Debates of June 6th, 2023

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think I have made it clear what I am voting against. It is a government that is irresponsible and out of control and has put Canadians in this very dire situation. I am all about bringing supports for those who truly need them and for those who need a hand up to get out of a bad situation. I personally, during the Pierre Elliott Trudeau government, experienced 22% interest rates and the loss of my business, so I know what it is like to have nothing and have to come back. That is something that our government should be doing to help people.

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

Madam Speaker, I always like to start off my speeches by talking about the preceding speech. I noticed the exchange between the member for Yorkton—Melville and the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, when she said that Conservatives absolutely believe in climate change.

I do not necessarily disagree with that, but what I want to know is whether or not Conservatives believe that humans cause climate change. Less than a week ago, her seatmate, the member for Red Deer—Mountain View, said that there was nothing to see here because the rocks he picks out of his garden were caused by climate change, and the rivers we have in our country are just an effect of climate change. Literally, her seatmate, less than a week ago in this House of Commons, talked about climate change as though it is just a natural cycle of the planet and as there is nothing to see here there is nothing to worry about.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Come on, get on with your points.

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

Therefore, I take exception when a Conservative tries to suggest they believe in climate change. That is fair. However, do they believe that humans cause climate change? That is what I would love to know.

I also found it very—

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

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. This is not a dialogue between members. I am sorry. It is the hon. member's turn for his speech. He did not interrupt the hon. member when it was her turn for her speech, so I would like to allow the same courtesy to the parliamentary secretary.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, I also found it very interesting that the member for Yorkton—Melville, in the exact same speech, said that a $467 grocery rebate was pretty much insignificant and that nobody would care about it because it really did not mean anything, but that later on in the same speech she said that a $330 CPP increase would mean something significant to people. In the same speech, she tried to downplay the grocery rebate because it was not going to be impactful, but apparently a CPP contribution amount increase that is lower than that will have a devastating impact on Canadians. We can see the hypocrisy coming from the other side. That was not just from day to day, but within the exact speeches they gave in a 10-minute period.

I am really glad she talked about forest fires and what we are seeing outside. If someone walks outside the doors of this place, they are going to smell the smoke, as we all have for the last day or so. These are the impacts of climate change. I am not trying to fearmonger. I am not trying to suggest that the entire city is going to be burnt to the ground in a couple of days, but we have to be realistic about this. The reality is that forest fires in this country have been increasing significantly since the 1980s. Despite the incredible work we have done with respect to prevention and suppression, they still tend to increase. Why is that? Someone may say it cannot just be climate change. They might ask how climate change does that.

The fire season, the season in which we see forest fires, now starts a week earlier and ends a week later than it did historically. We have drier conditions, which allow fires to start in the first place, to burn quicker and to be more impactful. We also know that half of the forest fires started in Canada are caused by lightening. Where does lightening come from? It comes from increased weather events, and we are seeing increased weather events. It is no mystery to anybody that the weather events happening throughout this country are much more dire than they used to be. Conservatives are heckling at that. I do not understand why they would, as it is a serious issue. These are Canadians' lives we are talking about

We have to make a meaningful impact. We have to realize we cannot do what the member for Yorkton—Melville said, which is that we are just one little country within a globe and this is a global ecosystem, so there is nothing we can really do and we should just throw up our hands. No, we work together with other countries on this planet, like Brian Mulroney did when he saved the world from the depletion of the ozone later. Brian Mulroney brought together 42 representatives from different countries throughout the world, in Montreal, to sign the Montreal Protocol on dealing with the depletion of the ozone layer. That is how we get things done.

Yes, members should clap for Brian Mulroney, a great progressive Conservative.

