Debates of April 18th, 2024

Jewish Canadians

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, in the House there are many different kinds of governments. There are majority governments, minority governments, coalition governments and governments that rely on the support of another party. What Conservatives and other members have objected to is when the substitution of names causes disorder or is insulting.

If the New Democrats find being associated with the Liberals insulting and demeaning, then they can make decisions to not support the Liberal government. If the Liberals believe it is derogatory or insulting to be associated with the NDP, they could end the partnership.

However, the current government depends on the NDP to pass its budgets and its legislation. NDP members are actively involved in senior-level decisions when it comes to motions in the House and legislation. It is a matter of debate as to what that dynamic should be called. Conservatives are, of course, calling it what it is, an NDP-Liberal government, and there is nothing unparliamentary about describing it in that way.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the point of order that I understand you will be reflecting on during the break week, I would strongly encourage you to consider a few rulings that have been made recently with respect to what members are saying.

In particular, a member might suggest that another member aspires to a certain political ideology. When a member has done that, there is still a Liberal member who has not spoken since a ruling to that effect has come out. It is extremely appropriate and, indeed, our right to be able to express how we feel. Your job, Mr. Speaker, certainly is to control the parliamentary language and to suggest what is not parliamentary language, but I do not think it would be in the Chair's best interest to start going down the path of deciding what is a good statement in terms of political ideology and what is not. I will give an example.

If I were to say a member is pro-Russia, you might interpret that to be inappropriate, Mr. Speaker, but would you consider it to be the same if I were to say a member is pro-United States? I think it is really important that you reflect on that, because at some point we might run into a problem where we are not able to properly express ourselves.

I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, over the next week, to consider those comments as well.

Oral Questions

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today during question period, the member for Milton performed a very inappropriate physical action. First, he waved and then he clearly blew a kiss across the way during his exchange with the member for Barrie—Innisfil.

Non-verbal actions that are sexual in nature are not appropriate. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to denounce this unparliamentary behaviour and ask the member for Milton to apologize.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The Chair will have to reflect on this and come back to the House, if necessary.

Business of the House

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, of course I rise to ask the government House leader if he could inform the House as to what business we will be deliberating on for the rest of this week and, with next week being a constituency workweek, what we can hope to expect after we come back from our ridings.

This being the ninth time the House will be debating a Liberal budget, I wonder if my hon. colleague truly believes that, after the first budget raised inflation and interest rates, the second budget raised inflation, interest rates and taxes, and the third, fourth, fifth and sixth all helped to create the housing crisis that is plaguing Canadians and to drive up the costs of everyday items, impoverishing the Canadian people, after eight years, eight budgets all trying the same failed approach, and after his own government admitted that it is causing hardship and unfairness for Canadians, the ninth time trying the exact same approach will yield different results.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the different results we hope for are for Conservatives to stop voting against the series of measures we put in place to solve the very problems the member professes to care about. In particular, it would be great if we could pass the doubling of the top-up of the rebate on the price on carbon, so that rural residents in this country from one coast to another could benefit from that additional affordability measure as we continue our fight against climate change, which is affecting them, it must be said, disproportionately. I assure my hon. friend we are very committed to passing what is an exceptionally good, aggressive and helpful budget for all Canadians.

We will continue debate on the budget this afternoon.

Tomorrow, we will conclude debate on the motion concerning the amendments proposed by the Senate to Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Upon our return from the constituency week, and I wish all members a good week of work in their constituencies, we will deal with the budget debate on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

Advance Disclosure of Budget Measures — Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 9, 2024, by the member for La Prairie concerning the premature disclosure of financial initiatives prior to the tabling of the 2024 budget.

In raising his question of privilege, the member alleged that the government had violated the principle of secrecy relating to fiscal matters by unveiling programs and measures over the past few weeks, prior to the budget presentation on April 16, 2024. In addition, the member argued that, in announcing key aspects of its budget piece by piece, the government had breached the privileges of members by affecting the opposition parties’ ability to take an informed position and properly advise voters of the nature and effects of those measures.

