Debates of June 6th, 2023

Report Stage

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

Madam Speaker, although some people had their meagre CERB supplements cut, I think some compassion is in order.

Concerning people with disabilities, I am proud to say that support is still available in Quebec. People with disabilities are not different, they are unique and should be treated as such. In other words, they are fully entitled to social inclusion. Every effort must be made by and for them.

We have one major concern in this regard. I think that CERB clawbacks, such as those that have affected some of our seniors, should involve at least some degree of amnesty.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was listening earlier when my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle asked her questions.

I have often wondered how the Liberal leaders managed to pull a fast one on their MPs when it comes to increasing the old age security pension only for seniors aged 75 and up. Now I understand. They led their MPs to believe that a report from 2013 is still relevant today. That explains a lot of things and is very disappointing.

I congratulate my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville on her speech. She touched on all the issues. The main issue is seniors, and she spoke about them at length.

I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks about the government's inaction when it comes to relief measures or incentives for seniors who are returning to the labour market after just retiring around the age of 65 to 70. I would like my colleague to talk about that.

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

Madam Speaker, in my opinion, the government does not address the important issues in this budget. It is unbelievable. We need to support these people. They are already contributing to society. They are prepared to lend a hand, but the government is penalizing them. Basically, not only is the government not supporting them, but it is telling them to stay home. I find that unacceptable. I am sure that my colleague hears a lot about that in his riding.

The Government of Quebec made changes to the Quebec pension plan to address these issues. We would have expected the federal government to do the same. The Bloc Québécois very clearly requested tax measures to support this contribution in the current demographic context.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a great joy for me to rise today in support of Bill C-47 for a couple of reasons. One reason is that this is a budget that is focused on Canadians. It is a budget that is focused on increasing affordability and improving the quality of life for Canadians. However, it is also important for us to use this occasion to understand and articulate to Canadians what the opposition is standing against and what the Conservatives are choosing to stop Canadians from accessing.

This is a budget about making life more affordable. It is about making investments in health care and making sure that Canadians receive the care they expect and deserve. In budget 2023, we outlined how our government is going to provide targeted inflation relief to Canadians.

This includes a one-time grocery rebate. Conservatives are standing against a grocery rebate, which would be provided for the many individuals and families who are struggling to put food on the table due to the rising cost of groceries. By targeting this grocery rebate to the Canadians who need it most, we would be providing important relief to 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families, all without fuelling inflation. That is what the opposition is voting against. This is supposed to be delivered to eligible Canadians on July 5 by direct deposit or cheques through the CRA. This is what the Conservatives have said they are going to stall.

Bill C-47 would implement additional key measures to make life more affordable for lower-income Canadians who are working hard to get ahead and join the middle class. That includes taking action to crack down on predatory lending, so now the Conservatives are standing up against taking on predatory lenders, which I cannot understand. Predatory lenders take advantage of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, including low-income Canadians, newcomers and seniors, often by offering very high interest rate loans. Bill C-47 would allow the government to make changes to the Criminal Code to lower the criminal rate of interest from the equivalent of 47% to 35%, in line with the lowest cap among provinces, which is in Quebec. Bill C-47 would also adjust the Criminal Code's payday lending exemption to impose a cap on the cost of borrowing charged by payday lenders. This is something that affects Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I cannot understand why Conservatives would stand to oppose that.

We have also chosen to work hard to eliminate interest on Canada student loans and apprentice loans, which is support that would help students and new graduates finish their studies, keep more money in their pockets and successfully transition to the workforce. Over 750,000 post-secondary students rely on federal assistance each year to help them afford the cost of tuition, housing and everyday essentials. Our government chooses to invest in the future by investing in our children. That is again what the opposition has opposed. That is what the opposition is standing against.

We are supporting Canada's skilled tradespeople, who are essential to building our clean economy and who are the people who are going to help double the number of new homes that were built in Canada by 2032. That is, again, something the Conservatives seem to think is not in the interest of Canadians.

With Bill C-47, we would help tradespeople invest in the equipment they need by doubling the maximum employment deduction for tradespeople's tool expenses from $500 to $1,000. Conservatives are choosing to oppose that.

