Debates of Jan. 30th, 2024

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

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

Madam Speaker, the government brags about being a great environmentalist and bringing in all the necessary measures to protect the environment. Nevertheless, the government has offered the oil companies tax credits to the tune of $83 billion in the last two budgets. We can add to that the billions of dollars it is giving them to set up carbon capture plants, which the International Energy Agency says are an illusion, an experimental technology.

Can my colleague tell me what real measures the government is going to bring in to truly support the economy and the environment?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the privilege of working with the member as well in our government operations committee, and I find her quite ethical and supportive.

On the environment, our government, from day one, supported measures that protect the environment, which is one of the four pillars that this government has been focused on.

As it relates to the tax credit for businesses, specifically oil and gas, with a focus on capturing CO2, capturing carbon, this is a best practice and it is being done. I am not sure what the hon. member is talking about in that these are phantom policies; they are not, they are best practices. Also, we are working with industry to make sure that not only do we support it in protecting the environment but also enable the labour force, the Canadians who are in that sector, by supporting them through various labour laws.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, as members know, we have an affordable housing crisis in this country. Part of the issue is the current Liberal national housing strategy and the Liberals' definition of affordable. Their definition of affordable is not affordable. We need more affordable housing with rent geared to income. We need more co-op housing. I am wondering if the hon. member across from me feels it necessary to actually create a definition of what “affordable” really is so that more people are not left out on the streets.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, indeed, I agree with the member across that we need more affordable housing, and we need to make sure that the price of the house, whether it is affordable or community-based housing, etc., is reflective of wage growth.

The whole issue of affordability, of being able to secure a home for one's future, is something that our government is committed to and continues to work on. As members heard during question period, we are rolling out, every day, measures to be able to help Canadians secure their homes.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the residents of Charlottetown, the birthplace of Confederation, in support of Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, as tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

These last few weeks, I have had the privilege of spending time in my constituency and having meaningful conversations with residents about their priorities, their concerns and their hopes. In doing so, I have heard their message loud and clear: Canadians want their government to manage the needs of today while having a solid plan for tomorrow. That is why I am pleased that our government’s fall economic statement reconciles these equally urgent demands through a fiscally responsible plan that addresses the concerns of Canadians and lays a foundation for the future.

The statement focuses on several key areas, the first of which is housing. We know that housing is top of mind for Canadians of all ages, from young first-time homebuyers to seniors looking for accessible housing that would allow them to stay in their communities as long as possible. In 2019, this chamber recognized that, in Canada, housing is a human right. Our government is making sure that this right is within reach for everybody, regardless of income or region.

In Prince Edward Island, our housing supply is currently increasing at only a third of the necessary pace for all Islanders to have a place to call home. It is critical that we build more homes, faster. The housing initiatives in Bill C-59 include an additional investment of $15 billion for the apartment construction loan program, which would provide low-cost financing to builders and developers and would speed up financial approvals to federal housing construction programs. These initiatives would directly address the need to increase our housing supply. Indeed, along with existing programs, they would create over 200,000 new homes in the next eight years.

I would like to take a minute to celebrate one of these existing programs, the housing accelerator fund. Since September, our government has signed agreements with municipalities to build over 21,000 new homes from coast to coast. By working with local governments, we are ensuring that we are meeting the unique housing needs of each town and city while also laying the groundwork for long-term housing sustainability.

In Prince Edward Island, one of these agreements has been signed with the City of Summerside. The City of Charlottetown is in the final stages of negotiations to conclude an agreement with the Government of Canada. It has been a long process because the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities has, basically, pushed a hard bargain, but it appears that we are very close to being able to make an announcement. I look forward to that day.

Our government is also increasing access to the existing housing supply by cracking down on non-compliant short-term rentals. Bill C-59 would deny tax deductions for those short-term rental operators who do not abide by the proper provincial and municipal licensing requirements. We would also invest $50 million over three years to support enforcement of municipal restrictions on short-term rentals. I am particularly pleased by this measure as short-term rental regulations came into effect in my riding in the city of Charlottetown just last November, and proper enforcement would bring hundreds of units back into the long-term rental market and would make it easier for Islanders to find a home.