In response, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House referenced a decision by Speaker Sauvé on November 18, 1981, and House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition. That book states the following, on page 899: “Speakers have maintained that secrecy is a matter of parliamentary convention rather than one of privilege.”

In addition, while noting that it may not be a question of privilege, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands lamented that prematurely disclosing budget information has become too common and said that this practice should be examined.

Regarding budget secrecy, I would like to highlight the ruling of Speaker Jerome of April 17, 1978, which can be found on page 4549 of the Debates, and the ruling by Speaker Fraser of June 18, 1987, on page 7315 of the Debates. I will quote from the latter:

Budgetary secrecy is a matter of parliamentary convention. Its purpose is to prevent anybody from gaining a private advantage by reason of obtaining advance budgetary information....The limits of parliamentary privilege are very narrow and it is not a responsibility of the Chair to rule as to whether or not a parliamentary convention is justified, or whether or not the matter complained of is a breach of that convention. That is a matter of political debate and not one in which the Chair would wish to become involved.

Each year, the Minister of Finance presents the government's financial position in detail in the budget. The budget can contain various measures, including the creation, modification or elimination of government programs, as well as the means to finance its expenditures. It is not unusual for some of these new initiatives to be announced at public events a few weeks or even months before the budget. Some may prefer all these announcements to be made at the same time, but the Standing Orders and practices of the House do not prescribe such an approach.

The statements by the members for New Westminster—Burnaby and Saanich—Gulf Islands left me with the impression that there may be an appetite for reviewing our practices. I encourage them to advise the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs if that is indeed their wish.

However, I must conclude in this case that there is no prima facie question of privilege.

I thank all members for their attention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address budget 2024. I propose to deliver my remarks in two contexts: first, to address how this budget resonates with the residents whom I am privileged to represent in Parkdale—High Park in Toronto; second, to look more largely at some of the very important components that relate to the administration of justice in this country and are touched on in this budget document.

I am proud to have represented, for almost nine years now, the constituents in Parkdale—High Park. What those constituents have talked to me repeatedly about is the need to address housing. In budget 2024, we find some very key provisions that relate to housing. I cannot list them all, but some deal with the pressing issue of building more housing, increasing housing supply. That is fundamental in terms of what we are trying to do as a government, and it is empowered and advanced by this important budget document. What I am speaking of here is, for example, $15 billion in additional contributions to Canada's apartment construction loan program, which will help to build more than 30,000 additional new homes.

What I also take a lot of pride in is the fact that we are addressing the acute needs of renters. I say that in two respects. This budget document outlines, for example, how renters can be empowered to get to the point of home ownership by virtue of having a proper rental payment history. This can contribute to building up one's credit worthiness with credit ratings agencies; when the time comes to actually apply for a mortgage, one will have built up that credit worthiness by demonstrating that one has made regular rent payments over a period of years. This is truly empowering for the renters in my community and communities right around the country. I have already heard that feedback from the renters whom I represent.

Lastly, I would simply point out what we are doing with respect to the tenants' bill of rights. This is a really important document that talks about ensuring that tenants have rights they can vindicate, including in front of tribunals and, potentially, courts of law. We are coupling that with a $15-million investment that would empower and unlock advocates who assist those renters. That is fundamental. In that respect, it actually relates to the two hats that I wear in this chamber, in both my roles as a representative of individual renters and as Minister of Justice.

Another component that my constituents have been speaking to me about regularly since 2015 is our commitment to advancing meaningful reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Again, this document has a number of components that relate to indigenous peoples in budget 2024. There are two that I would highlight for the purpose of these remarks. First, there is the idea about what we are doing to settle litigation against indigenous peoples and ensure that we are proceeding on a better and more conciliatory path forward. We talk about a $23-billion settlement with respect to indigenous groups who are litigating discriminatory underfunding of children and child family services and the fact that this historic settlement was ratified by the federal court. That is critical.

