Debates of April 30th, 2024

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is fantastic to be able to rise once again on behalf of the great people of the province of Saskatchewan, particularly the people in the southwest corner, whom I have the privilege of representing.

Right off the top, I want to just talk about the month of May, which is MS Awareness Month. One of the big asks of the MS community, in particular by MS Canada, is to have the government fund $15 million towards research on the disease, as well as the prevention and repair side of things, for people who suffer with MS.

Normally, I do not get up to ask the government to spend more money, because we know the Liberals are fantastic at spending boatloads of money and accomplishing nothing with it. However, in this particular case, we know that there is over $3.4 billion in costs to the government and in lost wages by people who suffer from MS. A $15-million investment would actually result in a tremendous amount of savings for the government for the taxpayer. It would also result in a higher quality of life for people who suffer from MS.

I just wanted to start off my budget speech by mentioning that. If the Liberals were truly listening to what Canadians want and would like to see, this is something that they could have included in this budget to make sure that they are actually working to better the lives of people in Canada. Canada has the highest rates of people who suffer from MS in the world, with my wife being one of those people as well.

I could not help but notice in the budget that there is a very small amount listed for agriculture. In fact, I believe that agriculture is first mentioned on page 131 of the budget, and it continues for the next page and a half.

One of the issues in the budget concerns the livestock tax deferral. I just want to talk about that briefly, because a lot of ranchers in my riding have been dealing with droughtlike conditions for the last number of years, which is nothing new. We live in southwest Saskatchewan, a part of the country where rain has never been a feature. It is not something that we regularly get, so it is not new for us to have droughtlike conditions.

There is a government program called the livestock tax deferral. What happens is that the local RM has to declare a state of disaster. Then the government takes a look at the rainfall and the forage percentage over the year to see if it has fallen below 50%, I believe. There is quite a process involved in implementing or triggering the livestock tax deferral. Clarification around that would go a long way to help producers to have more certainty in their industry. An issue too, though, is that the livestock tax deferral can only be used for one year. We know that, in Saskatchewan, it sometimes takes more than one year for one's pasture to regenerate. A lot of producers and organizations, such as the Canadian Cattle Association and the Saskatchewan cattle association, are saying that allowing the livestock tax deferral to be used over a period of three years would actually be a lot more beneficial. It would allow for better environmental protection and for pastures to be able to regenerate.

My riding name is Cypress Hills—Grasslands. The “grasslands” part of the name comes from the fact that we have some of the largest amounts of still untouched native prairie grass in my part of the country. It has not been broken up. It has been grazed for years. Buffalo used to be the keystone species there; they have since been reintroduced to the grasslands. Cattle have done a tremendous job of being the keystone species in the grasslands.

For ranchers who have native prairie grass on their ranch, in their rotation, it is of huge value to them to be able to preserve that grass. When ranchers sell their herd, they will get the one-year livestock tax deferral. If they are forced to rebuy and to spend more on cattle to get them back on the land, there will be a degradation of that land. Having a three-year window would actually allow for the pasture to properly regenerate. Even if there is only a small amount of rainfall, that three-year time window would allow for better regeneration of the pasture. The environment would be taken care of in a way that would allow producers to purchase cattle, regraze the land once again and keep that keystone species on the land as well.

That is something that would happen with the livestock tax deferral. If the government were truly listening to the producer groups it mentions in the budget, then that is something it would actually be talking about and looking to implement. After nine years, it definitely has not done that.

One of the other parts about it, which actually took up about a page of the page and a half in that, is the government's commitment to starting consultations, once again, on interoperability. It is really funny that this is in there. I had the privilege to sponsor Bill C-294, which is an act to amend the Copyright Act for interoperability. There are many fantastic short-line manufacturers in Saskatchewan, and quite frankly all across this country, that make great agricultural products. They also make products for other industries, but I am going to focus on the agricultural side of it.

