Debates of May 21st, 2024

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is another example of a positive initiative that is not in Bill C-69, but it is in the budget. It is important funding. We do not have a friendship centre in Waterloo Region. It is something that indigenous leaders have been calling for, both in terms of land and funding to build, and it is certainly an important measure that is in the budget.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member, in his analysis of the disability part of the budget, could describe the protections against provincial clawbacks and any protections against the disability tax credit promoters who fill out these forms charging an unreasonable fee and then taking a percentage of all future benefits.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an excellent question. Protection from clawbacks is something that the government has been using as one of the rebuttals, I am hearing, for why the benefit was not higher. There is actually a provision in the Canada Disability Benefit Act that is meant to address this. It is an amendment that I was successful with over a year ago, which requires that the agreements between provinces, territories and the federal government be made public. To those who are saying that they are concerned they cannot go further without a clawback being applied, the agreement will be made public afterward. No province or territory should attempt to do it because Canadians and folks with disabilities will judge them for it.

We also should mention that the Senate had improved the bill, which would have done more to prevent the insurance industry from clawing back any benefits from folks with disabilities. That amendment was rejected by the government. It continues to be a significant concern with what is being proposed in the Canada disability benefit, as is using the disability tax credit. The government should move away from that altogether, to make sure that folks with disabilities have barrier-free access to the benefit.

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

Madam Speaker, as we know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Without calling this budget hell, I can say that it is paved with good intentions, but also with interference.

My colleague talked about financial support for people living with disabilities. In my constituency, people wrote to me saying they had high hopes for this support. As it turns out, they are now writing me to say that the amounts provided are nothing short of an insult.

Everything that has to do with social support belongs to Quebec and the Canadian provinces. Does my colleague believe that the federal government should respect its own areas of jurisdiction, which it currently manages very poorly, and that it should leave it up to the provinces to support their people who are struggling?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my friend from the Bloc Québécois and hon. member for Beauport-Limoilou that this government talks a lot about good intentions.

However, when it comes to people living with disabilities, I think that provincial and territorial programs are inadequate, since these people are still living below the poverty line. We need the federal government to create a program to increase the basic income for everyone living with disabilities in the country.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to protect the fiscal integrity of residents in the riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Here is some of what the residents in the Upper Ottawa Valley had to say about the budget.

Paula from Westmeath wrote, “I'd like you to know that I do not support this federal budget. It's time to cut spending, not increase debt. The NDP leader has shored up this unpopular government far too long past its expiration date with Canadian voters.”

Sean from Petawawa wrote, “I'm asking that you please push to change the budget to reduce the deficit, not increase taxes. They're already astronomical in Canada. Instead, focus on items that will help improve Canada's productivity, which will help add tax revenue to the government without increasing taxation.”

Roger from Renfrew wrote, “After the Prime Minister's outrageous delaying of the election for a week so that his about-to-be-defeated cronies will get their fat cat pensions, now the taxpayers are assaulted again with a ridiculous budget. The latest Liberal budget will impoverish Canadians for generations. Will you please do everything possible to stop them from spending taxpayer money like a drunken sailor?”

Doris from Golden Lake wrote, “I'm interested in seeing a balanced budget and way less debt. The debt needs to be brought down as soon as possible and as much as possible before our country goes bankrupt.”

Lucinda from Pembroke wrote, “Just a short note to let you know I do not support the Liberal budget. I don't know how any intelligent person thinks you can spend yourself out of debt. It really shows he has no concept of how ordinary, unspoiled, unprivileged people really live. Keep up your fight against such stupidity.”

Sally from Cobden wrote, “Canadians, for generations to come, should not be paying for the irresponsible spending of the out-of-touch Liberals. Neither should we be taxed on capital gains to the point where it becomes impossible to pass on the property and farms that we have worked on for all our lives to build up a future and a business to be carried on by our children. I consider it government thievery to pay for their terrible decisions. We certainly need a government capable of balancing the budget.”

I think John from Burnstown summed it up best when he simply wrote, “I want a government to have balanced budgets and little debt.”

The thing about the government is we also have to check the tax supplement it issues alongside the budget. That is where the devil hides the details.

Now, the government's most devilish detail is the plan to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms again. Sorry, violate is wrong, the government plans to kill section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The murder weapon of choice is the Canada Revenue Agency's ballistic device called a notice of non-compliance.