Second, in this document we also talk about funding a project that is near and dear to my heart. Why do I say that? It is because, in 2017, I had the privilege of serving as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Heritage. At that time, I helped to co-develop, along with Métis, first nations and Inuit leaders, the legislation that has now become the Indigenous Languages Act. That is coupled with an indigenous languages commission. In this very budget document, we talk about $225 million to ensure the continued success of that commission and the important work it is doing to promote, enhance and revitalize indigenous languages in this country.

Those are fundamental investments. I think it is really important to highlight them in the context of this discussion.

I would also highlight that my riding, I am proud to say, is full of a lot of people who care about women. They care about feminism; they care about social and economic policies that empower women. I would highlight just two. First of all, we talk about pharmacare in this budget. The first volley of pharmaceutical products that will be covered includes contraceptive devices that would assist, as I understand it, as many as nine million Canadians through access to contraception. This would allow women, particularly young women and older women, to ensure that they have control over their reproductive function. That is fundamental to me as a representative, and it is fundamental to our government and what our government prioritizes in this country. I would also say that, with $10-a-day child care, there are affordable and robust means of ensuring that people's children are looked after in this country; that empowers women to do such things as participate in the workforce.

What I am speaking about here is that we are hitting levels of women's participation in the workforce that have never been seen before, with women's labour force participation of 85.4%. That is an incredible social policy that is translating into a terrific economic policy.

We can also talk about the $6.1-billion Canada disability benefit. I am proud to say that the constituents of Parkdale—High Park care meaningfully about inclusive policies, policies that alleviate poverty and are addressed to those who are vulnerable and those who are in need. People have been asking me about the disability benefit, including when we will see it and when it will come to the fore. We are seeing it right now with this document. The very document that we will be voting on in this chamber includes a $6.1-billion funding model to empower Canadians who are disabled and to ensure that we are addressing their needs.

This budget also represents a bit of a catch-up, meaning that we are catching up to the rest of the G7. Until this budget was delivered, we remained the only G7 country in the world not to have a national school food program. It goes without saying that not a single one of the 338 members privileged to serve in this House would think it is good for a child to arrive at school hungry, in any of their communities or in this country as a whole. I do not think this is a partisan statement whatsoever. We would acutely address child hunger. Through a national school food program, we would ensure that children do not arrive at school hungry, which would impede their productivity and certainly limit their education. Through a $1-billion investment, we would cure school poverty and school hunger.

We are also introducing legislation to reduce cellphone and banking fees, which is fundamental.

With respect to the hat I wear as Minister of Justice, which I have done for about eight months, I firmly believe that one of my pivotal roles is ensuring access to justice. I would say that this document really rings true to the commitment that I have personally and that our government and the Prime Minister have to this. Here, I am speaking about the notion of our commitment to legal aid. Legal aid has multiple components, but it is fundamental to ensuring that people can have their rights vindicated with the assistance of counsel. This helps address things such as court backlogs and court delays; it is also fundamental for the individual litigants before the courts. There is a criminal legal aid package in this budget that includes $440 million over five years.

There is also immigration and refugee legal aid. Unfortunately, since the provinces have wholesale resiled from their involvement in this portfolio, since 2019, we have been stepping in with annual funding. We are making that funding no longer simply annual; we are projecting it over a five-year term, which gives certainty and predictability to the people who rely on immigration and refugee legal aid, to the tune of $273 million. That is fundamental.

Members heard in question period about efforts we are making to address workplace sexual harassment. I will pivot again here to the fact that this dovetails with both my ministerial role and my role of devoted constituency representative as the MP for Parkdale—High Park. I hear a great deal from my constituents about speaking to women's needs in terms of addressing harassment and sexual harassment. With this budget, we would provide $30 million over three years to address workplace sexual harassment. That is also fundamental.