The problem is that the Conservatives of today do not look at it like that. They say we are just one little country in the world, and our emissions, comparatively speaking, are so low that we should not even worry about them. That is a very defeatist approach, and if that is the approach one wants to take, I guess it is their prerogative. I much prefer the approach of Brian Mulroney, a true progressive Conservative, who knew how to tackle world issues on the national stage and how to tackle world issues. He comes from a country that is so vast in size and limited in population compared to other countries in the world, but he knew what to do. We had a reputation of being able to do that. I find this defeatist attitude of “there is nothing we can do about it and we should just go on living our lives”, while there is literally smoke outside the doors of this building right now, so alarming.

I am very happy to see that, in this budget, we are continuing to support initiatives to get us away from burning fossil fuels. This is a transition we have to make, and it is a transition that is going to happen whether the Conservatives, or the House for that matter, are interested in being part of it or not. We are transitioning away from fossil fuels; it is happening.

One in 10 cars sold in 2022 in Canada was an electric vehicle. Do I have to explain to Conservatives how, when a new technology comes along, it takes off and the curve is exponential? By 2030, I predict, there will be very few cars sold in this country that are not zero-emission vehicles. That is the reality. This budget would provide for ensuring that we incentivize the production of EVs, the production of the batteries and the proper recycling of those batteries, because that is key as well. We want to be at the forefront of the new industries that are coming.

We can have the approach of just pretending it is not happening, and we can just keep burning fossil fuels, turn our backs on it and pretend that the world is not changing around us, like the Conservatives want, or we can be at the lead of it. We can be at the forefront of it. We can be bringing the talent and developing the talent right in our country to produce these products, patents and new ideas and concepts so Canada can be an exporter of that technology and not an importer of it. This is what we are poised to do right now with the countless number of EV manufacturers and EV battery plants that have expressed an interest and have decided to set up in Canada. In my opinion, we are genuinely at the forefront, and that is what is so absolutely key in this budget. This is why, every time I have spoken to the budget, I have spoken specifically to that.

Now, of course, what we are going to hear are multiple arguments about why electric vehicles are not sustainable or how our electricity grid will never be able to handle it. However, I have great confidence in Canadians' ability to innovate, to create and to develop new technologies that will help us deal with the challenges we face on any particular day. I have no doubt we will get through it, but we have to stay focused on the goal, and the goal is to transition to cleaner energy and away from fossil fuels.

I realize that the Conservatives will say that we have some of the cleanest standards and some of the cleanest fossil fuels, which I do not necessarily disagree with. However, I do not think it is fair, from the position of a first world country and G7 partner, one of the leaders in the OECD, to point fingers at other countries, developing countries in particular, and say “Well, look at what they are doing.” We have a responsibility in this world to be leaders, and Conservatives of the past knew that. As I mentioned, Brian Mulroney did that. He knew that about the ozone layer and when it came dealing with acid rain, and he took action. He did not care where the problem originated. He did not care who was ultimately responsible for the problem, but he believed in finding solutions everybody could agree on, and he believed that Canada could be part of the leadership on that.

Rather than Conservatives sitting on their hands and saying, “Oh well, there is nothing we can do. We are emitting only 7% of the emissions, blah, blah, blah”, why do they not start coming into the House with ideas on how we can encourage other nations to follow in our path and encourage them that the way Canada is doing it is right? That is Canada's role in this world, and it has been its role in the past. Conservative governments in the past have known that. It is just unfortunate that the reform party of today, which wears the colour blue, does not know that.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry that you had to reprimand me before for interjecting into the member's speech, but he is always so engaging, and I was overcome with a desire to respond. The parliamentary secretary, if nothing else, is always very entertaining.

The Liberals and the NDP would like to give Canadians the impression that the carbon tax they are paying is what they can see on their fuel bills, either at the gas pump or on their energy bills at home. However, that does not completely address the increased cost and the inflation that Canadians are actually experiencing as a result of the carbon tax, because the carbon tax is being applied to every single process of getting something to the consumer, whether it is the manufacturing, the harvesting or the moving of goods to the market. Everything is incurring the carbon tax, and that increases the price of goods and services, which is making it very difficult for Canadians to live, because that inflation is overwhelming.