It is funny that this section is included in the “Affordable Groceries” section of the budget. The government is finally realizing that when agriculture is treated with respect and producers are allowed to grow food in the most economical way, if we let them have a choice, they will be able to grow food in a more efficient manner, which, in the long run, is going to have a positive impact on the price of groceries and hopefully lead to groceries being more affordable.

However, Bill C-294 was tabled over two years ago and still has not received royal assent. It did pass this House about a year ago now, and nothing has been done with it so far. In the 2023 budget, the government said it was going to start consultations then. It still has not done it. In 2024, it is once again committing to starting consultations, in June. It has a specific time frame in which it wants to start consultations, but given its previous track record of not doing it, we will wait and see what actually happens.

What would be even better is if Bill C-294 were able to get royal assent. My bill passed the House of Commons unanimously. When it went through committee stage, we were able to accept a friendly government amendment to the bill, which put it a bit more in line with some of the government's priorities but with the law as well. This is important because we want as much certainty as we can possibly get, even though we had done some legal work in the buildup to the bill. We accepted that friendly amendment. This is a bill that is non-controversial, but it is something that would get things done. It would have a whole-of-economy effect and impact.

If the government wants to go through consultations, I am going to make it even simpler. What the government can do is go back and read the report that was done by the government branch that used to be called Western Economic Diversification, which is now PrairiesCan. The government can go back and read the report, which was released in 2020, on this very issue. What it will find in that report is the economic impact that agricultural manufacturing has across the entire country. This is not just a southern Saskatchewan issue; this is a whole-of-Canada issue.

The government can read that report. It can see the dollar value assigned to it. It can see how every single province benefits from it. It is a nation-building exercise. It does not even have to do the consultations; that has already been done. The government department already did the report. The government can read it. The consultations are done.

We are counting on the Senate passing and giving royal assent to Bill C-294 as quickly as possible.

If the government wants to impact the price of groceries, what it could also do is have this House pass Bill C-234 in its original form. It came back from the Senate with a huge amendment that gutted the original intent of the bill, which was to put an exemption in place for all on-farm buildings for all types of fuel, which is important when we consider greenhouses, dairy barns, chicken barns and pig barns. There is a huge level of cost that goes into running those facilities with the carbon tax, so passing Bill C-234 in its original form would have a huge impact on the Canadian economy. It would have a huge impact on the price of food.

Removing the carbon tax in its entirety would be beneficial as well, when we look at the transportation costs and the costs to the grocery stores. It is a huge detriment, so scrapping the carbon tax altogether would also be of huge benefit, and I do not see any of that in the budget either.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I go to questions and comments, I want to apologize to the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester. I asked him to withdraw a word. The sound of that word came over here and I thought he had said the S-word, but it turns out he said the word “shady” and not what I thought he had said. I had that double-checked and I apologize to the hon. member. He does not have to withdraw that word.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives like to believe that they represent rural Canadians. What is interesting is that, within the fall economic statement, we have the doubling of the top-up for the rural carbon rebate. That is not passing because the Conservative Party continues to filibuster that legislation, the fall economic statement.

When we think of the private member's bill that the Conservatives constantly make reference to, with Senate amendments, it is the Conservative Party again that has the ability to bring that legislation before us, and it has chosen not to.

On the one hand, the Conservatives are being critical of the government; on the other hand, they are preventing rural communities from getting more breaks from Ottawa.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, we actually asked for unanimous consent to pass the bill in its original form, but the Liberal member for Waterloo denied that unanimous consent, so maybe the parliamentary secretary wants to talk to his colleague and find out why she would have done that.

When it comes to the doubling of the rural top-up, sure, it is fantastic that more money is going to people, but it still does not deal with the problem that the government is taking the money away from people and then giving it back to them. When we look at the buried-in costs of the carbon tax throughout the economy, it still does not add up to the amount of money that people are paying, particularly people in rural Canada. It was actually an admission of failure on the government's part that it had to double the top-up in the first place.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has never voted in favour of a Liberal budget or its updates since 2019, or even since 2015.