Likewise, what we are doing on hatred is fundamental. Three full pages of the budget document are dedicated to addressing hatred. Some points dovetail with legislation that I have tabled in this House, including Bill C-63, regarding what we would do to curb online hatred and its propensity to spread. However, there are also concrete investments here that talk about Canada's action plan on combatting hate and empowering such bodies as the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, with the important work it is doing in terms of promoting better understanding and the knowledge base of hate crimes units. Also, fundamentally, there is money dedicated in this very budget to ensuring that both law enforcement agencies and Crown prosecutors are better trained and provided better information about how to identify hate and potentially prosecute it. With where we are as a country right now, this is a pressing need; I am very proud to see budget 2024 addressing it directly.

For the reasons I outlined earlier, in terms of how this addresses the particular needs of my constituents and for the very replete justice investments that are made to ensuring access to justice and tackling pernicious issues, such as sexual harassment and hatred, I believe this is a budget that all 338 of us should get behind and support.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the member back to the Liberal platform of 2021, called “Forward. For Everyone.” In that platform, the Liberals' promise was not small; it was a major promise of $4.5 billion for the Canada mental health transfer, which would be implemented over five years. That was almost three years ago. Why has it not been dealt with in this latest budget? Is this another broken Liberal promise?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that I think our commitment to mental health is replete.

In the past 12 to 18 months, members have seen us launch a 988 helpline that deals with suicide. Members have seen an entire new Canada health accord, reaching almost $200 billion, with a dedicated pillar addressing mental health and mental health needs. This budget document itself acutely targets mental health programs that deal with, for example, the needs of Black Canadians.

I know the member to be a committed member of the Jewish community. I would say to him that I know how the hatred fuelled by anti-Semitism also has pernicious impacts on the mental health of Jewish Canadians. In this document, he will find not only supports for the special envoy on anti-Semitism but also dedicated supports for fighting anti-Semitism and promoting Holocaust remembrance through a new museum in Montreal.

Those are the kinds of investments we need to see in this country. I think we should all get behind them.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is preparing to challenge the principle of the separation of church and state, a democratic principle in modern democracies.

On page 74 of the budget, under the heading “Halal Mortgages”, it reads:

Canada is home to a vibrant and growing market of alternative financing products, including halal mortgages, that enable Muslim Canadians, and other diverse communities, to further participate in the housing market.

Budget 2024 announces that the government is exploring new measures to expand access to alternative financing products, like halal mortgages.

Is that his idea of a secular state?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with this budget, we want to help people with housing by creating a larger supply of housing units, whether it be apartments or houses, by providing them with the support they need to defend their rights as tenants, for example, but also by providing financial support. When we announced the creation of the tax-free first home savings account, it was to help people save the money they need. Now, as I just mentioned, people can build a credit history that shows that they pay their rent regularly, which will again help tenants become homeowners. That is our vision in this budget. We are targeting housing as a top priority.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it surprised me that something I have heard about from a lot of first nations communities across this country was missing in the budget. This is the issue of enforcement. We know that, on reserve lands, tribal lands or treaty lands, people do not have the ability to call the RCMP or the local police to enforce a lot of the laws of the land, whether provincially or federally. We know this is becoming a higher-risk issue in that members of the indigenous leadership are having to go out and implement enforcement to the best of their ability. Why is this not a priority for the government?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would politely and respectfully submit that it is a priority for our government. I have been hearing the very same concern expressed to me by a series of indigenous interveners and stakeholders from around the country.

I would say this to the member: In Manitoba, we have a working example, with MKO. This organization already has a pilot project where the RCMP has commenced with the actual enforcement of bylaws that are being passed with respect to drug and alcohol usage in particular first nations communities.

There are examples that are working in this country, but I would agree with her wholeheartedly that we need more.

I would also point out that the work that one colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, is doing with respect to his mandate letter. This includes changes to policing and ensuring that policing is deemed an essential service that re-envisages the control of first nations, for example, in policing their own communities.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this budget is ironically called “Fairness for Every Generation.”

After nine years of the Prime Minister trying to make things fair, he sure has not done a very good job. Things are not fair.