Just to give a little local context, Prince Edward Island is a place with 180,000 people, who receive 1.5 million visitors a year. Therefore, if someone is in the short-term rental market, it is a pretty lucrative business. Because it is a pretty lucrative business, it has a significant impact on the housing stock. That measure contained in the fall economic statement would be a very significant aid to ensure that short-term rental operators stay within the established rules. Those rules have been thoughtfully put together by Charlottetown city council to address the challenge we have around short-term rentals, around the housing stock, which is all tied into how lucrative it is because of how popular Prince Edward Island is during the tourist season.

When we look at housing, our government is addressing not only supply but also affordability. I would like to quote the PEI Fight for Affordable Housing, which advocates for safe, affordable and accessible homes. “Governments must be ready and willing to intervene in the market in order to preserve existing affordable housing which is at risk.”

This is the political leadership that Bill C-59 shows, by removing GST from new co-op rental housing and investing $1 billion over three years to support non-profit, co-op and public housing providers in building more than 7,000 affordable homes by 2028.

These are welcome initiatives that will allow middle- and low-income Canadians to access safe, stable homes to live and thrive in. Again, just in the riding of Charlottetown, a city of 45,000 people, under the national housing strategy we have received more than $80 million and have built or are in the process of building 430 homes. About half of those are deeply affordable under the national co-investment fund or the rapid housing initiative, and the other half are below market rents.

These are not just photo ops. All but one of those projects are built and fully rented. When I say fully rented, I mean no vacancy. That is the case right across Prince Edward Island, with the challenge we have with supply.

For current homeowners, Bill C-59 introduces the Canadian mortgage charter, which looks at new measures for tailored mortgage relief and ensures that Canadians are informed of their mortgage relief options at a time when interest rates are high. This is a crucial initiative that will help homeowners keep their homes through financial difficulty.

Through Bill C-59, we are demonstrating the commitment to support all Canadians, be they renters, potential homebuyers or mortgage-holders, in meeting their housing needs for generations to come.

The fall economic statement also recognizes the challenges facing seasonal workers. Included in the fall economic statement is something called pilot project 22. Pilot project 22 will provide four additional weeks of EI benefits for the regions of this country that have the most seasonal workers. That includes all of Prince Edward Island. This will be a significant benefit to all seasonal workers on P.E.I. It is, however, a band-aid.

It is a band-aid that has been proven necessary by a cynical political manoeuvre that happened to seasonal workers in Prince Edward Island in the dying days of the Harper government, in October 2014, when Stephen Harper split P.E.I. into two zones and, in so doing, favoured one part of the island, pitting islanders against one another. People working beside one another in the same seasonal operation were treated differently at the end of the season.

This is compounded, quite frankly, by the last eight years of our government, during which we have not reversed this cynical manoeuvre. I am here, on behalf of the people of Charlottetown, to say that Stephen Harper should never have done it to us, but it should be fixed by now.

That has been a recommendation from the Standing Committee on Human Resources on a couple of occasions. It has been in the mandate letter of the relevant minister, this one and the previous one, but we are still in a situation in which we are putting a band-aid on this problem. That band-aid will help those who are eligible for EI, but it does not help those who are not eligible and who are on welfare because their period ran out because of what Stephen Harper did.

That is the situation. It is a good thing as far as it goes.

Over the last eight years our government has introduced a Canada child benefit, which has lifted over 400,000 children out of poverty since 2015. We have worked with the provinces to deliver $10-a-day child care, which will deliver 250,000 new affordable child care spaces by 2026. Through these measures, we will continue to support families.

The measures I have highlighted, as well as all others contained in the fall economic statement, build on the work that we have already done and set the stage for the next few years.

I am, again, pleased to speak to this ambitious, fiscally responsible statement and how it will address the needs of hard-working Canadians. I encourage every member of this chamber to support the statement and vote in favour of Bill C-59.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the rosy picture that the member across paints, but in his own province it would appear that there are 700 families each month going to a food bank, which is an increase of 200 per month over two years. In 2015, the average rent in P.E.I. was $790 a month. It is now more than $1,750 a month. Violent crime, from 2021 to 2022, in one year, increased 5.5%. Could this member please explain to all those great Canadians who are listening, including those in P.E.I., why the great job his government is doing has led to the crime and chaos, doubling of mortgages and doubling of rent that we see all across this great country for which his government is responsible? Shame on you.