Section 8 of the charter states everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. In practice, this means that if the RCMP shows up at someone's door and demands to know something or demands to see something of theirs, every Canadian should know that they can voluntarily comply with the RCMP demand or they can tell them to come back with a search warrant. The RCMP would then have to go to a judge and explain what it wants and why it wants it.

What the NDP coalition is proposing is to give unlimited power to the Canada Revenue Agency to come to someone's door, demanding to see any information they want that would assist them in making the person look like a tax cheat.

If that person declines to provide the information the Prime Minister demands, the CRA would have the power to issue a notice of non-compliance and impose a fine of $50 a day. If a Canadian believes this is unfair, the government says, not to worry, they can appeal the decision to the same bureaucrats who issued the decision. Now, if the CRA denies the appeal, Canadians can resort to Federal Court at their very own considerable expense.

The result will be that wealthy Canadians receive the charter's protections, while everyone else is left to the political whims of the radicals currently running this country. Of course, millions of Canadians have already learned this regressive Liberal Party will ignore the charter when it suits them, and when doing so polls well. This is the natural result of socialism.

In a liberty-respecting democracy, property rights are fundamental human rights. Section 8 falls under our legal rights. Our legal rights are meant to protect our human rights. Not only is our body protected from unreasonable search and seizure, so too is our property.

In order to get at someone's property, the socialists need to chip away at their legal rights. Sometimes the attack on property rights is subtle, like the new power for the CRA. Other times the attack on owning property is spelled out in black and white, as at page 41 of the budget. That is where Canadians can find the Liberal plan to invent an entirely new federal property tax. For a government so addicted to ruling by slogans and clichés, it is a little surprising it has not heard about failing to learn the lessons of history.

The new proposed federal residential property tax is a perfect example of the Liberals' not learning anything from recent Liberal history, and by recent history, I am talking about this March. That is when the Liberal ministers hit up their local bars and taverns to celebrate an increase in the excise tax on alcohol. Drunk on their own arrogance, the Liberals were celebrating the fact that they were not going to pay as steep a political price.

The Liberals had put the excise tax on an automatic escalator in 2017, and instead of elected, accountable political leaders' being in charge of federal taxes, the Prime Minister handed control over to fate and the inflation rate. Inflation soared thanks to government spending, so the tax on alcohol was set to match it. The Liberals made a political calculation that a 5% tax increase on alcohol would cost them more votes than a 2% increase, so they intervened. Canadians might have hoped that this would be a lesson for the Liberals in the importance of maintaining control over tax rates, but that would require humility.

Having learned nothing, the Liberals are now proposing a brand new federal property tax to be imposed on Canadians who own vacant land that is zoned residential. Unlike excise taxes on alcohol, the tax rate would be controlled by the government, but everything else would be controlled by municipalities and local politicians. Just as with the excise tax on alcohol, the decision over how much tax someone pays, or whether they even have to pay the tax, would be out of the Liberals' control.

The difference is that no person would control the rate of inflation, though some could influence it more than others. Whether or not someone's vacant property would be zoned residential is a different story; that would be decided by a small group of local politicians. The Liberals believe this would incentivize the construction of housing, but they do not know that for sure.

What it would do is incentivize lobbying. The well-connected and privileged would lobby their council to rezone their vacant land to avoid tax until they are ready to develop it or sell it. If a developer wants to build houses on vacant land zoned residential, the decision to move forward is not entirely its own. It has to take into account interest rates, labour availability, permitting issues, weather and a host of other normal things which could delay development.

The Liberal plan is to punish them with more taxes, and at the end of the day, the developer would not be the one paying the additional costs. That would be passed on to the homebuyer. Only the NDP-Liberal government could be incompetent enough to believe that inventing new taxes would build more homes.

After nine years of this failed socialist experiment, Canadians are hurting from high taxes. They feel insecure about the world. While European leaders are preparing their citizens for the worst case and building up their armed forces, our socialist coalition is busy accusing Canadians of being tax cheats. The government is chipping away at our legal rights while taxing and confiscating our property.

The Liberal-NDP government has maxed the tax, fuelled the crime and doubled the rent. Only common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax, stop the crime and build more homes, and we will fix the budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's entire speech, and the one thing I just cannot wrap my head around is how she can accuse government spending and government investing in Canadians through our budget of being inflationary.