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

Madam Speaker, I am willing to accept and agree that there are inflationary impacts on various policies that come forward. I am not disagreeing with that. It is the impact and the degree to which it does this that we have to consider. We should reflect on the fact that I am at least willing to have that discussion and to accept the fact that it is a possibility. Conservatives will not even accept the possibility that inflation is not limited to Canada; they think it is something uniquely Canadian. They think we can have a trading country like Canada, with one of the most trading relationships and partners in the world, and still not be impacted by inflation in other countries.

Yes, we are experiencing inflation. It is tough on Canadians, but we are also helping them with it through this budget.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his fiery speech, as usual. Quebec made a choice to have an emissions trading system. That is its own system, which is why the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec.

My colleague spoke eloquently of the Montreal Protocol on CFCs. Obviously, we eliminated the threats to the ozone layer. The whole reason this came about was that an emissions trading system was implemented, increasing the price of these polluting products.

The higher price was an incentive, as the Conservatives like to think, to develop new technologies, which is why, today, the problem has largely been resolved.

If the western provinces, which do not like the carbon tax, had implemented this strategy that was used by the Mulroney government, they would not be getting the carbon tax in their provinces. Is it not somewhat their own fault that they are getting a carbon tax?

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

Madam Speaker, the member is right. I am sure he has heard me speak about this many times before, but he is right, Quebec does not have a price on pollution, which many other provinces in the country do, exactly because of that cap-and-trade deal. Ontario was a partner in that cap-and-trade deal until Doug Ford was elected as premier and got out of it. That is the reality of the situation.

We can look at how, in those five or six short years, Quebec has advanced in terms of electrifying its grid, setting up EV charging stations and taking the electrification transition seriously, and compare it to Ontario. Ontario is lagging behind, yet only five or six years ago, both provinces had joined the western initiative with a number of states in the U.S. at the same time: California, Montana and a number of other states. Right now, Ontario, to its detriment, is not doing it.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for drawing that direct line between the smoke that is choking the capital, the fires across the country and climate change. Where I live, on the west shore of Vancouver Island, last week, firefighters stopped 10 potential brush fires from taking over our communities, and I want to shout out thanks to all those firefighters, both professional and volunteer.

We seem to have missed an opportunity in this budget implementation act to increase the tax credit for volunteer firefighters, and I wonder whether the member would commit to making sure we consider that for the next round of budget talks.

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

Madam Speaker, one thing I know is that firefighters have a much higher approval rating than politicians, so I would always be very careful about what I say as it relates to firefighters. The reality of the situation is that if there is a missed opportunity, if it is something we did not talk about or is something we did and it needs to be resurfaced, I am certainly always interested in having those discussions. What we do know, and we can see it from the historical trends, is that the number of fires is increasing, and it has been over the last number of decades, as I indicated in my speech. We are going to need to make sure we have the resources and supports there for firefighters, moving forward, if we are going to expect them to do these jobs.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, nostalgia is a strange thing. Sometimes it is quite surprising and remarkable what kinds of longings it can spark. When we start to skim through the contents of the 2023 budget, it is almost enough to make one nostalgic for the days, not so long ago, when the Liberal government failed to table a budget for over two years.

I say that mostly in jest, of course, but the point I am making is that, while this budget is being tabled by a Liberal government, it is certainly not a classically Liberal budget. For that, we have to think back to the 1990s when fiscal policy was something that the then Liberal prime minister at least spent a bit of time thinking about. This was when the then prime minister's finance minister at least viewed deficits as an obstacle along the road to prosperity and not a destination in and of itself.

The incarnation of the Liberal government under the Prime Minister and the finance minister would certainly be unrecognizable to Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. Members across the way who remember when their leaders held at least some concern for fiscal responsibility ought to reflect on just how far off path their party has wandered. Maybe if they did that, they would feel a little nostalgic themselves.