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

That is shame on, “through the Chair”.

The hon. member for Charlottetown.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I also expect, as someone who has advocated so strongly and so successfully for the removal of HST on psychotherapy services, that the member will be supporting Bill C-59. I expect that it is in Bill C-59 because of the member's advocacy.

There is no denying that we are in tough economic times. There is absolutely no denying that and that is the reason for the measures that are in Bill C-59. That is the reason for $10-a-day child care. These measures are working. There is a lot of work to do; I acknowledge that. There are people who are hurting and we will continue to be there for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, the budget statement was read for the first time last fall. It is now the end of January, and February is just around the corner. We expect a budget to be presented in March or April.

At the rate things are going, does the member really expect his government to successfully get bills passed? It seems to me that the Liberals' legislative calendar has been very sparse for the past two or three years.

Does my colleague sincerely expect to see this bill passed before the next budget? Are we doing all this for absolutely nothing?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. Things are really very difficult here in the House. There is not a lot of collaboration. In the last parliamentary period, a lot of legislative acrobatics went on to delay the progress of any bill introduced by the government.

I look forward to seeing this bill pass. I am sure it will benefit my constituents and Canadians as a whole. However, the pace of this whole process depends on all of the members here. The lack of co-operation is real, and sometimes I think it does not necessarily serve the best interests of Canadians.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in his comments, the member mentioned just how long it has been taking for the Liberal government to take action on employment insurance reform. Recently, there was a social services tribunal ruling that says that denying women access to their regular employment insurance benefits for having taken employment insurance maternity leave is a case of clear gender discrimination within the employment insurance system. Would the member agree that this is something that should also be fixed on an expedited basis?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I am repeatedly told as to why the zoning problem in Prince Edward Island has not been fixed is that the government is intent on a major overhaul of the entire EI system. That, for me, is frustrating, but that would give the chance to solve my problem and the problem identified by the hon. member.

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

Mr. Speaker, the federal government and the Prime Minister has been trying to work with municipalities. We have had the Minister of Housing going across the entire country, talking to mayors and to councils to work out deals on how the federal government can support building housing throughout our country and yet we see the Leader of the Opposition trying to bully mayors, calling them incompetent and subjecting them to ridicule through his platforms at every opportunity he gets. Which approach does the member think is better and more constructive at getting houses built across the country in a way that will benefit Canadians?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, this confrontational approach has no place here. It has no place anywhere. It certainly has no place in intergovernmental relations.

The model that was used by the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities to urge Charlottetown along to get on board with the housing accelerator fund is one that is going to bear fruit, and it is one that displays a level of respect that is merited among public leaders at all levels.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a moment off the top to ensure the memory of my father is forever etched into the record of this place. Over the holidays, my brother and I, and our families, suddenly lost our father, Michael Lantsman, whose sacrifices were the sacrifices of heroes. We know that he could not wait to see the love of his life and the centre of our universe, whom we lost three years ago, my mother, Ora Lantsman, in the next world.

Together, I think they are reunited knowing that they built a life for us, which has given me the opportunity to ensure that Canadians will know their selflessness, their sacrifices and their hardship as I will continue to be guided by the values they imparted and to tell their story, as I have in the House. Their story is the story of so many Canadians who chose this country, made it their home and built a better life than the one they left behind. His memory will be a blessing, and I certainly will make sure of that.

I will go back to the regularly scheduled programming. For some, the holiday break was a chance to rest, to see family and to do important work in the community. However, for the Prime Minister, it was a chance, again, to flaunt the rules and to demonstrate just how out of touch he is.

Let me start by saying that the Prime Minister has bad judgment. We have seen it. This is a guy who thought it would be a good idea to dress in blackface, to dress up in costumes on a business trip, to flagrantly and blatantly break ethics laws multiple times and to confide trust in ministers who do exactly the same things.

We were still shocked to see him accept a free luxury stay last month valued at over $84,000. Mr. Speaker, $84,000 is more than the average family makes in a year. It is a sum that could buy 20,000 meals for a homeless shelter. It is a sum that translates to over $9,000 a night. I would be very interested to learn from the Prime Minister at a future question period what $9,000 a night might buy.