Conservatives have been saying for months now that by the investments we are putting into Canadians and the money that we are putting into the budget, we are just going to fuel inflation. However, the opposite is true; this is the lowest that inflation has been in three years. Over the last four months, inflation has been in the target range that the Bank of Canada sets, which is between 2% and 3%. In reality, there is no rise in inflation as a result of the budget.

Does the member not recognize that what she is purporting and what the Conservatives are purporting was never actually a reality?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess what the member just said explains that he does not understand the basic fundamentals of economics.

The government threw billions of dollars into the economy. As a consequence of there being more money in the economy, prices went up, and when prices go up, inflation occurs. Maybe the member has not been grocery shopping, but a pound of hamburger on sale used to be two bucks. Now, in just a few short years, if we can get it for four and a half dollars a pound we are doing well. It is inflation. He is out of touch.

What happens to bring down inflation is that interest rates are increased, and they have kept those interest rates pressuring. Now we are at the point where we are almost at zero productivity. The inflation rate being lower on a monthly basis is not necessarily a consequence of less government spending, as it is spending more, but it is a consequence of everybody's being broke.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I did have some concerns about the budget. We know that currently there is an attack on trans kids. We know that currently, certainly according to what I have seen in the House of Commons, there is an attack on the right to choose to have access to safe, trauma-informed abortion care.

I am wondering whether my colleague supports me and millions of Canadians around the country in ensuring these human rights, because she spoke about fundamental human rights to safe, trauma-informed abortion care and also gender-affirming care.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. It was last week, but now we are tag-teaming. The NDP is tag-teaming with the Liberals. They are so far down in the polls and are so desperate that they are already playing the abortion card, and the election is still at least a year away.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke a question. Her riding includes the town of Deep River. The member is also my riding neighbour. We share a small part of the southern Témiscamingue region, and we are both close to the Ottawa River.

There is a project to build a nuclear waste disposal facility in Deep River. We know that because there have been nuclear facilities there in the past. I am very concerned about the environmental impact that could have. We know that spills are happening as we speak. However, it is very difficult to get any media coverage of what is happening. It is very difficult to draw attention to this situation, even though it is having a major impact on ecosystems.

Since the Government of Canada announced major investments in small modular nuclear reactors in the most recent budget, is my colleague worried that her riding, particularly the town of Deep River, will become a nuclear dumping ground for the rest of Canada and that nuclear waste will be brought there? Is my colleague concerned about that from an environmental perspective? I would like her to comment on that.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the low-level, near-surface waste deposit is very low-level radioactive waste that is coming out. It is not spent fuel rods. It is nothing that is really hot or even medium level. It is gloves, booties and other things that are in everyday use on people so they are kept safe.

I received over 100 questions from people on my side of the river in the community as well as from the member's side of the river, and I thought they were really good questions. I found a place in eastern Ontario where there is a similar near-surface waste disposal site, in Cobourg, Ontario. I went there with some scientists and asked them the 100 questions. I will tell the member that for every piercing question, they were able to provide an explanation and assure me so that I can assure my citizens that it is indeed a safe way of disposing of low-level waste.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight to participate in the debate on Bill C-69. The debate has been treated by some speakers as a debate on the whole budget. That is fair enough as it is the budget implementation bill. I certainly appreciated very much the remarks by my colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, moments ago, who focused on some aspects of Bill C-69 and the budget that I will not be able to address in my remarks.

In the time I have available, I want to dive deeply into one part of Bill C-69. For those who are observing tonight's debate, perhaps I can just back up and say that this is what is called an omnibus budget bill. It is exactly the kind of bill that, in the 2015 election platform by the Liberals, they said they would not be using. It is an omnibus budget bill in that it deals with many aspects of things that are in the budget, and particularly a reference in the budget to the court case on impact assessment legislation.

What is tucked into a bill that is over 400 pages is, from page 555 to page 581, a section I do not believe should be in there. I will be very clear from the start that it is a rewriting of substantial sections of the Impact Assessment Act. The irony is probably not lost on people who have tracked the debate on environmental assessment in this country that when the Liberals brought in repairs to the environmental assessment legislation that they had promised would be done in the election platform of 2015, that bill was also called Bill C-69.