This bill would implement automatic advance payments for the Canada workers benefit. This benefit has already helped thousands of Canadians out of poverty, and these improvements would ensure that low-wage workers have timely access to the funds they need to support themselves and their families. Apparently that is not important to the Conservatives either. Starting in July, this would provide $714 for single workers, and $1,231 for a family, in three advance payments.

The Conservatives are also standing against stronger public health care. We all know that health care in this country and the workers who support that system are under tremendous strain. To ensure that Canadians receive the care that they need, budget 2023 would deliver an urgent and needed investment to strengthen our public health care system. Whether it is helping Canadians find a family doctor or combatting the opioid crisis that has devastated too many families and communities, we are committed to ensuring that every Canadian can rely on a world-class, publicly funded health care system. The Conservatives do not support that either.

First, our government is committed to supporting provinces and territories in delivering better health care results for Canadians, no matter where they live, so the budget would deliver on our plan to provide an additional $198.3 billion over 10 years to support better health care, including $46.2 billion in new funding to provinces and territories. This would include additional Canada health transfer measures, tailored bilateral agreements to meet the needs of each province and territory, personal support worker wage support and the renewal of the territorial health investment fund. In return for all of this new funding, for the first time, provinces and territories would have to commit to not diverting away health care funding of their own and to improve how health care information is collected, shared, used and reported to Canadians to help manage public health emergencies and deliver better health outcomes. Conservatives, incomprehensibly, oppose this as well. This is supposed to be about working together to improve health care for all Canadians, and somehow it has turned into a partisan issue.

In recognition of the pressures on our health care system, especially in pediatric hospitals and emergency rooms, and to reduce wait times, we are providing an additional $2 billion CHT, or Canada health transfer, top-up for all provinces and territories to address this immediate pressure. The funding is supposed to be used to improve and enhance the health care Canadians receive. It is not to be used by provinces and territories in place of their planned health care spending.

In addition, the federal government is going to work with indigenous partners to improve and provide additional support for indigenous health priorities by providing $2 billion over the next 10 years, which would be distributed on a distinctions basis through the indigenous health equity fund. Inexplicably, Conservatives seem to oppose this as well.

As we all know, dental care is an important component of our health, but seeing a dentist is expensive. The Canada dental benefit, which is providing eligible parents or guardians with direct, upfront and tax-free benefits to cover the cost of dental care for children under 12, has supported more than 290,000 children to date, many of whom are in Conservative ridings. In my own riding, we have seen this benefit, and I know many Canadians from across the country, from coast to coast to coast, continue to benefit from this. However, it is not just children; it is also seniors. The government is committed to fully implementing a permanent Canadian dental care plan for uninsured Canadians with annual family incomes of less than $90,000, with no co-pays for those with family incomes under $70,000, by 2025. The Conservatives seem to think that making sure those Canadians who need dental care most should not get it is perfectly reasonable. In the House, we must stand against this type of nonsense, because those Canadians deserve and need it, and it should be up to us to ensure that they get it.

By amending several tax statutes, beginning this year, Bill C-47 would be an important step in rolling out this plan. It would facilitate information sharing between departments as part of the implementation of the dental plan, and it would streamline the application and enrolment process to allow Canadians to access dental care sooner. My constituents have been asking for this; they write about this and they call about this. This should be something we make a priority and we get done. The House has a responsibility, to all those Canadians who need dental care, to make sure we deliver it.

Budget 2023 makes targeted and responsible investments that would help to build a stronger future for all Canadians. Our government is moving forward with these measures to address the cost of living in a way that sets Canadians up for greater success without having an impact on inflation. We are making fiscally responsible investments for the future, and we are going to ensure that Canadians receive the health care they deserve. Every member of the House has an obligation to make sure we are doing right by Canadians. We hear a lot of talk about gatekeepers, but what we are doing right now is that the Conservatives are gate keeping Canadians from the benefits they need, the benefits they deserve and the benefits the House has an obligation to provide for them.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, in an earlier intervention, I asked the Leader of the Opposition how many years he has been enjoying taxpayer-funded dental care. He refused to answer, but the answer is 19 years.

While Conservatives are actively fighting against this measure, which is going to provide dental care for the most marginalized people in Canadian society, more than a million Canadians who cannot afford to see the dentist, I would just like to ask for my hon. colleague's thoughts on why the Conservatives seem so hell-bent on “dental care for me but not for thee”? Why are they not going to fight for their constituents who obviously need this? Dental care is a part of health care.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have been plagued by this question for quite some time.