I would be even more interested to learn why he did not have the common sense to refuse that free stay, knowing just how ethically dubious and out of touch it was. It is evidenced, of course, by the PMO changing its story three times on who paid for the luxury vacation and when. Let me say, and I think Canadians would agree, that the Prime Minister has every right to take some time off, as do all Canadians.

However, that luxury vacation, its cost, its size and its magnitude, is just another example of conveniently deciding to set aside any personal or professional principles to profit from his status in office. It further proves that he is simply out of touch, and it underlines that he understands nothing about the Canadian middle class.

The fundamental truth is that the Prime Minister, who is so comfortable in the lap of luxury, cannot pretend to understand Canadians who are struggling. It is evidenced by this bill we have seen in the House that fails to meet the needs of the middle class, to meet the needs of struggling Canadians from coast to coast to coast who tell their MPs, and I am sure they hear it on the other side, of their struggles.

We now have rent prices that have doubled. We have seen the reports throughout Christmas. Housing prices have doubled under the government. The cost of home heating has doubled. The price of groceries has increased by 25% this year, all after eight years of a Liberal government led by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister says that Canadians from all walks of life who are struggling, because of statistics like this, are just “grumpy”. That is what he said in a year-end interview.

I have to say to the Prime Minister that “grumpy” is something that happens when, perhaps, one's private jet breaks down, or when the custom sock store runs out of one's favourite pair. What is happening right now is not people being “grumpy”. These are people who are faced with the fear and the anxiety that come with thinking about the survival of their families. These are people confronting the reality that their generation, or their kids, might not be better off than they were. That is real fear and anxiety in the Canadian public right now.

People fear for their lives in the face of violent crime, which is up 39% since 2015, and gang-related crime, which has doubled. People are scared when they are faced with the highest murder rate in 30 years. People in the GTA cannot even park their car in the laneway because auto theft is up 50% in just two years; it is up 217% since the Prime Minister has come to office. That is if they are lucky enough to even have a laneway at all, because to buy a home in Toronto, one needs to commit nearly 85% of one's income just for housing costs.

Under the Prime Minister, Canada is still on track to have the worst economic growth out of 40 OECD countries, while inflation and high interest rates take more money out of Canadians’ pockets and off their paycheques. Housing remains unaffordable thanks to the refusal to force gatekeepers to get out of the way and actually build homes.

On top of this, it is the former immigration minister who broke our immigration system and overwhelmed our housing market with policies that, according to his own cabinet colleague, the current immigration minister, caused the system to get “out of control”. Despite this, and, as usual, people fail upwards in the current government, the minister’s failure was recognized when he became the new housing minister. He is expected to fix the problem that they in fact created over the last eight years. As well, two million people a month visit food banks just to put a decent meal on the table, or worse, they go without.

The response to all of this is the fall economic statement. It is an anemic response to a country that so many beyond these walls do not recognize anymore. We know the source of the misery, and we all want it to be over. It is out-of-control government spending that drives up the cost of the goods we buy and the interest we pay. It is the out-of-control taxes that make it more unaffordable to buy a home, to put gas in the car or to buy groceries. It is the out-of-control bureaucracy that makes it harder to build things and to create good-paying jobs. The solution, of course, is to cut spending, cut taxes and cut the bureaucracy, but instead, the bill would continue the deficit spending that is putting us way beyond our means.

Now Canadians are realizing that the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. However, this is what we expect and this is what we get after eight years of the Liberal government. We should now expect that the government will do the opposite of the rational thing. We should expect that the Prime Minister is going to remain detached from the everyday realities and ignore every single point of view that differs from his own.

The country needs a lot of change after eight years. We cannot trust the people who have gotten us into this mess to get us out of it. After a cabinet retreat in a downtown luxury hotel about the middle class, of course, far away from anyone in the middle class, and after a Christmas when Canadians actually cut back without anyone over there taking notice, my Conservative colleagues and I are looking forward to a day when we can see a fall economic statement that actually addresses the misery that Canadians have been telling us about every single time we are at home in our communities.

