Debates of June 6th, 2023

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, the cost of everything is going up. Why? It is because the Prime Minister is directly responsible for creating the cost of living crisis. The Prime Minister has created a cost of living crisis through his out-of-control spending and through his inflationary policies.

There is $67 billion in new spending. That is how much the Prime Minister is trying to ram through Parliament before he takes off for the summer. We would think there would be a plan to return to a balanced budget, but there is not one. We would think there would be a detailed plan on how the $67 billion in new spending would be used, but there is not one.

We just have to look at the Liberal government's record when it comes to connecting Canadians with high-speed Internet. The Liberals have announced billions and billions of dollars, paid for by taxpayers, in an attempt to connect Canadians. There are at least eight bureaucratic programs under the government's connectivity plan. There are eight bureaucratic programs chasing the same goal. What is there to show for it? Over one million Canadian households still do not have access to high-speed Internet.

Over 50% of first nation communities still do not have access to high-speed Internet, despite billions of dollars' worth in taxpayer-funded announcements over eight years. This is not a record to be proud of. It is a record of failure. I wish the government would realize that announcing money is not the same as getting things done.

It is the same pattern displayed by the government when it comes to the economy. We have a record amount of new debt added by the Prime Minister, and now we have $60 billion in new spending. What are the results? According to The Globe and Mail, Canada will have the weakest per capita growth among its member countries from 2020 to 2060. That is not an economic record to be proud of.

As members know, I represent a rural region. It is a region that is proudly home to thousands of farmers who work their land to feed the world. The longer the Prime Minister remains in power, the more difficult it becomes to farm in Canada. Not only is the Liberal government's costly carbon tax preventing Canadian farmers from feeding the world, but the Prime Minister's inflationary policies are too.

I recently read a report that stated the cost to purchase farm equipment rose 11.7% in 2021 alone. Farmers cannot afford to keep up with the ever-increasing cost of farming. The cost of everything is going up, but the value of one's hard-earned dollars is going down. The rising rate of interest is now preventing farmers from borrowing the money needed to do their job. I challenge anyone to find a farmer who believes the government is working for farmers.

I will remind Canadians that it was the Liberal government that voted against a Conservative bill to remove the carbon tax from grain drying and barn heating. Thankfully, the bill passed the House of Commons, and it is now waiting to be passed in the Senate. Any Liberal who thinks it is okay to punish farmers for producing food is failing to stand up for Canadian agriculture.

The Canadians I represent oppose the Liberal government's out-of-control spending. They oppose the billions in dollars in new spending without a plan. They oppose inflationary policies that drive up interest rates. They oppose the government's carbon tax hikes.

Canadians cannot afford the Prime Minister and his policies. Inflationary policies and constant tax hikes are not sustainable. That is why Conservatives are blocking the Prime Minister's inflationary budget. I will be voting against Bill C-47 and will continue to work with my Conservative colleagues to fight for Canadians.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, for a long time, we have been listening to a very disingenuous argument from the Conservatives about the cause of inflation in Canada.

Big oil racked up $38.3 billion in profits straight from the after-tax money in the pockets of Canadians right across Canada. Big grocery has been racking up hundreds of billions of dollars in profits. Again, that is after-tax money coming out of the pockets of Canadians right across the country.

Why are the Conservatives not talking about them? They are doing far more damage to the affordability of things for people in Canada than the government or anybody else.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals' approach does puzzle me as well. They tax everything that moves.

For the first time in Canadian history, during COVID, the Liberal government charged our hospitals to heat themselves. It charged a carbon tax on hospitals, universities and schools. The Liberals actually charged them a carbon tax to heat their buildings, and they have no ability to get that money back. I do not know about that Liberal member. Never mind about the oil and gas industry. These institutions just wanted to heat their buildings, but the Liberals are taxing our publicly funded facilities.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives keep repeating themselves. It is always more or less the same speech. They talk about the carbon tax being tripled.

Since the beginning of the session, the Conservative opposition days, the budget, it is always the same thing. We have to get rid of this and eliminate that. They just sidestep the major issue of our time, which is the fight against climate change.

The earth is burning right now and that is not just a figure of speech. Quebec is literally on fire. This is certainly related to climate change.

I would like to know the plan. If we get rid of the carbon tax, what would be the Conservatives' plan? We know that in this country, there is a back and forth between the reds and the blues. Sooner or later, the blues are going to return to power.