All of us have an obligation to protect the interests of our constituents, to make sure that we improve their quality of life. If those of us in the Chamber can benefit from publicly funded dental care, we have an obligation to protect the interests of our constituents from coast to coast to coast who need it and should have that same benefit. The Leader of the Opposition has been benefiting from this for his entire adult life. I cannot understand why anyone in the House who has taken that benefit would stand here and say that Canadians who need it most, seniors and kids, should not get that dental care.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate hearing from some of the Liberals.

I would like to dig down into one specific part of this bill, which has to do with some of the aspects of the clean fuel standard and some of the regulations associated with that. I have great concern that we are at a point where, as a society, we would be diverting possibly millions of tonnes of food from the food supply chain into the energy supply chain. The results of that, at a time when there is so much global instability and food insecurity, the policies which are being promoted by the Liberal government, could actually have a dramatic, negative effect on global food security.

I am wondering whether the member could comment specifically on that, and whether or not he is aware whether his government has done a full accounting of how many people would be food insecure because of policies that are diverting from food into energy.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think we are all seized with the challenge of food security. We all need to be taking it seriously. There is also a bit of a false dichotomy in saying that we simply cannot be thinking about food insecurity if we are thinking about fuel standards and about how we deal with energy in this country.

It is important for us to be able to make the right investments in promoting food security and in making sure we are building long-term sustainable food supply in this country, but we also have to be taking up the fight with respect to how we think about the future of energy use in this country, how we think about climate change and how we make sure we are making the right investments for the future to ensure that what we are seeing today, fires across this country from coast to coast to coast, does not become the norm.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, the majority of what we are voting on today under ways and means will go into the economy, but through tax credits for questionable environmental projects.

How does my colleague explain that this government says one thing and makes itself out to be a champion of the environment, but then funds fossil fuels, with no means to ensure accountability, to boot?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I share with the hon. member a desire to deal with climate change in a meaningful and thoughtful way. With respect to the direction of the decisions the government has taken, we have put in some of the most substantial measures ever in this country to combat climate change. Different and changing circumstances require us to be adaptive in the way in which we respond, but our commitment to dealing with climate change in a thoughtful way is predicated on science and seeks to improve the quality of Canadian lives along the way. It is unmatched.

I believe very strongly that staying the course and ensuring that we do the hard work that is required will get us to the future we deserve.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am speaking today from northern Ontario, where the air is thick with the smoke from out-of-control fires. I know that people in Ottawa are dealing with the heavy smoke from out-of-control fires. I just spoke with a senior citizen in Toronto who ended up in hospital because of his lungs, and he was told it is because of the smoke from the fires.

Halifax burns. Abitibi burns. Sept-Îles burns. Alberta has burned for over a month, with 30,000 people evacuated. What we are dealing with is an unprecedented crisis as the climate catastrophe descends upon us, yet in the House, we see shenanigans, game playing, chest-thumping and climate denial.

I am speaking today about the need to get the budget implementation legislation passed so that we can address serious issues facing our country and our planet. Certainly, the people I represent want to know that the dental care plan for seniors is not going to be obstructed by the man who lives in the 19-room mansion at Stornoway with his own personal chef. They have a right to dental care, and they want that dental care passed. I will stay night after night until we get that passed. It is the same for the people who are calling us about food insecurity and inflation; they want us to act.

However, more than ever, I am hearing from people who are deeply concerned about the climate catastrophe that is unfolding. From Lucretius, the Roman poet, we have what is called the “Lucretius problem”, which is that a human being cannot imagine a river bigger than any river they have ever seen. Perhaps, for the longest time, we could not imagine the catastrophe of a planet unbalanced, and then Lytton burned. Then Fort McMurray burned, with nine billion dollars' worth of damages. Then there was the Paradise fire in California. Then Australia burned. Then, last year, the Arctic Circle was burning. This year, in Canada, more land will burn than in the entire history of our country. This is not a one-off; this is the accelerating impacts of the global temperature rise. Parliament does need to show Canadians that we are going to do something about it. Part of this is the work that we have been doing as New Democrats to push the government on embracing a sustainable energy future. The time is now. In this budget, we have seen some significant promises, and we need to make those promises happen.