We intend to carry on as usual and vote against this budget. One reason why we are doing that concerns the ongoing subsidies paid to the oil and gas industries, which rake in record profits. Does my colleague not consider it indecent to fund the oil and gas sector, which is making record profits at the expense of Canadians, the same Canadians he claims to care about?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the natural resources committee actually did a study on subsidies for the oil and gas industry. We found that, with the exception of the government purchasing the Trans Mountain pipeline, which it did not need to do, because if it had allowed the private sector proponents to build it themselves, it would have come in way under cost compared to what the government had to spend on it, there are no subsidies. Of all the witnesses who were called before the committee, nobody could actually point to a single subsidy in existence.

It is important that we have a true, factual discussion on this. I know the Bloc does not like the oil and gas industry in Canada, and that is fine. It can be that way. When we look at the revenue that the oil and gas industry brings into our communities and small towns, the dollars raised from that industry in particular pay for our schools, hospitals, policing and infrastructure. Removing that industry from this country, as the Bloc wants to do, would be removing the funding model for schools, hospitals, infrastructure and policing. Why would we ever do that?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, first nations across Canada are facing a housing crisis, a crisis that did not just happen but is the result of years of Conservative and Liberal underfunding of housing on reserve. The Auditor General recently revealed that first nations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have been underfunded based on incorrect census information.

Does the member agree that significantly more money must be invested in housing by the federal government, housing on reserve in particular, and in the Prairies where chronic underfunding based on wrong census data has been identified?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, we can spend months talking about that issue because it is a very important issue. In my limited amount of time, I will say that the fact that census data is incorrect shows that nobody trusts the government. Nobody wants to give the government accurate information because nobody trusts it. Maybe if the government spent more time trying to build trust rather than destroy it, we would have more accurate information so we can get programs like housing on reserve correct.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the very passionate and hard-working member for Châteauguay—Lacolle.

I rise today to speak to budget 2024. This budget represents a significant step forward in achieving the goals set by our government to uplift Canadians and build a stronger, safer nation. Our government’s plan is to build a Canada that works better for everyone, but particularly those from the younger generation, so they can have a fair chance at a good middle-class life.

Canada’s net debt-to-GDP ratio is well below that of our G7 peers. Our deficits are declining, and we are one of only two G7 countries rated AAA by at least two of three independent credit experts.

In my speech today, I will touch on how our plan entails taking bold action to build more homes faster and help make life more affordable.

The urgent need for more housing in our country cannot be overstated. Every Canadian, regardless of their background, should have the opportunity to find a safe and affordable place to call home. Every generation deserves a fair, healthy future, from children to parents and grandparents. To make that future a reality, we are tackling a generational housing challenge. That is why we are providing a $400-million top-up to the $4-billion housing accelerator fund, which is already fast-tracking the construction of over 750,000 new homes over the next 10 years, thanks to agreements with nearly 180 municipalities, provinces and territories, including Surrey, British Columbia.

We will build more rental apartments faster, with an additional $15 billion in new loan funding for the apartment construction loan program, bringing the program’s total to over 131,000 new homes within the next eight years. In budget 2024, our government is proposing a new secondary suite loan program, which would enable homeowners to access up to $40,000 in low-interest loans to add secondary suites in their homes, whether it be for a new tenant or a family member.

Through the new Canada housing infrastructure fund, our government will accelerate the construction and upgrading of infrastructure in support of building new homes. For first-time homebuyers, we will enhance the homebuyers’ plan by increasing the withdrawal limit from $35,000 to $60,000, allowing individuals to use the tax benefit of an RRSP to save up to $25,000 more for a down payment. We will provide incentives to Canada's educational institutions so they can build more student housing by ensuring they benefit from the removal of the GST on new student residences.

In order to build more homes, we must have the workforce in place and provide the human resources that are necessary. That is why we propose to streamline foreign credentials recognition in the construction sector and create more apprenticeship opportunities to help skilled trades workers build more housing.

This year’s budget will drive our economy toward growth that lifts everyone up. We will launch a new national school food program to expand existing provincial and territorial school food programs so we can provide healthy meals to over 400,000 children each year. This will ensure that children do not arrive at school hungry.