There is going to be a clear choice. People can have the Liberals, who will raise taxes and inflate regulation and red tape, pump up inflation and interest rates and let crime, chaos, drugs and disorder run rampant, or they can have Conservatives, with a simple plan of axing the tax. We are going to build homes, fix the budget and stop crime. That will be the future choice for Canadians. It is a future where housing is affordable and food is affordable, where communities are safe, and where our nation is strong at home and back to being respected abroad. We know that future is possible, because we knew it before. Life was not like this before the current government, and life will not be like this when it is gone.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see my friend from a neighbouring riding stand in the House and speak to the fall economic statement. Again, to the member for Thornhill, I give my condolences on her father's passing.

In the city of Vaughan a few months ago, we announced an investment of $59 million from the housing accelerator fund to assist the City of Vaughan in accelerating the approval and development of housing projects for homes for individuals who live in our city and families who are moving to our city. There are about 7,000 to 10,000 people a year who move to the city of Vaughan, which the hon. member is well aware of. Much like the hon. member at one time worked in a private administration that collaborated with the provincial government to announce the building of the subway that is now in the city of Vaughan, the government is collaborating with the City of Vaughan with a $59-million investment.

Does the hon. member not agree with this investment, which will benefit the city of Vaughan and the residents, current and future, who will live in the member's riding, in my riding and in the other member's riding?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the member opposite and my neighbour standing in fancy photo ops with the mayors and the housing minister making announcements, the homes have not been built in Vaughan.

In fact, after eight years of the Prime Minister, rent has doubled in Vaughan, the price of a house has almost doubled in Vaughan, the price of a mortgage interest rate payment has doubled in Vaughan, and it used to take 25 years to pay off a mortgage in Vaughan and now it takes most people in the GTA 25 years to save for a down payment. I am not sure why the member opposite is patting himself on the back, but I will not support his fancy photo ops.

Conservatives will get houses built. We will get the private sector to put shovels in the ground.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to give my condolences on the loss of the member's loved one.

I already kind of know what the Conservative government would look like. Under the leadership of the member for Carleton, in his nine years in government, we saw 800 affordable homes lost under his watch. He supported the Liberals in a $55-billion tax cut to CEOs. We know the number of Canadians living in poverty increased, health care funding was cut by $43.5 billion, nine veteran support offices were closed and, worst of all, under his watch, the retirement age for seniors moved to age 67. I already know the story, because I have seen the same old Liberal-Tory story since the beginning.

I know that the Conservatives talk a good game about affordable housing when their real plan is to line the pockets of investors. I want to ask the member a very specific question. Is her government committed to building rent-geared-to-income co-op and public housing?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her condolences.

At every opportunity, and I think the member's constituents ought to know this, she supports the Liberal government, and it is at every single stage of the game and in every single confidence vote, to raise taxes, to put forward a photo op plan for building more houses. There is innumerable waste on that side.

This is what a Conservative government would look like. It would be a government that takes care of people and does not line the pockets of its own friends.

I like that the member opposite asks what the future government will look like. I think she should get used to saying that. We will certainly put forward a plan when that time comes.

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

We are out of time but before moving on to the next member, I believe the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot has a point of order to speak to.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Chair.

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

I thank the hon. member for that apology.

Continuing debate, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to speak in the year of Our Lord 2024.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope members sort out among themselves just what the apology is for, given that memories seem to be somewhat short here.

I am rather hoping that I can bring a bit more light than heat to this debate. I propose to divide my remarks into three parts. The first part is to actually refer to the fall economic statement. I know that is a novel idea. The second part is to canvass why Canadians are pessimistic about the economy. Then, in an aside, I will compare that to why Americans are pessimistic about their economy.

With that, there is no doubt a disconnect between the economic metrics and how Canadians are feeling about their general state of welfare. If we open the fall economic statement, the first chart shows that Canada is number one in the G7 for real GDP growth. If I said that at the front door of some member of my constituency, they would probably close the door on me. Maybe they would be polite, and maybe they would not. Nevertheless, those are the facts. Our peer nations are not experiencing economic growth at the rate that Canada is experiencing economic growth, and I would contrast that to the concerns Canadians have about their economic welfare and ask them if they would prefer to be at the bottom of the G7 growth spectrum.