What are they going to do to address the major challenge of our time, the fight against climate change?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, we have to address inflation. The problem with the carbon tax is that it impacts everything. We are a big country, and we move goods all over the place. Quebec is somewhat insulated from this because there is no backstop program, but there are six other provinces out there that are charged this directly and paying a disproportionate portion. Ontario is one of them, and in Manitoba, where I live, we are paying a carbon tax that the Quebec people are not. That is a bigger problem in itself. This is how the government is very much dividing our country instead of trying to pull it together.

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

Madam Speaker, in the budget implementation bill, there is something very near and dear to the hearts of NDP members and to all progressives in this country: access to dental care for the poorest, the disadvantaged and middle-class families.

For the first time, people who have previously been unable to afford it will have access to dental care.

I want to ask the member this: If he votes against Bill C-47, will he commit to refusing his dental care, which is paid for by his parliamentary insurance?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will go back to inflation.

The lower-income people the New Democrats say they are defending are impacted more than anybody else. They have fewer dollars to move around. Sure, with our MP wages, people look at us. We are going to stand up for the little guy. We should get the reality here.

These lower-income people do not have extra income, so to put another program on them and say we will save their teeth when they cannot even afford groceries, and are standing in food lines to feed themselves, is absolutely ridiculous. We have to focus on getting the cost of living under control.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating an omnibus bill. That, of course, is Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. This bill, which is sponsored by the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and the member for University—Rosedale, is at report stage.

First, this bill is problematic because of its size. We are talking about 430 pages, the amendment of 59 laws and the Income Tax Regulations, on top of that. Even though this government promised to never again introduce such mammoth bills, that is exactly what Bill C-47 is. That is regrettable because it becomes impossible, or at least very difficult, to discuss certain important measures in detail.

I find that they are trying to muddy the waters. In any case, true to form, the Liberal government is ignoring almost all the demands and suggestions of the Bloc Québécois. Like the 2023 budget, Bill C‑47 contains absolutely nothing for seniors, practically nothing for housing and no long-term solutions to the underfunding of health care. There is also nothing about EI reform.

To my detractors, however, I admit that this bill seems to contain some good elements. Let me name two. First, it clarifies the calculation of taxable capital gains on the intergenerational transfer of SMEs, particularly farm businesses, something we in the Bloc fought hard to get. Second, it creates an employment insurance board of appeal. I will stop at just the two positive aspects of the budget.

I just said that this bill muddies the waters. I would like to reiterate that Bill C-47 is indeed clear as mud. Hidden in the piles of measures—the bill is roughly 400 pages long, after all—in division 31 of part 4, on page 325, the government introduces the following:

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.

Yes, that is what it says. This monarchist measure has absolutely no place in a budget implementation act. At the very least, it should be the subject of a separate, full-fledged legislative initiative. We would be delighted to debate it. The Liberal government has tried to pull a fast one on us. It is taking people for fools. I am not mincing words—that is how much this shocks me.

The Liberals have told us that this merely confirms a fact, that Charles III is Canada's new sovereign. I am going to tell the Chair a little something: The Bloc Québécois does not want this new king. What is more, the majority of Quebeckers and Canadians do not want him. An Angus Reid poll conducted last April, as members will recall, showed that 71% of Quebeckers want the monarchy to disappear and 51% of Canadians feel the same.

The poll shows that there is not a single province in Canada where the percentage of people who support constitutional monarchy exceeds the percentage of those who oppose it. It seems to me that these figures speak for themselves. It also shows that 92% of those opposed to the monarchy would like to see an attempt to change the Constitution in order to sever ties with the monarchy. That is a big deal. Charles III is being disowned by the majority of the people over whom he rules while we, as elected parliamentarians, must agree to a bill that recognizes his authority.

No, I am opposed. All Bloc Québécois members are opposed because we do not want to see Charles III on our coins. We do not want to swear an oath to him. I do not want this hidden in a budget implementation bill.

Furthermore, it is expensive for us to remain British subjects. It costs a little more than $67 million per year on average for honours and awards, ceremonial events and travel. In March 2022, in support of the magnificent sand castle that upholds the monarchy, the Governor General handed taxpayers a $100,000 catering bill for herself and 29 invited guests during an eight-day tour of the Middle East while our streets are filling up with homeless people. Between 2019 and 2022, the Governor General's salary increased by $40,000, or 13%. That is more than the 12% over four years obtained with great difficulty by 120,000 federal public servants a few weeks ago.