There is another urgency in terms of the climate crisis, which is the urgency of not being left behind. In the nine months since Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, 31 battery manufacturing plants have come on stream. This will amount to 1,000 gigawatt hours of energy by 2030, enough to support the manufacture of 10 million to 13 million electric vehicles a year. We cannot be left behind while America shoots ahead. In energy production, in the nine months since the IRA, companies in the United States have announced 96 gigawatts of new clean power within an eight-month period. That is enough to power 20 million homes.

This is the work we have been doing as New Democrats, yet we see the Conservatives, who are long-standing climate deniers, make fun of and interfere with this funding, and they are now doing everything they can to block the funding from getting out to kick-start clean energy projects.

When the leader of the Conservative Party, the member from Stornoway, came to my riding, he was making all kinds of jokes about electric vehicles. I checked his work resume, and I know he has never worked in manufacturing or the mines, but my region is going to be dependent on the critical mineral supply chain for jobs and for long-term sustainability. We know that the Conservatives have attacked and undermined the investments at the EV plant in St. Thomas. They have also had nothing to say about the need to get the battery plant in Windsor off the ground, even though that represents thousands of jobs.

Just recently, at the committee on natural resources, the member for Calgary Centre claimed that the critical mineral strategy was a minor contribution to energy. He said that EV plants in the supply chain will have little or nothing to offer for 20 years. That is just false, and I want to get down to that right now, because we have been dealing with disinformation from the Conservatives consistently.

Peak oil is when oil reaches a historic high. This was supposed to be in 2030, but the massive changes in renewable energy have reduced that to 2025 or possibly 2024. This year, the investment in renewable energy was almost twice that of oil and gas. The urgent point is that Canada does not leave its energy workers behind. Just this past week, I held a press conference with the Alberta Federation of Labour, with which I have worked closely on this, and the energy workers there who are ready to embrace the clean energy opportunities in hydrogen and in geothermal. They have the skills and the ideas, but what we all know is that the clock is ticking. We have to address this.

Whether the Conservatives want to admit it or not, the transition is happening. This is what I hear from energy workers in Alberta. They know this. The day after Danielle Smith won the election, 1,500 Suncor employees, 10% of its workforce, were fired. Suncor is getting rid of its workers and shifting to automation. That is where the big money is. Over the last nine years, we have seen Texas lose 110,000 jobs for oil workers. Alberta lost 45,000 jobs over the last nine years in the oil sector. Those jobs are not coming back.

We need to retool. We need to build an economy that is actually focused on creating sustainable energy from our immense resources. There is no other country in the world that has the resources we have or the skilled workers. However, this country is being blocked by an immature opposition, in terms of the Conservatives, who continue to deny the climate catastrophe. I encourage them to step out and go take a big, deep breath of that smoke-filled air, to realize that the fire is here. It is coming. It is not going away. We have to address it.

There are many shortfalls in the present government, which I will continue to call out. There are many shortfalls in this budget, but there are key areas we have to move on with a sense of urgency and a sense of responsibility for the Canadian people. We have to get this passed so that the national dental care strategy is actually able to help seniors this year, as was promised.

We have to get the funding and support out there to start the clean energy strategy so that we are not left behind in terms of our American, European or Chinese competition. We actually need to move quickly on legislation that will enable the protections in place to make sure that communities are part of the sustainable jobs transition and that energy workers are at the table; energy workers are the ones with the expertise, and we need to be hearing from them at this time.

I encourage my colleagues to put the June game playing away for a little bit. People sent us to get a job done. They sent us to work. I am here to work. I am here to make sure that energy workers, natural resources workers, miners in the communities I represent and young people who are watching the planet burn around them are not going to look at a Parliament that ignores that and plays games.

We have a job to do in the midst of a worsening climate crisis, and we have the potential to do it, but the window for action is narrowing. I urge my colleagues to step up. Let us get this thing voted on and then let us get on to other really important matters that are facing our country at this insecure time.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague gave a very important speech. As I listened to what he was saying, I was reflecting on the things that are in this budget, such as dental care, support for improving our health care across the country, dealing with climate change and supporting our most vulnerable.