With contents such as bigger government, higher taxes and more debt, this document reads less like a budget and more like a 270-page love letter from the Prime Minister to the spendthrifts who have overtaken the Liberal Party, and to those already well-established among its partners in the New Democratic Party. At a time of massive debt, this budget proposes $67 billion in new spending, and all of this is being thrown on the heap of huge debt and deficits that has already been racked up by the Prime Minister over the last eight years, which amounts to more than all of the debt accrued by all previous prime ministers combined.

This 2023 federal budget would add significantly to the high debt, deep-deficit turbulence that is shaking our economy. A cost of living crisis is ongoing, and inflation is eroding Canadians' paycheques at the same time it is increasing their bills. Therefore, naturally, the Liberal government somehow sees this as the ideal time to add to their burdens by increasing their taxes and the debt they owe. With this budget, every Canadian household's share of the federal debt is now in the range of about $81,000.

This debt is unaffordable, as $43 billion would be syphoned off, away from services for Canadians, to service the interest on that debt. That money would have to be replaced through that much more borrowing. It is unsustainable. Canadians not even born yet, and even their kids, their grandkids and their great-great-grandkids, will be on the hook to pay back the bankers for the Liberals' eight-year spending spree. Hopefully, that is where it stops.

It is unfocused because, if the purpose of a federal budget is to present a path forward to future prosperity for Canadians, this document clearly misses the mark. It sacrifices the dinner table concerns of everyday Canadians on the altar of the costly coalition's big government ideology. The real problems facing this country get eclipsed in deference to the partisan priorities of the Liberal-NDP partners.

This budget has the dubious distinction of being notable not for its contents, but for what it does not contain. Canadians seeking relief from the inflation crisis will not find here a reversal of the inflationary deficits and taxes that would allow workers to bring home more of their own earnings. Lowering taxes and leaving more of their money in Canadians' pockets is the single most effective way the government could have helped citizens in a cost of living crisis. The Liberals do not want to do that because that would mean more cash for Canadians to decide how best to spend it on their own priorities and less for the government to hand out on what it perceives that to be.

Instead of empowering Canadians through more powerful paycheques, the budget proposes yet more new programs for them to fund through Canadians' paying more taxes. This increases taxpayers' obligations too, and therefore their reliance upon, bigger government, and that is exactly the way the Liberals want it.

The Liberals fancy themselves as gatekeepers. This paternalistic government does not trust Canadians to best deploy their own dollars, so it sets itself up instead as the arbiter of how Canadians' money can best be used. This is a spoiler alert, but in their minds, that best use is not for the priorities of Canadians. Rather, it is to fund the Liberal-NDP agenda.

Canadians will also not find in this budget a blueprint for a freer, more responsive economy, one that removes the government gatekeepers who use restrictions and red tape to complicate problems rather than streamlining processes to provide solutions.

We need more housing in this country, but we have too many gatekeepers running interference. Canadians are looking for a smart, responsive policy that enables the free market to work as it should, respond to demand and provide the affordable housing stock a growing population needs.

Canadians will not find measures along that line in this budget. Rather than creating solutions to the problems that exist, the Liberals create new problems that impact housing, such as the way they have implemented their underused housing tax, for example. Taxing Canadians under the guise of going after foreign speculators, costing Canadians massive amount of accounting and administrative fees and making them fill out all kinds of forms to force them to justify the use of their own properties will not do anything to address the housing crisis that has vastly worsened under the Liberals. These are the kinds of things the government does instead of getting serious about addressing the real problems facing Canadians.

Not only that, but young Canadians looking to save up for their first home would find that task just a bit easier if the budget had simply ended the carbon tax hikes and the deficit spending that continue to drive up inflation and interest rates, and make life more unaffordable. Instead of listening to Canadians, Liberals are continuing with their war on work and increasing taxes, which means workers are punished for working, and taking home even less of their pay.

What they do take home, the Liberal fiscal policy driving the affordability crisis is steadily eroding. Items as essential as food are becoming increasingly harder for Canadians to afford. Good nutritious options are becoming luxury items for far too many pantries as household budgets are stretched to the breaking point. In my riding, for example, food banks in Airdrie, Cochrane, Morley and Bow Valley are struggling with at least a 50% increase in demand over the previous year, yet the government continues to find ways to fuel that inflation with further spending, and more families in communities in my home province of Alberta are struggling, just as families right across the country are.