Not that long ago, we were dismayed to learn that governor generals Julie Payette and Mary Simon purchased more than $100,000 of clothing since 2017 at the expense of Quebeckers and Canadians. That is sad because it happened and continues to happen. The money keeps flying out the door. We want nothing to do with this system.

I stress this because the Liberal government had the gall to introduce this notion within the budget. In Canada, we do not have many institutions that are as expensive and at the same time as useless. For a government that wanted to make Canada a so-called postnational state, we might find this attachment to the monarchy rather unusual. It is one of the most archaic and moribund institutions in existence. It is utterly absurd. The monarchy does not improve Canada's image, it covers it in dust. Faced with the government's stubbornness in maintaining this absurdity, there remains only one option for the people of Quebec, a well-deserved option, which is sovereignty.

Among those who best grasp the importance and historical weight of Quebec sovereignty, there was Frédéric Bastien. This historian, professor and columnist left us far too soon at the age of 53, on May 16. Not 48 hours ago, I attended Frédéric's funeral with my leader and some of my colleagues. I was very moved to see thousands of people gather to celebrate the life and work of this great separatist. Also, every sovereignist mind from the cultural, political and journalism worlds was there. Everyone of importance in this magnificent nation was there to pay tribute to Frédéric Bastien. In a way, Frédéric Bastien spent his life fighting against the British monarchy and for Quebec's sovereignty. It is a great loss for the people of Quebec.

In short, Bill C‑47 has a few good things, but that is all. This monarchist measure that has nothing to do with the budget is hidden in there. Semiology expert Roland Barthes called this type of details that spoil everything “a tear in the smooth envelope of the image”. The image of Bill C‑47 has been badly tarnished by the fact that the requests of the Bloc Québécois have been completely ignored and that the needs of Quebeckers have been completely ignored.

People can guess how the Bloc Québécois will be voting in good conscience.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

I gathered that there was not much in the budget that interested him. I would like to hear his opinion. Would he have liked to see more about access to the Internet and improvements to the cellular network in all of Quebec's regions and across Canada? It is 2023 and we are still asking questions. How is it that we are unable to have adequate services? I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is funny that he said that.

Earlier, my colleague from Mirabel gave a wonderful speech. He told us that he wanted the king to appear before a committee, but that the king did not have Internet service or did not know how to use it. That was really great.

Yes, that is something that should have been in the budget. There are too many other things that are missing. Earlier, I referred quickly to seniors, and then there is housing and EI. There is the underfunding of health care. This budget did not really target the real concerns.

It is a mammoth bill, but the content is not reflective of the container.

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

I would remind hon. members to respect Canada's constitutional arrangement.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

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

Madam Speaker, this budget is far from perfect. There are big gaps we are very worried about, but there are still major gains for ordinary people.

It will come as no surprise to my colleague that this budget expands dental benefits for children aged 12 to 18 and for people 65 and up, as well as for everyone earning less than $70,000 a year or whose household income is less than $90,000 a year. This is the NDP's plan to make sure people can go see a dentist, a service they may never have been able to afford in their lives. Hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers will have access to this type of health care.

This is not interference; it is reimbursing expenses. Nobody is telling Quebec how to run its hospitals. Nobody is opening federal dental clinics; this is just about reimbursing expenses. It will help people in a tangible way.

What does my colleague think about the fact that people in his riding, seniors in his riding, will be able to go see a dentist?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is obviously a win.

However, at what price will the NDP have gained this victory?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member touched on many subjects and topics in his intervention. He talked about Quebec separating. In his opinion, what is stopping Quebec from separating?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, may I remind the member that we came very close to achieving sovereignty in 1995?

It is a movement that has its ups and downs. Just like here, in Parliament, we know we will go from blue to red and from red to blue. These are perfectly normal societal trends.

What I can say is that, right now, as we know, sovereignist sentiment is on the rise. It is currently at 38% among Quebeckers, whereas a few months ago it was around 20%. These sorts of movements organize very rapidly.

Members might be surprised at the alliance that exists, not between the Liberal Party and the NDP, but between the Parti Québécois and the Bloc Québécois. I think there is a strong synergy there to watch out for.

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

Madam Speaker, people often call my riding office to ask about services for seniors and children of low-income families.