I voted against that bill. I will be voting against this one too. This speech is my effort to try to persuade government members, and particularly the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Justice, to rethink things and to pull what is called part 4, division 28, of Bill C-69 and instead bring in what was promised in 2015, repairing what had happened to our impact assessment legislation, which is usually called environmental assessment legislation in this country.

I do not have much time to set this out, so forgive me for taking the time it takes to explain it. In 1975, this country held its first federal environmental assessment, ironically, of the Wreck Cove hydro project in my home province of Nova Scotia, on my home island of Cape Breton Island, and I attended those hearings. The federal government at that time was operating under something called the environmental assessment review process, a guidelines order by order in council to the federal cabinet. It set out basically that when the federal government did something, the federal government reviewed its own actions.

There is no question of constitutionality because the federal government was reviewing its own actions. The rule under the guidelines order was that if it was on federal land, involved federal money or permits given under certain kinds of acts, one had to have an environmental assessment. That general formulation went into the drafting in the late 1980s, under the government of the late Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, of an environmental assessment process that again started with the four corners of federal jurisdiction, including whether something is on federal land and involving federal money. It evolved into something called the law list permits, which were given under various acts.

The whole scheme worked very well. It evolved. There were many amendments over the years. It had a five-year review process. By the time 2012 rolled around, one could talk to almost anyone in the industry about it and hear the same thing. It was predictable. With the Mining Association of Canada, for instance, I remember the CEO, Pierre Gratton, asking why the Conservatives were trying to wreck the act now. He said that we had just finally made it right and liked the way it worked.

A federal environmental assessment act was brought in under Brian Mulroney and enacted under former prime minister Jean Chrétien. It had evolved over the years. In the spring of 2012, in an omnibus budget bill called Bill C-38, the government of former prime minister Stephen Harper set out to destroy the legislation. It was repealed in its entirety and was replaced with something called CEAA, 2012.

At the same time, it also went after the pieces of legislation that triggered environmental assessment, the law list sections, the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and so on.

To fast-forward, in the election of 2015, the Liberals promised in the platform to repair and fix what had been done by Harper to environmental assessment, to the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In 2016 and 2017, various ministers went to work. The current Minister of Public Safety, who was the then minister of fisheries, actually did fix the Fisheries Act. He got it back to what it had been before and even improved it. The former minister of transport, our former colleague, the Hon. Marc Garneau, really fixed the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Somehow or other, our former minister of environment, Catherine McKenna, was persuaded, I believe by officials in her department, not to fix it. The single biggest change that was made, besides repealing the Environmental Assessment Act, was to ditch the criteria that tethered environmental assessment to areas of federal jurisdiction if it was on federal land, involved federal money or under a permit given by the federal government.

Instead, Stephen Harper's government created something called the “designated projects” list, which could be anything the ministers thought they wanted to put on the list. It was project-based but not decision-based, and it could be anything, at the minister's discretion. That was CEAA 2012. It meant we went from having 5,000 to 6,000 federal projects a year reviewed, and they were mostly paper reviews that went quickly, to fewer than 100 reviewed every year. We can see perhaps the attraction for people in the civil service to not go back to actually reviewing the federal projects every single year and to keep it to fewer than 100.

Somehow, the federal government, under former minister Catherine McKenna, put forward Bill C-69 and decided to reject the advice of the expert environmental assessment panel, under the former chair of BAPE Johanne Gélinas. It kept the key elements Stephen Harper had put in place, which was that the Environmental Assessment Agency was no longer responsible for many assessments, and regulatory bodies such as the National Energy Board, now the Canada Energy Regulator, the offshore petroleum boards or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would do their environmental assessments separately. It also got rid of the idea that we are tethered strongly to federal jurisdiction. It remained discretionary. That is why I voted against Bill C-69..

Former Alberta premier Jason Kenney said that this was the anti-pipeline act. I said that it was completely discretionary to the minister in a different government and that it was the pro-pipeline act. Where is the rooting to federal jurisdiction? Where is the commitment to review everything the federal government does to make sure we have considered its environmental impacts? Those were all thrown out the window. I may have been the only one in the pro-environmental assessment community, although I do not think I was the only one, who actually cheered on October 13, 2023, when the Supreme Court of Canada said that the designated projects list was actually ultra vires the federal government. It would just ask a minister to say what project they want on a list, but it was not rooted in federal jurisdiction the way it had been from 1975, under a guidelines order, to 1993, when it became law, right up until 2012 and Bill C-38 when Harper repealed it.

