?”

I would like to let everyone know it has been reinstated, but I do not know for what reason.

I want to read the response from Canadian Heritage on this:

...as a result of safe sport issues in the sport of gymnastics, Sport Canada froze funding to Gymnastics Canada and imposed the condition that Gymnastics Canada become a program signatory to Abuse-Free Sport, including the services of the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, to allow Canadian gymnasts to be able to access the independent safe sport mechanism and other support services offered.

Part two of this, though, is probably the most concerning thing that I have ever seen and, hopefully, I can have somebody share this with me. Part (b) says, “funding to Gymnastics Canada was reinstated on November 14, 2022, as the organization had met the condition of becoming a program signatory to Abuse-Free Sport on October 18, 2022.” Why do I find this really crazy? It is because of the timeline. We are talking about a timeline where I know that on November 22, many parliamentarians were able to view something called “Broken”. It was the story from Gymnastics Canada talking about the number of young athletes who had gone through issues. We have had over 600, closer to 700, signatories talking about Abuse-Free Sport.

The reason I am bringing this up, as I said, is the timeline. On November 14, the minister reinstated this funding. On November 22, we highlighted that abuse was still happening in Gymnastics Canada. At that same time, the status of women committee started to study the abuse in sport and started to see that there was a rampant issue that was happening across not just gymnastics but multiple sports here in Canada.

The government talks about OSIC and how it is going to work, and I wish I believed it. They said they signed on and they are all good. That just does not meet the mark for me because they signed on, but they are the same CEOs who allowed this abuse to continue. We know that over the last number of years, they have never reported the complaints properly and that these perpetrators remain in the sport, not just in gymnastics but other sports.

The government did not invest a single extra dollar in this after all of the allegations had been going on. The funding was put in in 2022. We know there needs to be a lot done. Why did the government not look at what we need to do next? Why is it looking at OSIC and saying it is all good, it is fine and as long as it signs this, it is not going to worry any further? Hopefully I can get some answers to that question.

I also want to talk about women and gender equality in the workplace. We know, according to statistics, the participation rate decreased by 28% during the pandemic. If we look at any mom, any sister, any daughter, any woman and many men as well, it was a very difficult time as women were wearing many hats: as daughters, trying to take care of their elderly and as parents, trying to teach their children the things they had missed at school because they were at home. These are huge concerns for me.

The government is not attacking some of the key issues. The government will talk about a $10-a-day child care program. I am going to let everyone know how that is working out in St. Thomas, Ontario. Currently, one of the early learning centres, probably one of best places parents can find if they want great child care, cannot find employees. Although parents will be able to get approximately $10-a-day child care, spaces are not available in our communities because there is no labour force for this.

We always see that the government really likes to put the cart before the horse. It should make sure that it has the young men and women who will be working in these programs going through the education process, ensuring that they will be able to take these jobs that the government is promising to parents and that their children will be cared for. These are some major issues.

I have talked about food bank usage. We have seen across this country, across the board, that middle-class families are walking into food banks needing their help right now. We know with the sports abuse that the government put money in, but it is actually doing nothing about it. We have seen with the foreign feminist policy that the government can throw $3.5 billion out there and it does not matter where the money falls, no one is going to be accountable. I would really like the government to start being accountable.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, first I have a couple of quick corrections. It is not business as usual at Gymnastics Canada. A lot has changed. It has committed to an independent cultural review road map, the CEO has resigned, contrary to what my colleague said, and it is now in fact a signatory to OSIC and Abuse-Free Sport. These are the changes that we demanded. These are the changes that MPs from all parties demanded to see at Gymnastics Canada, and we are grateful to see that those changes are under way and progress is being made. Also, contrary to what the member said, in the budget there was $13 million for Sport Canada to develop a compliance unit so that we can continue to monitor the activities from that direction.

There was not a word about the $13-billion announcement for Volkswagen from this government, which the member attended recently. It is about creating green jobs, it is about creating the green economy of the future and investing in decarbonization electrification. Why was there not one passing mention on this budget implementation act about a $13-billion investment in—

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

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to ensure that this member of Parliament who looks over the sports file realizes that this was signed on November 14, and I am referring to gymnastics. It was not until close to March 2023 that the CEO actually resigned, so perhaps those facts are really important because it was not because of OSIC that he resigned. It was nothing to do with that, so let us look at that.

I would like to say I am one of the biggest champions for our community and I will continue to fight for prosperity in my community. That is my job as a member of Parliament. Although the Prime Minister likes to come and try to use me as a pawn, I am sorry but he is not winning there.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I appreciate in particular for her excellent interventions, notably on safe sport issues. She is a woman of commitment and what she said about gymnastics is a great example of that.

I would like to draw a parallel with restoring funding to Hockey Canada. I get the impression that the minister gave a bit of a blank cheque, in opposition to what she wanted. In fact, maybe we were the ones giving her the blank cheque. When she establishes structures, when all the elements are ultimately her responsibility and need to be accountable to her, that does nothing to change the culture of out-of-court settlements. She might even say that she is comfortable with the measures announced by Hockey Canada. Although I salute the Cromwell report and the will to go there, after four months, it cannot be said that a board of directors truly changed anything.

Is it somewhat the same situation in the world of gymnastics and is she prepared to give the minister this blank cheque?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member referred to Hockey Canada and we saw that with no accountability; not even after the London police reinvestigated. We have not seen anything. They have just once again signed over to Hockey Canada, saying that all is fine. We have seen the exact same thing with Gymnastics Canada. I would like to see accountability.

At the end of the day, when our children go to play sports, they must be safe. We need to ensure that coaches are well trained, that they have criminal record checks and that they have not abused a person in another province and then gone to coach the same sport in a different province. That is what we have seen happen here in this country. There has been zero accountability and these national sports organizations are continuing to let this go. I will continue to fight for athletes just as this member has done.

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

Madam Speaker, tonight we are hearing a lot about fiscal responsibility from the Conservatives. That is nothing new, and we are not surprised. However, they never seem to mention the fact that the Harper government ran deficits eight of the nine years it was in power, and it was not until the ninth year that it balanced the budget. Even then, it was because the government sold off the GM stock that it had bought during the auto crisis.

If the member really wants to eliminate the deficit, what is she going to do? Is she willing to go out and collect more revenue by stopping subsidies to oil companies or taxing billionaires? If not, what public programs and services does she intend to cut?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting because I do not think I have ever talked about cutting programs. We are talking about investing in things that are actually going to be accountable. I have talked about where the current government just continues to throw out money with band-aid approaches. When we are investing, we expect results, we expect fiscal responsibility and we expect there to be key indicators that are telling us how this money is spent and how it is actually improving the lives of Canadians. We are not talking about cutting. We are making sure that when we spend we actually spend wisely.