My question for the hon. member is this: Why are the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition so interested in acting against the interest of Canadians?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, certainly, the Leader of the Opposition has always acted in his own interest. The guy owns a house in Ottawa, but he gets to move into Stornoway, a 19-room mansion, with its chefs and groundskeepers. He has had public dental care for nearly 20 years, paid for, for him and his family, yet he expects us to disrupt Parliament to the point that senior citizens do not get dental care.

That is not leadership; that is grandstanding. We need to be able to reassure Canadians, at a time when they have good reason not to trust politicians, that we are actually here to do a job. We are not just here to pull stunts and light our hair on fire, but to deliver something.

I do not know what the problem with the member in Stornoway is, but senior citizens on my watch are going to get access to dental care. They deserve it. They have a right to it.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, when the member ran to be the leader of the NDP, did he say he would never occupy Stornoway? I was here in 2011 with the Harper majority, and the member did not say boo about Tom Mulcair occupying Stornoway.

New Democrats talk a big game, but it is always about them. There is a lack of leadership. The fact that the member makes it so personal against the member for Carleton just shows that he must be feeling the heat from the leader of the Conservative Party. I look forward to the Conservative Party being in his riding and talking about real ideas that matter to that member's riding.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Ouch, Madam Speaker, I am hurt.

I looked up Mr. Stornoway's job record, because I thought maybe I would understand him better. I cannot find that he has ever actually had a job other than professional politician. I was a carpenter and a house builder; I had—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola is rising on a point of order.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, instead of using names here, we use members' titles and ridings. The member is not following the Standing Orders. I would ask you to bring him into compliance.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary has a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not remember the Conservative outrage when they were saying “minister of inflation”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary's point is a point of debate.

I want to remind members that just because one member is doing it does not mean that it is okay for another member to do it. However, when it comes to respect in the House, yes, we should be recognizing each other by either the riding name or position in Parliament. That applies to all sides.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a double ouch. The Conservatives certainly have a raw wound there. I was talking only about the member who moved out of his home in Ottawa and moved into Stornoway, which is a fact. That is a 19-room mansion funded by taxpayers.

I was just saying that I had a job; I had many jobs. When I ran my own business, I had to go to dentists to try to get a deal on dental care for my children. The member who lives in Stornoway has never had to do that. He has lived pretty damn well off the taxpayer. He is telling senior citizens in 2023 that they have no right to dental care; he said he will do anything, including jumping up and down all night long in Parliament, to stop this from happening.

He should tell his chef in the morning to give him some eggs, some yogourt, some granola and some green tea to calm him, so he is not just a rage bucket. That way, he can actually show up in Parliament to do some work.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑47 included $2 billion in health transfers that were already voted on in Bill C‑46, to be sure, but that were still there.

The NDP joined forces with the Liberals to remove that $2 billion even though the needs are growing not only because of the current fires, but also because of the growing and aging population.

Does my colleague regret having removed that $2 billion from Bill C‑47?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly think the New Democrats would be more than willing to do a workshop for the Bloc on the years that we have spent, time and time again, fighting for senior citizens and fighting for health care, because it is the right thing to do. We will continue to do that.

As for the member's comments on the fires, yes, we are very concerned about the fires in Abitibi. They are having a huge impact in my region. We are very concerned about Sept-Îles. This is why we need to be seen to be delivering for the Canadian people, and I look forward to working with the Bloc and maybe helping them understand how much work we have done on health care as a party. In fact, we are the party that brought in national health care, and we will continue to defend it.

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

Madam Speaker, allow me to begin my comments by talking a little about the situation in Quebec and Canada. My thoughts are with everyone affected by the fires, whether in Halifax, northern Ontario, or in Quebec in Abitibi, Témiscamingue or the north shore, where I have family and friends who are either out of their homes as a preventive measure, or unable to leave their village because the road is blocked by the fire. I send my love to my sister, my cousin and my niece.

We are here today to discuss Bill C‑47. It includes some interesting elements, including the creation of a real EI board of appeal. People who feel cheated will be able to assert their rights. That is a good thing. The air passenger protection system is also being improved. I attended a meeting on the topic in January, and most of the proposals we put forward were accepted, which better protects users. That is also a good thing.