For example, an oil and gas worker in Alberta, with a family of four to feed, is forecast to spend up to over $1,000 more on food this year, according to “Canada's Food Price Report 2023”, and that is almost $600 more than the rebate they will receive. That money has to come off of an already smaller paycheque that worker is trying to make due with, so it is that same trend. The government insists on taking more of the hard-earned dollars from Canadians for its big government agenda, while leaving Canadians with less to fend for themselves.

The government is not also forcing Canadians to make due with smaller paycheques, but also penalizing their community to earn them. The carbon tax increased to 14¢ per litre on April 1, making it more expensive for Canadians to get to work. The Parliamentary Budget Officer shows the carbon tax will cost the average family somewhere between $402 and $847. That is even after the supposed rebates. That blows a huge hole in the Liberals' claim that their scheme is revenue neutral. By 2030, the government's carbon taxes could add 50¢ per litre to the price of gasoline. That is all in addition to the new payroll taxes the government is putting on workers and employers as well.

These tax-and-spend policies, and others like them, have a human cost, with everyday impacts on people struggling just to get by, and giving back some of the crumbs of the feast the government takes for itself is not going to fix those impacts. Acting on the financial mess they are causing will be the solution, but it is clear that nothing is going to change with the Liberal government.

Canada's federal debt for 2023-24 is projected to reach $1.22 trillion. The 2023-24 deficit is projected to be $40.1 billion. Eight years of the same old has become this tired group's stock and trade. There is no path to balance in Canada's future budget projections. It is just another Liberal promise broken. No matter what the challenges are that are facing the nation, the Liberals always default to their instincts for bigger government, higher taxes, more restrictions and fewer freedoms, to the detriment of hard-working Canadians. Their record proves it.

We need a Conservative government in this country that will prioritize the needs of people instead of its own friends, like the Liberal Party has done. It is time for change, and it cannot come soon enough for Canadians.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member was speaking about nostalgia, I was thinking nostalgically of when I used to think the Conservative Party of Canada knew something about the economy and was a business champion. What I heard in the speech were things about tax increases. I was looking for a chapter on tax increases and, unfortunately, I could not find it, but I did find a chapter on growing a clean economy and looking at what we are going to do to capture the $100-trillion investments between now and 2050 in clean technologies and the global clean economy.

I saw, “Clear and predictable investment tax credits to provide foundational support for clean technology manufacturing, clean hydrogen, zero-emission technologies, and carbon capture and storage”, all things that will get Canada into a better economic position by participating in the clean economy of the future, including not only predictable increases in our carbon pricing but also increases in money going back to Canadians.

Could the hon. member talk about the opportunities we have in the clean economy and how this budget addresses that?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would comment that only a Liberal would stand to say that increasing a tax, the carbon tax, is somehow going to be better for the economy. Only a Liberal would say that this is the way to a better economy, to tax people a bit more. That will solve all the problems that people face. That is the first thing that just astounds me, no matter how many times I hear it from that Liberal Party.

Secondly, to his question, certainly, there are a lot of opportunities. I want to point out very clearly that there is a need for oil and gas in this world for many years to come yet, and we need to make sure that Canadian oil and gas is being used rather than that from some foreign dictatorship.

There is obviously opportunity, as he has pointed out, in some of these new emerging sectors and technologies. The problem is that Liberals talk about putting money into things, but they also set themselves up as the gatekeepers. They make it so impossible for anyone to actually invest and do anything within any of these opportunities that Canada falls behind, as it has done with the opportunities we had in natural gas.

We could have been providing the needs of clean energy in Europe right now, to displace the Russian energy, but no. This government has set up all the roadblocks it could possibly put in the way, and that is what it will do again with everything else.