With the implementation of the national pharmacare program, our government is taking the first steps toward launching a program that will ensure that cost is not a barrier for those needing medication for illnesses such as diabetes.

When it comes to public safety, every Canadian has the right to feel safe. No one should feel targeted for who they are or the religion they believe in. Freedom to practice religion without discrimination or persecution is a charter-protected right, and our government is taking action to uphold this right.

To help people feel safe in practising their faith, the security infrastructure program provides funding to organizations to protect communities at risk of hate-motivated crime by enhancing physical security at their gathering places. As part of Canada’s action plan on combatting hate, budget 2024 proposes $32 million over six years, and $11 million ongoing, for Public Safety Canada to further enhance the security infrastructure program. We will cut red tape to make it easier and more efficient for organizations to access the security support they need.

Our government has been committed to investing in the middle class, and the budget continues to show that commitment.

Today is the last day of April, which also means it is the last day of Sikh Heritage Month. Because of an act I introduced as a private member's bill, which received royal assent five years ago today, Canada is the only country in the world to have Sikh Heritage Month enshrined in law. With that being said, I am extremely proud of the work being done by the members of the Sikh caucus, and particularly I want to mention the hon. member for Steveston—Richmond East.

The Liberal caucus has worked hard to secure funding for three projects across Canada that became a priority. This includes nearly $20 million in funding for these three important projects throughout Canada, including $1.8 million for Indus Media Foundation to complete its Canadian heritage short film that highlights the shared military heritage of World War I and World War II that sparked Sikh settlement in Canada. This project, led by Steve Purewal, will showcase contributions to Canada’s settlement history and establish a proud patriotic identity for future generations to come.

Budget 2024 stands as a testament to our unwavering commitment to the well-being and prosperity of all Canadians. It is a comprehensive road map that addresses the pressing needs of our nation by making life more affordable for individuals and families. When it comes to making life more affordable, when I go around to the annual Nagar Kirtan in Surrey or I go door knocking in Surrey—Newton, the people are always appreciative. Whether it is $10-a-day day care, dental care or pharmacare, all of those policies we are bringing in to help the middle class and the ones who need them most are very well appreciated.

I urge all members to support the timely implementation of this budget and to work together to ensure that the transformative vision outlined in budget 2024 is realized.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government's budget states the following: “To keep our streets safe today and tomorrow, the federal government banned assault-style firearms in 2020”.

First of all, that is not true. The government banned certain assault-style firearms, but not all of them. There are still several models in circulation. Furthermore, it says it will invest $30.4 million over two years to implement its gun buyback program, starting with those belonging to retailers and individuals. In 2021, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the Liberal gun buyback program would cost a minimum of $750 million. Even then, he said it was difficult to estimate. According to experts, it could cost $2 billion.

I wonder what the government is trying to accomplish with that $30 million. Can my colleague explain the government's thinking behind that investment?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to banning military-style assault rifles, our government has shown leadership.

This issue is very important to my constituents as well. It was much appreciated when we banned those assault rifles. Even though the Conservative Party never supported this or the buy-back program, we are committed to that. We are committed to buying those rifles back and to taking them off the streets so that people can be safe.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out that military-style weapons are only used by the military. I have no idea what the member is talking about when it comes to that.

One thing we absolutely do not support is the budget provisions around safe supply in British Columbia. The Government of British Columbia came to Ottawa to ask for changes to that particular agreement. Conservatives do not believe decriminalization is helping people. We see families affected. Nurses have lodged complaints about drugs in our hospitals that are putting their lives at risk. We are seeing disorder in our streets. People cannot stop at bus stops anymore, because people are using drugs there.

I would like to know the member's position. Does he support safe supply? Does he want to maintain the current decriminalization, the exemption in the Criminal Code, for British Columbia?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member from British Columbia whether he supports banning assault rifles to make our communities safer. Does he support banning handguns to keep our communities safer? All police forces have come together in my part of the neighbourhood to support those initiatives.