However, several elements are missing. There is no increase for seniors aged 65 to 74. An increase of the tax credit from $5,000 to $6,500 is good. However, people who paid taxes for their entire lives still find themselves with rates that are similar to people who are single, without being able to put money into RRSPs or other forms of tax credits. Seniors' pensions are essentially a social program and, constitutionally, are the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The way things are going, seniors have a better chance of seeing Quebec repatriate all its pension powers for seniors than seeing Canada improve their situation based on current economic realities.

There is little in this budget related to housing. The supplementary estimates (A) include $973 million, but this one includes almost nothing. In terms of health, the population of Quebec and the Canadian provinces is aging, but is also growing across all age groups. That means that health care costs are higher. The government, with its wires crossed somewhat, had left $2 billion in health transfers in Bill C‑47, which were already voted in Bill C‑46. We thought the government had reconsidered its position, that it was acknowledging that the needs are actually greater, that it would increase health transfers and that that would help everyone. In the end, in a dramatic twist, the Liberals joined with the NDP to remove that $2 billion in health transfers, although the needs are still there.

Now let us now talk about employment insurance. This government has been promising EI reform since 2015. The only thing that has been done so far is a pilot project for seasonal workers, which is a good thing. Their benefits are being extended. Apart from extending the pilot projects, though, nothing else in this budget is new, as I said. The pandemic left a huge hole in the employment insurance fund. The act states that the fund may not run either a deficit or a surplus over an average period of seven years. This means that workers and employers will have to make up for the pandemic-related deficit through their EI contributions. It is important to note that the government does not contribute a penny to the EI fund. Only workers and employers contribute to it.

Over the next few years, there will be surpluses in the EI fund, as was the case before the pandemic, and those surpluses will be used to get rid of the debt brought about by the pandemic. The government could have solved the problem by using the consolidated revenue fund to keep a surplus in the EI fund. It chose not to do so and to make workers and employers pay down the deficit.

The surpluses generated over the next seven years will be used to cover the deficit created by the pandemic. That means that the government has no real intention of reforming the program for the next seven years, in other words, as long as the pandemic deficit is not eliminated.

Employment insurance is also a social program. Just like seniors' pensions, constitutionally, it is a program that should belong to the Canadian provinces and Quebec. At this time, Quebec repatriating its powers and putting in place a modern program is more likely than Canada even beginning to think about maybe continuing to reflect.

There are also surprises in this budget. Among other things, we learn that $80 billion will be allocated over 10 years to a fund for the green transition. That is good news, except that the fund will be distributed to organizations that are not required to report to Parliament. The eligibility criteria for obtaining funds include investments in the oil industry to create green energy, so oil and gas will be burned to create green energy.

By the way, the energy transition does not mean shifting from fossil fuels that produce a lot of greenhouse gases to fossil fuels that produce just a bit less greenhouse gases. The energy transition means shifting to renewable energy. The last I heard, there was no shortage of wind in Quebec and Canada. That is just one renewable energy that can be used. The technology is increasingly reliable.

There is another little surprise in the budget. While 56% of Canadians and 70% of Quebeckers say they are opposed to the monarchy, something was included at the very end of the bill, in clause 510, which is under division 31 of part 4, on page 325. It is recognition of the appointment of Charles III as Canada's monarch, the official head of state of Canada. It is an attempt to slip this by the 56% of Canadians and 70% of Quebeckers who are opposed to the monarchy. Some would say that Bloc members are sovereigntists who no longer want the monarchy. That would mean that 56% of Canadians and 70% of Quebeckers are also sovereigntists. The will of the people—a majority of them in this case, as I said—ought to be respected.

I will quickly end my speech. To answer the Leader of the Opposition's question, a sovereign and independent Quebec will not need health transfers, equalization payments, housing transfers or infrastructure transfers. That is because Quebec will get to keep all the taxes it collects. It will also keep the revenues from customs duties. It will be the sole manager of monies paid by workers and employers into the employment insurance fund and the pension fund for seniors. It will be the sole manager of monies generated by this new country that Quebec could and must become. Quebec's independence will allow us to manage our own future so we can fully represent Quebeckers' aspirations for future generations, unlike this budget, which does not do so.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with one part of the member's speech, and that is her plea to electrify our grid through the use of more renewable energies. She spoke specifically about wind, indicating there was a lot of opportunity for that, but one critical part to that energy infrastructure change and revolution is our capacity on storage and our ability to store energy in the future.

Could the member speak to other opportunities for us to continue to build upon the transition we are going through?