Right now, my riding is particularly well off. Since dental care is a service for low-income people, what does my colleague have to say to voters in my riding and his riding who need help and who want this budget to be passed?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, off the top of my head, there is not much in the budget about that.

Perhaps I missed part of my colleague's question. There is not much there when it comes to funding or content. Yes, obviously, there are some good measures.

However, in 2023, we would have hoped that this budget would contain more social democratic measures and something tangible to back them up. We are not seeing that.

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

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to speak tonight to this budget. I do not want to go the usual route, because we have heard a lot tonight about the dynamics around the government saying that we do not care about the people and we do not care about all of the things it has within the budget that it wants to provide Canadians. I think what is missing here is the difference in our perspectives and how polarized they are. Our view is that we want to empower Canadians in every way possible, whereas the government empowers big government. That is a huge difference in the way we process policy and perspectives on how to manage government and serve Canadians.

As a matter of fact, we believe in a balance between fiscal responsibility; compassionate social policy that empowers the less fortunate by promoting self-reliance and equality of opportunity; and the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and free associations. We believe in a federal system of government as the best expression of the diversity of our country and believe in the desirability of strong provincial and territorial governments. It is not a case of a strong federal government saying it will do what it wants at the provincial level.

We believe that the best guarantors of the prosperity and well-being of the people of Canada are as follows.

One is the freedom of individual Canadians to pursue their enlightenment and legitimate self-interests within a free, competitive economy. Our economy is being very much controlled and managed by our government right now.

Another is the freedom of individual Canadians to enjoy the fruits of their labour to the greatest possible extent. The federal government should be doing only what it must do to empower and encourage Canadians to succeed and, of course, to take care of those who need assistance, a hand-up or help in that process.

We believe in the right to own property. There is a sense that Canadians do not need to have these responsibilities anymore, and that is very contrary to what our perspective is.

We believe that a responsible government must be fiscally prudent. We are not seeing that here. This should be limited to responsibilities that cannot be discharged reasonably by the individual or others. I believe that it is the responsibility of individuals to provide for themselves, their families and their dependants, while recognizing, of course, that the government must respond to those who require assistance and compassion.

We believe that the purpose of Canada as a nation-state and its government, guided by reflective and prudent leadership, is to create a climate where individual initiative is rewarded, excellence is pursued, security and privacy of the individual are provided and prosperity is guaranteed by a free, competitive market economy. Right now, our public service has ballooned exponentially, again under a Liberal government, and I would be really curious to see what portion of the debt-to-GDP ratio the public service represents.

I believe that Canada should continue its strong heritage of national defence, supporting a well-armed military, honouring those who serve and promoting our history and traditions. We believe that the quality of the environment is a vital part of our heritage, to be protected by each generation for the next. These are the truths, the realities, of where the values of this party are, in spite of the rhetoric that comes from the other side of the floor.

We believe that a good and responsible government is attentive to the people it represents and consists of members who at all times conduct themselves in an ethical manner and display integrity, honesty and concern for the best interests of all. I think the government has had a significant issue with meeting that expectation.

We believe that the greatest potential for achieving social and economic objectives is under a global trading regime that is free and fair.

That is not all of them, but that gives members a sense of where our priorities are. They are not in growing government. This is not about saying that government knows best, as our leader has talked about. It is about giving those on assistance the opportunity to earn a living and earn money and not have it taken away before they have reached a point where they are truly self-sufficient. Those are the kinds of values we function on.

When we look at this budget and where we are today under the Liberal government's financial leadership, we simply cannot support this budget. The record continues of higher taxes and inflationary deficits.

Conservatives only asked for three things. As a matter of fact, we are demanding three things that we believe are crucial to giving the economy and the values of this country back to the people who work. Budget 2023 should end the war on work and lower taxes for workers, not raise them; end inflationary deficits, which at this point in time are incredibly out of control and are driving up the cost of everything; and remove gatekeepers to increase the building of homes for Canadians.

These are the three things that are important to us with these values. I believe that Canada and Canadians are in the dire straits they are in right now because of the Liberal government not functioning within what I see as the true values that a government should have in caring for its people.

We believe that we need to bring home powerful paycheques for Canadians with lower taxes, and we need to scrap the carbon tax, as we have said over and over again, so that hard work pays off again. Right now, in Canada, we know and we hear it constantly, the cost of food is out of control, people are skipping meals and food banks are busier than ever. The government's idea of dealing with that huge issue, which is here because of its high inflation and its inability to control spending so that we do not find ourselves in the circumstances we are in now, is to give a grocery rebate.