Then, for some crazy reason, and I use the word “crazy” advisedly because I do not know the reason and I am not referring to anyone in particular, the Liberals decided to keep the designated project list, which is the part that the reference in the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada said was ultra vires the federal government and now stuffed in an omnibus budget bill that we were told we would never see. We get amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act that keep the designated projects list.

I do not think this new version in Bill C-69 is going to get Supreme Court of Canada approval. I know it will not get environmental assessments for projects across this country that need to be assessed. It will not get environmental assessment for Highway 413. It will not get environmental assessment for things that are squarely within federal jurisdiction. What it will do is be a quick and dirty fix that only goes to the finance committee for study.

With that, I will close my opening remarks with what I can only describe as disgust.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is well aware that air pollution has been on the rise for several years now. Increased air pollution leads to an increase in health problems, particularly lung problems and, by extension, heart problems and other conditions. This leads to higher health care costs, which are also linked to age, but also to the problems that arise from increased pollution.

Despite all this, Canada is not responding to the demands of Quebec and the Canadian provinces when it comes to health transfers. What is more, Canada is adding more funding and tax breaks for the oil and gas industries. Would my colleague say that Canada is a little backward in the way it thinks about its budget and the population's actual needs?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. It is more than just ironic. It is unbelievable that the government continues to give subsidies to fossil fuel industries despite all the promises to cancel subsidies and government support.

For example, $34 billion has been invested in building the Trans Mountain pipeline. This flies in the face of our efforts to protect our climate and, as the member said, it flies in the face of public health interests and the need to protect the public from pollution. We can do more, and we can make better and wiser decisions, but not with this bill.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague because I have been hearing this a lot in my constituency. After nine years of the Prime Minister, one in 10 people in Toronto has relied on food banks, and more than half are $200 away from missing bills. This crisis is getting worse and worse every day.

I spoke to Vishal from Sai Dham Food Bank recently, and his numbers are increasing at a more rapid pace than he can afford to supply for individuals, including seniors. Up to 4,000 baskets are being delivered each and every month to our seniors, who just cannot afford the price of food.

The proposed inflationary budget would not help our communities. What does the member think of that situation and the inflationary spending of the wasteful government?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from King—Vaughan and I may not agree on the details of this. There is no question but that Canadians are facing an affordability crisis. We do need, though, to spend the money it takes to alleviate that affordability crisis. What we have seen over the last number of decades is a growing gap between the very wealthy and the poor. A growing number of people who would not have considered themselves poor, and who had been in the middle class with incomes, can no longer fill a grocery cart.

I think it is a really important thing to have a school meal program. I think that would help alleviate some of the strain on families. I think we have to recognize that the inflationary impacts of postpandemic life and the breaking of supply chains have affected more than just Canada, so I think we need to address this as an affordability crisis and come up with solutions that really work. The Green Party believes one of those is a basic and livable annual income.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to that last exchange between my colleague and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and she said that she thought it was important to have a national school food program. This budget would provide for that, so obviously she supports that element of it.

I did not hear, or I did not quite decipher, whether the Green Party is going to vote in favour of this budget, so my first question is this: Is the Green Party going to vote for it? If the answer is no, how does she justify voting against the budget, given that there are some elements to it that she very much does support, such as the national school food program?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very clear. Members of the Green Party do not always vote the same way. My colleague from Kitchener Centre and I discuss every issue. We are governed by what we think our constituents would want us to do.

However, a budget vote is the ultimate vote of confidence in government. As much as I would like to vote for the elements I like within this budget, and I passionately believe in a school meal program, preferably one with local food that helps our young people know how it is to farm, grow their own food and have it served in a local school, I cannot vote for the budget in good conscience. I cannot vote for a budget that will further wreck our environmental assessment process. I cannot vote for a budget that does not take the climate crisis seriously, and I cannot vote confidence in a government that has put $34 billion into building a pipeline that puts my entire community, and the entire ecoregion around the Salish Sea, at grave risk.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have an opportunity to speak to the budget today. I would like to start with the positives. I know that my NDP colleagues and I achieved a number of good things in the budget. Certainly, the national school food program is an absolutely historic shift. It is something that the NDP has fought for and that we pushed to make sure was part of the budget.