I would also like to tell the hon. member that the safe consumption sites work. People who have mental health issues can go to those safe consumption sites and use them so that their lives can be safer. These are the things that first responders tell me, and I am sure the member is not listening to those first responders.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canada is faced with a housing crisis. The NDP forced the Liberal government to take some action with respect to that in budget 2024. However, that is not good enough. As the government gives with one hand, it is taking with the other. The rent-geared-to-income subsidies funded by CMHC to provinces and territories will end for many of those programs. That means we will lose thousands of homes because of the ending of these rent-geared-to-income subsidies.

Will the member call on the government to renew the rent-geared-to-income subsidies from CMHC for all non-profits?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for the passionate work that she does for her constituents, and not only for her constituents but for the people who need it most.

When it comes to investments in housing, this is the first budget that has ever made historic investments in housing, which we will continue to make so that affordable housing can be the dream of future generations.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to represent the people of Châteauguay—Lacolle, soon to be Châteauguay—Les Jardins de Napierville.

Budget 2024, tabled on April 16, proposes a suite of measures to make life easier for all Canadians. It addresses the needs of today while looking to the future as well. That is why we are talking about fairness for every generation. We heard from and listened to citizens from across the country, and budget 2024 reflects the needs that they expressed. After listening to my constituents, I am very proud to say that this budget puts housing, health and inclusion front and centre. It proposes a Canada where young people can get ahead, where young families can find affordable housing, where seniors can age with dignity and where everyone can succeed.

One thing we urgently need is housing. The budget proposes an array of measures that will help build more homes. As we know, the best way to make home prices more affordable is to build more housing faster. We are reducing red tape, fast-tracking development, converting public lands to housing and using innovative techniques to build homes more efficiently. In other words, we are changing the way homes are built in Canada.

More than 1,700 post offices could be leveraged to build housing while maintaining Canada Post services, for example. We are making it easier for renters, especially millennials and gen Z, to buy a home. We will help them save for a down payment tax-free. We are giving renters credit for rental payments so they will have a better chance of qualifying for their first mortgage. We are protecting affordable housing while creating thousands of new units across Canada.

These measures are in addition to the FHSA program, which we announced last year and which has already enabled tens of thousands of young Canadians to begin saving for a down payment on their first home. This program allows participants to save up to $8,000 a year, which is tax-deductible. After five years, they can take the money out without having to pay tax on it. It is a fantastic program. I encourage all of the young people tuning in today to open an FHSA at a financial institution near them. The program will make a huge difference for young families who, until now, have been unable to purchase a first home because of difficulty raising the down payment.

Building more homes also requires building more water, waste water and stormwater infrastructure. We understand that building these new homes will create considerable additional costs for municipalities. Budget 2024 launches the new Canada housing infrastructure fund, which will provide $6 billion to Infrastructure Canada over 10 years starting in 2024-25 in order to accelerate the construction of this infrastructure. That is great news for our region.

Our commitment to fairness for every generation is also seen in our fight against homelessness. I am sure I am not giving members any news when I say that it is not a level playing field for everyone here in Canada. That is why Reaching Home, Canada's homelessness strategy, is a community-based program that is so important. It is aimed at preventing and reducing homelessness across Canada. This program provides funding to urban, indigenous, rural and remote communities to help them address their local homelessness needs.

Budget 2024 proposes to provide more than $1 billion in supplementary estimates over four years, starting in 2024-25. It also provides $250 million over two years to address the urgent issue of encampment and homelessness.

Reaching Home supports the goals of the national housing strategy, in particular to support the most vulnerable Canadians in maintaining safe, stable and affordable housing and to reduce chronic homelessness nationally by 50% by fiscal year 2027-28. That is equity.

We are making life cost less and strengthening Canada's social safety net for every generation. Ten-dollar-a-day child care, which we have had for a long time in Quebec, is already saving parents thousands of dollars a year and giving young Canadians the security they need to start a family of their own.

New programs like dental care and the national school food program will also help Canadians. By the way, just this morning, the Conservatives were talking about fifth graders. I wonder if they are prepared to say no to these children who go to school hungry in the morning. Perhaps we should ask them why they will be voting against our budget, which will enable these kids to eat well every day.