It continually makes itself the gatekeeper and makes it impossible to anyone to move ahead with these things.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with some aspects of my colleague's speech but disagree with others. That is the beauty of being human. We can agree and disagree while respecting each other.

That said, I would like to know the member's opinion on a surprise tucked away in the deepest recesses of the bill, in clause 510, on page 325, concerning the proclamation of Charles III as Canada's head of state.

If it is in the budget, does the member think that means that huge amounts of money will be spent on it? If there are no exorbitant amounts involved, why is it in the budget, in his opinion? Would it have been better to introduce this proclamation in a separate bill?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague is talking about is not a priority for Quebeckers or Canadians. I think that their priority is the economy and the need for life to become more affordable.

I just really believe that Quebeckers and Canadians want to see politicians here in Parliament focused on how to make their lives more affordable and how to ensure that we grow better economies, so people have greater opportunities in the future to get into housing for the first time, as a first-time homebuyer, for example.

That is what people are looking for here. I may agree with her somewhat that a budget is probably not the right place for something like that. I also do not think it is the biggest priority facing Quebeckers and Canadians to be worried about that. We should be focused on the economy and making sure that we are making life more affordable for Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I have not had to give this reminder in a while. Members should make sure to keep their questions and answers as concise as possible so that everybody can participate in the debate we are having.

Continuing debate, the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member who just inquired about the inclusion of the Royal Style and Titles Act in the bill will find my speech, which is on that very subject, to be helpful.

I thought I would start my remarks today by explaining, for the benefit of anyone who does not already know this, what an omnibus bill is and where such bills got their name. In the 19th century, the ancestors of today's diesel and electric municipal buses were horse-drawn coaches, typically with benches along both sides of the interior and sometimes with an exterior staircase to a further set of seats on the roof. They were typically crowded, uncomfortable and hot, and people with nothing in common were forced to sit or stand side by side and sometimes on each other's laps.

As a result of the endless comedic possibilities afforded by the numerous random and uncomfortably close encounters across otherwise impenetrable barriers of age, gender and social class that were created every day in the crowded interiors of rush-hour omnibuses, and even more on the overstuffed rooftop seats, omnibuses became a favourite subject for contemporary painters and cartoonists. Anyone who does a Google search for “omnibus” and “painting” will see what I mean.

It should come as no surprise, then, that when Victorians were searching for a word to describe enormous pieces of legislation that crammed many unrelated subjects into a single bill, the jostling and smelly omnibuses of their cities came to their minds. Today, more than a century has passed since the term “omnibus” has been replaced, at least when referring to means of transport, with the contraction “bus”, but the word “omnibus” survives, robust as ever, as a term for describing vast, multiheaded bills.

To say that Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, is an omnibus bill is to make an understatement. The bill is 681 clauses long, and if printed it runs to hundreds of pages. It is a bill that would make Marcel Proust green with envy. It is to legislation what Wagner's Ring cycle is to opera and what Gormenghast castle is to domestic architecture. It is what the SS Great Eastern was to shipping when it was launched in 1858: six times larger than any other vessel then afloat, and propelled forward by a bizarre combination of propeller, sails and two colossal paddle wheels.

Lost in the middle of this vast, ramshackle legislative edifice is clause 510, which would enact the royal style and titles act, 2023. It reads as follows:

The Parliament of Canada assents to the issue by His Majesty of His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles:

Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

This provision really ought to have been enacted on its own as a stand-alone bill, as it involves no expenditure of public funds and therefore truly has no relationship whatsoever to the budget. If it had been enacted in such a manner, the debates in this place would have provided a record of the government's rationale for the royal style and titles act, 2023. The responses of the various opposition parties would have provided some useful feedback as to how the rest of us feel. However, since that is not to be, I thought I would make a few comments outlining my own observations on this matter.

The first thing to note is His Majesty's current title, which would be changed by this enactment. Currently, the king is titled “Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith”. The new, shorter title would eliminate the reference to the United Kingdom and would remove the title “Defender of the Faith”.