The second chart has to do with foreign investment. It appears that foreign investors have a great deal of confidence in Canada's prospects, as we are third in the world, and probably second, since the United States necessarily attracts by far the most investment.

The third chart is with respect to the budgetary balance projections for G7 nations. As Sir John A. Macdonald used to say, “Don't compare me to the Almighty. Compare me to the alternative.” The alternatives are Germany, Japan, the U.K., Italy, France and the U.S. We are number one in terms of budgetary projections. For all the harping, whining and complaining we hear in this chamber about the management of the fiscal framework, Canada is number one, and dramatically ahead of our neighbour to the south.

The fourth chart is on consumer price inflation, which has fallen over the course of the last 12 months by about four points, a significant drop in inflation.

Only economists could possibly be interested in some of these other charts. They are very difficult to convey to folks. I sometimes wonder why they put these charts into these economic statements, but they do.

In real GDP growth in G7 economies from Q1 of 2022 to Q2 of 2023, Canada is again number one in economic growth.

On employment and the change in employment, again, Canada is number one, way ahead of all the other nations. In fact, Japan and the U.K. have experienced negative employment growth since 2020.

I appreciate that trying to convince people, based on charts, about Canada's management of the fiscal framework, the monetary policy and the economy generally is somewhat of a challenge, and I have probably already lost the chamber. Having said that, it is a necessary setting in order to address the concerns Canadians have about their own economic well-being. I would just make the point over again about whether Canadians would prefer this government and this Parliament to address their concerns from a different position in the charts I have just mentioned. Would they like to be last in economic growth? Would they like to have challenges with employment? This is the environment in which we operate, and I think it is a necessary corrective to some of the conversation I have heard today.

If we ask what the concerns of Canadians are, economic uncertainty is their number one concern, along with income inequality, housing affordability, job market challenges, high household debts, climate change and environmental concerns, and global economic trends.

I put the economic uncertainties in the context of global events. We have had a Ukrainian war, the Middle Eastern war and instability in Asia-Pacific. These concerns are of great significance to Canada, particularly as Canada is a trading nation; a great deal of our GDP depends on trade. We have yet to see how the rerouting of ships in the Suez Canal area is going to affect Canadian prospects; it is necessarily going to be an added cost to the cost of goods and services in this country. We have yet to see that play through, but it is a dispute that Canadians are internalizing and recognizing, and I expect that the result will be an increase in commodity prices.

Income inequality is a serious concern, and I have to say that, over the course of this government, there have been a number of really innovative initiatives on addressing income inequality. The first, and one of the most significant in my riding, is the Canada child benefit. Because I have a relatively impoverished riding with quite a number of children, that means something in the order of $100 million a year into my riding alone. If it is not the number one riding in Canada, then I think it is one of the higher-ranked ridings for the receipt of the Canada child benefit. It is similar with the Canada workers benefit and the child care initiative. These are all concerns that have been internalized by Canadians and create anxiety, but the address by the government is well placed in terms of addressing issues of income inequality.

Finally, before you open the trap door and make me disappear, Mr. Speaker, I thought it would be interesting to compare what Americans' concerns are as opposed to ours. A number of the concerns are clearly shared: income inequality, stagnant wages, job insecurity and cost of living. One is student loan debt. We recollect that President Biden tried to do something about it, but Congress has defeated him on that. Furthermore, Americans are deeply disturbed by their health care costs, even with Obamacare. There is also political polarization and policy uncertainty. We cannot turn on a television without commentary on the almost intractable policy and partisan contrast. Those last three things are not challenges that this country faces thus far, thank goodness, but they do cause a level of anxiety. Moreover, we somewhat reflect the concerns of Americans here with respect to our own economic uncertainty.

The reconciliation between the metrics of this economy and how people are feeling about their own personal economy is the challenge of this government and this Parliament, and it will continue to vex us all. The government has taken a number of initiatives, such as the housing initiatives, that can ameliorate the immediate effects.

Therefore, I encourage colleagues to support this bill, recognizing fully that they are hearing the same thing that we are hearing at the door: Canadians are concerned about their own personal situation.