Is it fair to every generation that every year life is less affordable? Is it fair to every generation that rents are sky-high? Is it fair to every generation that one in four kids cannot afford to eat? Is it fair to every generation that it takes almost 20 years just to save up for a down payment?

The Prime Minister is not worth the cost for any generation. This is the ninth straight year of deficit spending. In 2015, the federal debt was $616 billion, accumulated from 1867, when Canada began. Today, it is $1.25 trillion, double. The Prime Minister has borrowed more money than all other prime ministers combined.

The result is that, after 20 years of low inflation and interest rates, the Prime Minister's irresponsible inflationary spending has upended Canada's stable economy.

This year, Canada will spend $54.1 billion on interest to wealthy bankers and bondholders, instead of to doctors and nurses, to service the Prime Minister's debt. That is the same amount collected in GST. We should change the name of that tax from the GST to the DST, the debt servicing tax. It is also more money than the government spends on health care or on the Canada child benefit.

This is what happens when a Prime Minister does not want to think about monetary policy. The result is that mortgage payments have doubled, down payments have doubled, rents have doubled, the cost of gas, groceries and home heating have skyrocketed, and people cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves.

Instead of reining in spending to bring inflation under control, the Prime Minister acts like a pyromaniac, throwing another $40 billion on the inflationary fire. This is despite warnings from economists, including Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem, who cautioned that government spending is at the upper bound. This will make it much harder for the bank to lower interest rates.

This is not a partisan point. Former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page expressed this yesterday, telling Global News, “We gotta get those interest rates down. So on a net basis, this is just not good for inflation.” Former Liberal finance minister John Manley also warned this government months ago that it was pressing on the inflationary gas pedal with its spending. Even former Liberal-appointed governor of the Bank of Canada David Dodge said he believes that this will be the “worst budget” since 1982.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. After nine deficits and doubling the national debt, Canada is less fair and Canadians are worse off.

Now the finance minister says that what Canadians really want is a stronger government to make things fairer. By making government bigger, the Liberals have made citizens weaker. Conservatives believe that smaller government makes for bigger citizens.

This is not a government that gives people everything they want. It is a government that takes everything they have. Members do not have to take it from me. Just yesterday, in the Financial Post, it was written, “we’ve become a growth laggard and our living standards have largely stagnated for the better part of a decade.”

Part of our declining standard of living has to do with the fact that Canada has the worst productivity in the G7. Our GDP growth has been driven primarily by population and labour force growth, not productivity improvements. That may increase the total amount of goods and services, but it does not translate into increased living standards.

This is a real crisis. From 2000 to 2023, the growth rate of Canada's real per person GDP was 0.7%. That is meaningfully worse than the G7 average of 1% and the United States', whose GDP per person growth rate was 1.2%, almost double. Our country is facing a productivity crisis that threatens to erode this country’s standard of living and erase many Canadians' hopes for a more prosperous future.

Just a few weeks ago the Bank of Canada's deputy governor Carolyn Rogers said that we have a productivity emergency, and “in case of emergency, break glass.” Even former Liberal finance minister Bill Morneau says the budget is a threat to investment and economic growth.

It is time to take action by, for instance, reducing regulatory barriers to investment, celebrating entrepreneurship, bolstering the profit incentive for private investment and loosening the federal government's tight grip on the economy. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister does the exact opposite.

There has been one change, though. The borrow-and-spend Liberals are now the tax-and-spend Liberals. On top of gouging Canadians with their April 1 tax hikes, they have decided that they know better how to spend businesses' money than the hard-working Canadians who actually run those businesses.

This is not a partisan point. Dan Kelly, president of the CFIB, said, “What worries me the most about [these tax] changes is the potential to demotivate Canadians from getting into business in the first place or working hard to grow a small business to a medium-sized business”. He is not the only one.

Harley Finkelstein, president of Canada’s greatest tech company, Shopify, said:

We need to be doing everything we can to turn Canada into the best place for entrepreneurs to build.