We are also very proud of our pharmacare program, especially for insulin and contraceptives, which will help Canadians save even more money. I recently had the opportunity to tour my riding and talk about the Canadian dental care plan, and I saw first-hand how badly this program is needed in our communities. People have signed up in droves. This program will make a difference for many seniors, people like our parents and grandparents, who often unintentionally neglect their oral health because they cannot afford to go to a dentist. People tend to underestimate the impact that poor oral health can have on overall health. This program will also ease the burden on emergency rooms, since many ER visits are related to oral health.

Scientific research has recently linked poor oral hygiene to certain health problems, including periodontal disease, gum disease, and diabetes, heart and respiratory diseases. These findings highlight the importance of good oral hygiene.

We are using innovation and fairness to grow the economy. We have a plan that will increase investment, enhance productivity, and encourage the kind of game-changing innovation that will create good jobs and keep Canada at the economic forefront. This includes expanding and implementing key economic investment tax credits to help build the green economy, cement Canada's position as a leader in the field of artificial intelligence and invest in improving enhanced research support. All of this is really important. We will help people enhance their life's potential while creating an economic environment that is full of opportunities for them. We need this young generation, there is no denying it.

I see that my time is nearly up. In closing, I would just mention one very important thing for farmers in my region. We have announced measures to help farmers by increasing the interest-free limit on loans under the advance payments program. I look forward to taking my colleagues' questions and discussing this at further length.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her remarks. For nine years, the government has been pumping money into programs and constantly driving up the debt. Moreover, productivity is in free fall in Canada. The government spends, spends, spends, but we see that people are lining up at food banks, that grocery costs have doubled, and that people are unable to put a roof over their head or pay their mortgage.

I have a question for my colleague. When are we going to see results?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am a bit surprised to hear this coming from a member from Quebec, because we went through years of austerity, service cuts and additional costs for social programs and infrastructure for municipalities. We know how that turned out: Quebec went through a very difficult period.

It is the role of a government, especially the federal government, to invest in the economy to ensure that all Canadians across the country have a desirable quality of life.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, people in Manicouagan have a lot of needs in the fisheries sector.

We have been hit hard lately, and I would say that the future looks bleak. Of course, there was the issue of Mexican temporary foreign workers, who could not come over because of government measures. The government does not think there is a fishing industry here, so it forgot that this would be detrimental to the fishery. Of course, there is the whole issue of shrimp and the fact that shrimpers cannot go out this year. The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard does not even want to buy back their licences and does not want to compensate them in any way.

In short, the budget is obviously very thin when it comes to fishing. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about her government's plan for fisheries. I would like her to analyze it and to tell me what the government is doing right with this budget and whether she really believes that it is thinking ahead in this area. Personally, I think it is all improvisation and half measures and this government is going nowhere. The fishing industry continues to suffer.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the question from my Bloc Québécois colleague, because she is asking how the federal government can help producers in Quebec's fishing industry.

We are here to support the industry and help it. We have set aside money in the budget to facilitate the arrival of temporary workers. We know there are still problems, but I have confidence in our Minister of Fisheries, who represents the Magdalen Islands.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals promised that their disability benefit would end poverty for people living with disabilities. We have heard my good friend, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, advocate very hard for the disability community.

As New Democrats, we were expecting a disability benefit that would actually lift people out of poverty. Instead, what they are offered is $200. That is $6 a day. It is not even a bus pass in many areas.

Could my colleague maybe explain to people living with disabilities why they could not even offer a disability benefit that would meet the poverty line in our country, to ensure that people living with disabilities could at least have a $2,000 minimum income a month to try to make ends meet?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that I am an avid advocate for the disability benefit.

Having worked somewhat in this field, though, I am painfully aware that just putting in a benefit at the federal level will not solve the problem. We need to work closely with the provinces and with the other plans that are in place. The worst thing we can do is put in a federal benefit and then have provinces and other private plans withdraw their support.