I note that the current title was adopted in 1953 by the Parliament of Canada shortly after the accession to the throne of Her late Majesty, our much-loved Queen Elizabeth II. At the time, the goal was to have a title as close as possible to the one in use in the U.K. With that goal in mind, titles similar to the one that is still in use in Canada were adopted by parliaments throughout the Commonwealth. However, since that time, most Commonwealth realms have chosen to drop the reference to the United Kingdom and to eliminate the title “Defender of the Faith”.

In Australia, for example, the King is “King Charles the Third, by Grace of God King of Australia and his other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth”. To take another country whose name starts with “A”, in Antigua and Barbuda he is “Charles the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Antigua and Barbuda and of His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth”. In Australia, this style dates to 1973. In Antigua and Barbuda, the title dates to 1982. In the Solomon Islands, the title was altered to something similar in 2013, and so on. Similar titles are used in over a dozen other independent Commonwealth countries.

Canada is merely bringing its title into conformity with the ones used in most of the other Commonwealth realms. In doing so, I think we keep with the spirit of the 1952 Commonwealth heads of government conference, at which assembled prime ministers agreed that there should be a non-binding but sincere effort to maintain a relatively uniform style for the monarch's titles in each of the different realms.

In Australia in 1973, the goal of removing the reference to the United Kingdom was to make it clear that the Queen's role as monarch was no longer simply a historical artifact of that country's colonial past and was most certainly not due to Australia retaining a subordinate relationship to Britain. Rather, her constitutional role was a consequence of her direct relationship with the Australian people, a relationship that was confirmed in a referendum 26 years later, when a majority of Australians in every one of the country's six states voted against becoming a republic.

This seems like a reasonable goal for Canada as well. Constitutionally speaking, we would remain a monarchy even if Britain chose to become a republic, and it is odd that our head of state does not have a title that reflects this reality. As a historical side note, it is worth observing that in the 1650s, when England did briefly become a republic under Oliver Cromwell, Newfoundland, which was then the only part of Canada under British rule, refused to abandon the Crown. David Kirke, Newfoundland's proprietary governor, was captured by a force sent from the American colonies and was forcibly repatriated to England, where he died in prison for his monarchist sentiments.

Now let me turn to the subject of the title “Defender of the Faith”.

Famously, this title was given to King Henry VIII by Pope Leo X in 1521 in honour of the king's defence of the seven sacraments against the challenge that had been made four years earlier, when Martin Luther had published his 95 theses. A few years later, Henry too broke with the pope when he was unable to obtain a divorce, but he kept the title.

“Defender of the Faith” is a title that might be viewed by some people as being appropriate for the U.K., where the King is the nominal head of the established church, but there is no established church in Canada. Thanks to the efforts of two generations of pre-Confederation reformers, the last traces of an established church in this country were abolished by an act of the Parliament of the Province of Canada in 1854. From 1854 onward, even though our successive kings and queens have retained the title “Defender of the Faith”, it is solely because we were using the same titles used in the United Kingdom.

Ninety-nine years after the abolition of the established church, in 1953, the title was then adopted by statute for reasons I have already discussed. However, “Defender of the Faith” was by then an anachronism, and it was already controversial. Its departure from the King's title is welcome.

I note that the King himself is not enamoured of this title. The title "Defender of the Faith" implies a kind of religious uniformity that is out of step with our times. Frankly, state-sponsored religious uniformity was pretty undesirable in King Henry VIII's time too when viewed from our vantage point. In the 1500s, dissenting Christians were persecuted across Europe, the Inquisition was burning heretics at the stake in Spain and Jews were banned from living in England. In today's world, where the U.K., just as much as Canada, is home to robust communities of Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and Buddhists, there is no such thing as “the faith”. It is worth noting that the current British Prime Minister is a Hindu.

It is for this reason that when he was still Prince of Wales, His Majesty speculated that a better title would be “Defender of Faith”, and I can also see merit in the title “Defender of all Faiths”. However, newfangled and novel titles would be inappropriate to include in a statute that is stuffed into a vast omnibus bill, with little opportunity for the kind of public discussion that would be needed to establish their legitimacy. Simply dropping the title seems the best solution of all.