What's proposed in the federal budget will do the complete opposite. Innovators and entrepreneurs will suffer and their success will be penalized—this is...a tax on innovation and risk taking.

Our policy failures are America's gains. At a time when our country is facing critically low productivity and business investment our political leaders are failing our country's entrepreneurs.

For nine years, the Prime Minister has told Canadians that the rich would pay for the cost of his spending, but the truth is that it has been everyday Canadians who have been the ones paying. The Prime Minister has already raised his punishing carbon tax by 23% on April 1, and with $40 billion in new inflationary spending, Canadians will continue to pay the inflation tax that hurts the poorest among us the most. Whatever the Prime Minister says, it will not be him and his billionaire friends who pay for new spending. It will be single moms, workers and small business owners.

We cannot tax our way to prosperity, and no government program can increase productivity better than the power of the free market, spurred on by Canadian entrepreneurs. We need to celebrate entrepreneurship in this country, not punish it.

Conservatives had three simple demands for the budget: axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form; build the homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities to permit 15% more homebuilding each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money; and cap spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation. The government must find a dollar in savings for every dollar of spending.

The Prime Minister did none of those things, and for those reasons, Conservatives will not be supporting the budget.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there are many things I can go to, in terms of what the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister said in introducing the budget. One of the things that really stood out for me, and it contradicts many of the things the leader of the official opposition and the member who just spoke have said, was to take a look at the amount of foreign investment on a per capita basis. When we take a look at the G7 countries in the world, we will find that, in the first three-quarters of 2023, we were number one in terms of that foreign investment. That speaks volumes.

Next to that, I would remind the member of something I said earlier. It took Stephen Harper just over nine years to create just under a million jobs. We have been able to create over two million jobs in less time. I am wondering if the member opposite can explain to me why he believes we should take economic advice when our performance has far outweighed and benefited Canadians, more so than the Stephen Harper era.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, of course, the member is saying what all Liberals say, that Canadians have never had it so good. They think that everything is great.

It was not my advice. I do not expect him to take my advice. Bill Morneau does not like the budget. Paul Manley does not like the budget. Many of the other economists I mentioned in my speech do not like the budget. There has been a great deal of criticism over changes in tax policy that will actually penalize productivity growth in this country. He does not have to take it from me. He just has to open up a newspaper and read it for himself.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I may not agree with all of the hon. member's intervention, but I do appreciate all of us in this place having the opportunity to voice our different thoughts and opinions.

One of the concerns that I have with this budget is what seems to me to be a significant underfunding of the housing and infrastructure costs that are required for first nations and Inuit communities across Canada. I know that the Conservatives had a long history of underfunding those communities. I am just wondering if this member has any concern with the continued underfunding that we are seeing under the Liberals.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that the Liberal government has abandoned indigenous communities.

We are talking about a prime minister who, when an indigenous protester showed up at one of his ritzy fundraisers, mocked that protester and said, “Thank you for your donation.” This is not a prime minister who respects indigenous communities. The member for Carleton, when he is prime minister, has said that he will focus on economic reconciliation in indigenous communities. We will get those homes built in partnership with those communities.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is always thoughtful, bringing information forward that is very useful, but when the member across the way says that so many people have new jobs, the government hiring hundreds of thousands of people is not going to help the economy. That does not increase the GDP.

You also talked about who is going to be paying for this budget's huge deficit. Could you tell us again what your belief is as to who is going to be paying for this?

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

I am not going to be telling you. Maybe the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley will.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, everyday Canadians are paying for the exorbitant interest costs generated by the irresponsible deficit spending of the government, $54.1 billion. That is over a billion dollars a week on the backs of Canadian taxpayers going to wealthy bankers and bondholders and not to health care or child care. It is shameful, absolutely shameful.

It was not like this before the current Prime Minister and it is not going to be like this after he is gone.

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

The hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne is rising on a point of order.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the member opposite not to bang on the desk, because it hurts the ears of the interpreters.