I am confident that, with this new plan, it is a great start and it is a great day for the disability community.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by stating that I wish to share my time with my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères to speak on this budget.

It is a budget that is a little difficult to characterize and a little difficult to describe. I was going to say that it demonstrates once and for all that there is a deep abyss between Quebec's expectations, Quebec's needs and respect for Quebec's jurisdictions, which Quebeckers hold dear, and the expectations of the other nine provinces and three territories as to what the federal government should do, but the federal government gives us plenty of opportunities to demonstrate this over and over again. One example of this deep, historical cultural abyss between what we Quebeckers expect and what the rest of the country expects in terms of federal action is the media's treatment of the budget. When we look at how this budget has been treated in English Canada, we see that analysts have focused mainly on the issue of the capital gains tax inclusion rate.

As everyone knows, some people realize huge capital gains. One example is someone who buys a property, sells it several years later and makes more than $500,000 in profit. Yes, some people do make a lot of money in certain cases. Anyone who makes over $500,000 in profit has been told that they will have to contribute a little more. Obviously, this is one way for the government to bring in a good chunk of revenue. This cash grab will help the government keep its promise on the debt-to-GDP ratio, although artificially. Analysts in English Canada are talking about this and wondering whether this a good tax or a bad tax. What effect will it have on investment? Is it fair? Did the Liberal government do the right thing? Analysts in all the major media outlets have been talking about this.

As an economist, I too asked myself that question. I read the English-language media and I fell into the trap. As members, we are discussing whether it is a bad tax or a good measure. However, at some point, our intellect as Quebeckers will lead us in another direction. Regardless of the new sources of revenue the federal government has found, we will start wondering what it is going to do with the money. We will realize that the billions of dollars that the federal government is raking in with a tax measure that may indeed be effective are being used not to balance the budget after the extremely expensive pandemic measures or to restore fairness between generations, but purely to trample on Quebec's rights, to interfere in Quebec's affairs and to meddle not only in areas that are none of the federal government's business, but in jurisdictions in which it is notoriously incompetent, such as health care, dental care and housing.

It is not all that hard for a Quebecker to prepare a speech about the budget because it contains wall-to-wall interference. Let me give what I would call a historic example: In the budget, the federal government has decided to inferfere in Hydro-Québec's rate setting. When it comes to housing, we are basically used to it, because it happened gradually. We know about the punishing impact of the health conditions on patients. We know about the consequences of the agreement with the NDP. Now, however, the federal government is placing conditions on Hydro-Québec. How did that happen?

It happened because, in the past, when the federal government was giving out subsidies for energy and for clean energy, it excluded Quebec. It said Quebec was being shut out because Quebec had a Crown corporation that supplied almost 100% of its electricity. It said Quebec would not receive one red cent. Now that there are lots of Bloc Québécois members here, the Liberals know that Quebeckers are going to speak in the House. The Conservatives, the Liberal backbenchers and the lone NDP member from Quebec are not going to do it. The federal government said, in last year's budget, that the Quebec government or Hydro-Québec would be able to apply for subsidies for green energy. It was the first time that had happened, so we were surprised. However, the conditions were not met, so not a penny was paid out.

What do we see in this budget? We see conditions. In exchange for subsidies to help Hydro-Québec with its wind and solar projects, the federal government is demanding that it adjust its rate schedule so that 100% of the subsidy is passed on to the consumer.

That is impossible. When I buy electricity, when I receive my bill from Hydro-Québec, I do not know whether it comes from La Romaine or a wind farm in the Gaspé. We do not know where it comes from. It is impossible to enforce, which means that Quebec will very likely once again be excluded from the program.