My conclusion, therefore, is this: I will be voting against Bill C-47, but I do support the Royal Style and Titles Act, in clause 510.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that riveting history around clause 510 in the budget implementation act. I appreciated learning more information about that.

I was reflecting, when the member was sharing his speech, on some of the things he was not talking about. I am wondering if the member could talk about the important work of ensuring that the ultrarich and banks are paying what they owe. Currently, thanks to the work of the NDP, we are seeing in the budget the alternative minimum tax rate increasing from 15% to 20.5%, which would recoup over $3 billion in five years.

I am wondering if the member supports this work and why we never hear from the Conservatives about the importance of having the ultrarich and large corporations paying what they owe so that money can go where we need it most.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I have to confess, Mr. Speaker, that I had come prepared to talk about the Royal Style and Titles Act, not about some of the other aspects of the budget bill.

I will make the general observation that in Canada, we do have a problem with too much taxation, not too little. I recognize the member's point that she feels this is frequently inequitable, and while I might disagree with her on some specifics, it is a good point that in Canada the welfare state increasingly is focused on taxing all of us, but very inequitably frequently, and then transferring that money to those who are politically connected and who are in a position to receive benefits from government funds. Therefore, in fact, it is not a distribution from the wealthy to the less wealthy, as it ought to be. On that point, the NDP, like its CCF predecessor, has a good general point.

On the specific questions she asked, I am less capable of giving an informed answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the scholarly history lesson. I have enjoyed a lot of the speeches tonight. They have been quite wide-ranging. I heard a bootstrap argument about the agency to make more decisions about one's own economic future. I agree with that. However, I would note that it came from a member who would like for women to have fewer choices about their own reproductive futures. I also heard a comparison saying that $467 in support would never do anything to help a Canadian family but $330 was an extraordinary burden. There has been some difficulty on math.

I know that the member did not touch on carbon pricing tonight, but he did mention taxation. He said there is too much tax in Canada. I observed that in the last election, he, like all 338 MPs and candidates, ran on a carbon pricing scheme in one form or another. Oftentimes, people point to Brian Mulroney's ability to abate acid rain. I would point out that the Conservatives did that with cap and trade and a ban on burning certain types of coal. These are the types of advancements that come from really good government programs.

I will ask a question directly about the member's previous commitment to run on a carbon price. Where does he stand now on carbon pricing?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, of course, came intending to talk about the Royal Style and Titles Act, and I was hoping for a question that would relate to that, but let me try answering this question, seeing as it was raised.

Speaking of having promised one thing and then going in a different direction, I cannot help but note that one of the most effective ways of capturing carbon is through reforestation. Of course, trees are composed largely of carbon. Wood is carbon. I cannot remember if it was in the last election or the one before, but the Prime Minister promised to plant two billion trees. He has produced less than one-tenth of 1% of that promise, despite the fact that a number of years have gone by.

If we are looking for concrete action to make this planet a greener place, a less carbon-intensive place, he is not setting a very good example.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time getting a clear picture. We are currently looking at Bill C‑47 and the member is talking about clause 510. His party seems to want to delete it as an anti-monarchy gesture, but he seems to be in favour of this clause. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the proposal being made on this monarchy issue.

Again, I see that there is a divide and a disconnect between the Liberal and Conservative members, who talk about the monarchy, and us, who simply want to abolish it. When we talk about the monarchy it is to say that it is archaic and costs the government money. To us, the issue of seniors calling for an increase in old age security is a priority. Also, we are short on housing and we need EI reform to take care of people who lose their job in a period of economic uncertainty. Again, I am feeling the difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that the presidencies of republics like the United States and France are not without cost. It is very expensive to have a big building like the Élysée Palace in Paris for the President. He is not a king, but there is a real cost.

The same things goes for the White House in the U.S. and all the other trappings that go with the presidency.