The Liberals talk about this as though we are against that. What we are against is ending up in this place in the first place. The unfortunate thing about that rebate is that it is less than half of what Canadian families of four would spend in addition to what they normally spend on groceries. In other words, this grocery rebate does not do anything to help them with their month-to-month costs. It is simply taking away a little less than half of what they are going to spend in larger amounts of money on their groceries because of the high inflation that Canada is experiencing.

That is not enough, but that is where we find ourselves because the Liberal government has allowed our economy to slip so significantly.

A worker making above $66,600 would be forced to pay an extra $255 to the Canada pension plan and an extra $50 to employment insurance. That is a $305 increase. It does not sound like much, but when people are not making their bills every month, it is huge.

We need to bring home lower prices by ending inflationary debt and deficits that drive up inflation and interest rates. Canada's federal debt for 2023-24 fiscal year is projected to reach $1.22 trillion. I do not think any Canadian could really fathom that, but when we break it down, that is a debt of $81,000 per household in Canada. Canadians understand that. It is huge, and adding to that the cost of servicing this enormous debt, which continues to grow. In 2023-24, it is projected to be $43.9 billion just to service that debt.

What could we be doing with that money if we had not spent the cupboard bare, then borrowed to the nth degree and then printed money on top of that? It is totally irresponsible behaviour on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada. The debt load is huge. The cost of servicing that debt is out of control.

Finally, we need homes that people can afford to live in. Under the Liberals, down payments have doubled, rents are doubled, mortgages are doubled, and the whole situation is out of control. I would just end by saying that none of our demands have been met and the Conservatives will not support an anti-worker, tax-hiking, inflationary budget.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member says “scrap the carbon tax”, but she also talked about the importance of the free market.

It seems to me there are numerous groups that believe in the free market and support the carbon tax and carbon pricing. For example, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Mining Association of Canada, the Business Council of Canada and the Fraser Institute, which is hardly a Liberal institution.

What would the member say in response to the Chamber of Commerce, which said that carbon pricing is generally the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to lower costs? Does the member not believe in climate change?

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

Madam Speaker, once again, that is ridiculous rhetoric. Do not tell me I do not believe in climate change. Of course I do. I come from Saskatchewan, where we understand exactly what that is and we have been managing it very effectively. We do not need a “green the prairies” bill, with all respect to the individual who brought it forward who is no longer with us, because we continue to improve in how we care for our environment. Do members know why? It is because it is very important to us and not only for agriculture and for mining and all of those different things that bring GDP to our country, but because we care about our kids.

Please, on that side of the floor, stop it. Canadians know that is not the truth. They see how we manage our environment and they will be thrilled when we form government.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe the member is sincere when she talks about environmental values and protecting the environment. However, I still see a contradiction. I would not wish to praise the current government's policies on climate change, far from it, because they fall short. Protecting the environment means investing substantially to counter the effects of climate change. I believe this value is completely contrary to what her party is advocating, which is to continue to contribute to the growth of the oil and gas sector.

Could the member explain how it is possible to protect the environment while at the same time continuing to build on an energy source that is no longer—

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

I have to give the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville the chance to answer the question.

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

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

Madam Speaker, I truly appreciate that question. The truth of the matter is that valuing what we need to do for the climate is not something that Canada can take a responsibility for just for Canada. When I hear about the fires that we are experiencing and the floods and the hurricanes, these are all truly taking place, but Canada is not an island unto itself in its own environment. We are part of a global ecosystem. Therefore, the reason I support Canadian oil and gas is because I do not support Venezuelan oil and gas. I do not support these companies that are in countries that do nothing to improve the climate and also do not do what should be done with their products. We have the best products that are needed until they are no longer needed. Right now—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not often agree with my colleague. However, she raises an important point, which is the budget's inadequacies when it comes to housing.

The NDP sees that there is a housing crisis. We want social and affordable housing. We want co-operative housing.

The budget is far from perfect, and we would have done things differently. However, there is something in there that the NDP is very proud of, and that is the fact that we forced the Liberals to provide accessible dental care for the most disadvantaged and the middle class. This year, the program is going to be expanded to cover teenagers and people 65 and over who may never have been able to access dental care.

If the member votes against Bill C-47, is she prepared to abandon the idea of dental care that is paid for by Canadian taxpayers with insurance from Parliament?