I see the parliamentary secretary looking at me with one eye wider than the other, as usual, thinking that that was not the intention and that he and his colleagues do not want to hurt Quebec. However, it is once again symptomatic of the fact that they do not understand, because they are not good at this. They are not competent when it comes to energy. Why, then, did they design the subsidy the way they did? They figured they were going to ask polluting provinces to implement green projects. There are a lot of private companies involved, but the government wants to make sure that they do not pocket the money. Consequently, they tell them to develop projects, but to make sure that the green energy is less expensive in order to encourage people to switch over. That is essentially the plan. Then, since the government wants to apply uniform measures and does not recognize that Quebec is different, we have a program that is no good for Quebec and that is literally a violation of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

However, that is nothing. What the government calls clean in the rest of Canada is nuclear energy. It believes nuclear energy is clean. The small nuclear reactors that refine oil sands using less oil sand so that they can export more oil sand, that is green. That is what they want to subsidize and facilitate. They will make sure that consumers pay less. This government believes that natural gas is green. Subsidies will go directly to natural gas, as long as there is a carbon capture strategy and technologies that do not exist, except in the Liberals' minds. Here are more measures that are bad for Quebec, and they keep coming.

There is still no health transfer agreement with Quebec. The federal government used to manage a hospital in Quebec. It was a military hospital on Montreal's West Island. When management was transferred to the Quebec government, we heard through the grapevine that managing a hospital cost the federal government three times more than it did the Quebec government, yet the federal government has the gall to come tell us how to manage our health care system. Why? Because they want to be seen doing something and they want a maple leaf on the corner of the cheque. It is the same story with prescription drug insurance, since 100% of Quebeckers already have prescription drug insurance. We already have a plethora of programs in Quebec. The money should be given to Quebec. The same applies to dental care, since all Quebec dentists who treat children are registered in Quebec's automated system. If it wanted to implement these programs quickly without making people pay directly, the federal government would have given Quebec the money so that it could do what it is good at. However, that will not happen, because the federal government always wants to be seen to be doing something.

It is the same for housing. The federal government may well have good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Every time this government has gotten involved in housing, there have been fewer units. When it came up with its national housing strategy, it ignored the fact that Quebec was the only province that had had permanent social and co-op housing construction programs, among others, for years. The terms and conditions of those programs were familiar to everyone in the field. What did our excellent programs get us when the federal government failed to recognize them? They got us three and half—almost four—years of negotiations, lost years during which people were sleeping in their cars, people in the regions where the housing crisis is spreading. The Liberals keep telling us that the federal government should get involved and impose all kinds of conditions. In my riding, there is a collective dwelling program that has been on pause for eight years because of these complex conditions.

What is the Bloc Québécois asking for? We are asking for the right to opt out with full financial compensation. I will close with that. We are asking that Quebec get its money in areas under its own jurisdiction.

Any member who works for Quebec should agree with that. We have been good sports. Yesterday, we asked for it by means of an amendment to an amendment, but the entire Quebec Conservative caucus said no to Quebec. They turned their backs on Quebec. That is what the members of that caucus are willing to do to one day get a ministerial position. They are willing to grovel. The same goes for the NDP and the Liberals. There is only one party that will consistently defend Quebec's interests and jurisdictions, and that is the Bloc Québécois. People will remember that on election day.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked on many points, but he forgot to mention the one key thing for Quebec, and that is the knowledge-based sector in Quebec and Montreal. For example, the Montreal-based artificial intelligence industry is leading the world. This budget, to give a couple of examples, would provide $2 billion toward the AI compute access fund and $200 million to help sectors like agriculture, manufacturing and minerals to use artificial intelligence in their operations.

Does the member not recognize that this budget would provide for the growth of Quebec's knowledge-based economy and knowledge-based corporate sector so it can be a leader in technology in the world?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague has the nerve to extol the virtues of a so-called industrial policy that will benefit Quebec, after Honda used massive amounts of federal funding to concentrate the auto industry in Ontario, after a battery plant in Ontario received six times more federal funding than Quebec and after the Liberal Party's life sciences supercluster put our pharmaceutical sector at a disadvantage.

He has the nerve to talk about artificial intelligence when the Minister of Industry introduced a bill that was so inadequate that we are up to about two inches of pages of amendments put forward by the minister himself two years later.

If that is the centrepiece of the budget that he is trying to sell me, I have one more reason not to buy it.