We are ensuring the beginnings of a pharmacare program with access to medication for diabetes and contraception. There is the fact that the Conservatives have voted against it. There are currently more than nine million people of reproductive age in Canada, many of whom lack access to contraception and experience unintentional pregnancies as a result. My colleague from the Conservative Party was talking about fundamental human rights. It is a shame that not only are the Conservatives going to anti-choice rallies and physically invested in violating the fundamental right to protect reproductive health, but they also voted against access to free contraception. This is anti-feminist, anti-women and anti-equality, and it denies women, particularly, the ability to choose how they wish to proceed in their life.

I have to say that, even with the Liberals, this is something we had to fight for and something they have often failed to uphold, including being a disappointment in the budget. In spite of the fact that we have abortion clinics either closing or at risk of closing and, in my riding of Winnipeg Centre in Manitoba, the only abortion clinic closing, we still have to fight for the right to access trauma-informed abortion care. In fact, even though it seems to be convenient to use jurisdictional cards on certain matters, it is a shame that the federal government continues to violate women's and gender-diverse folks' right to access safe, trauma-informed abortion care in doing so. Respecting reproductive rights and respecting the right to choose is a so-called pillar of their government, but it is one thing to respect a right and another thing to give access to that right. This is something that I have really pushed in the House but that the current government has failed on. Nobody should have to take a plane across the country or to phone a hotline to get access to safe, trauma-informed abortion care. That is a failure of the Liberal government. Let us not forget the Conservative Party members, who are all listed on anti-choice websites. That is shameful.

However, it is good that the NDP fought to get a pharmacare program started, including the access to free contraception and diabetes medication. We need to have this in place, because free contraception is also a matter of personal privacy and confidentiality. People need to be able to access contraception. They should not have to seek approval of a partner or parent, especially if they are in coercive or abusive relationships. We know that many young women and gender-diverse people can only access contraception through the permission of their parents or partner, particularly in cases where they do not have the financial resources to access this care.

I am glad, again, that we have a school food program. I am pleased that some people can now benefit from a dental care program.

However, the budget falls flat, particularly in regard to the disability benefit. It is a slap in the face to the disability community.

Again, $200 a month is something that I know is insignificant. I represent one of the poorest ridings in this country. We can have band-aids for programs or communities, such as food banks, which are absolutely critical. However, if we want to get at the roots of poverty in this country, we need to start looking at and finding solutions for the growing income inequality, where we see the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. That is why I am pleased that the NDP pushed forward an excess profit tax on grocery chains and one of the reasons I pushed forward on my bill, Bill C-223, to put in place a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income. This has been supported by all the members of the NDP caucus, the majority of NDP members and women's organizations that are dealing with gender-based violence. We know it will save taxpayer dollars, because we always neglect to talk about the high costs of poverty. It is also something that the Conservatives turn a blind eye to with their sound bites and rhetoric, with no real solutions to alleviate suffering. The Liberals, again, talk a good game, but when they actually have to do something, there is nothing easier to keep than a broken Liberal promise.

My bill is coming up for debate. I hope that all members of Parliament are serious about this. People are talking about an affordability crisis and the fact that there are more and more people unhoused. We have given them a real solution, a real investment in affordable housing with rent geared to income. It would be a real investment in “for indigenous, by indigenous” housing, something that my colleagues, the members for Nunavut and East Vancouver, have led the charge for the NDP to implement. Affordable housing with rent geared to income and a guaranteed livable basic income are things that I, along with the NDP caucus, have supported, as well as a school food program and a national child care program that prioritizes not-for-profit public care.

We know that the Conservatives do not support those programs. They voted against pharmacare. They screamed and yelled about the national child care program, but then voted in favour of it, I think for political reasons. They voted against a national school food meal program for kids. Who would vote against kids having food so they do not go to school hungry? That was something that we had to fight the Liberals for, for years and years, and we succeeded.

In the fall, my private member's bill should come up for a vote. I will see at that time how serious elected officials in the House of Commons from the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Bloc party and the Green Party are about eradicating poverty once and for all.

I hope that my hope is correct and that people really do care about eradicating poverty in this country. I hope I see that all the members in the House of Commons really do care about the affordability crisis that we are being faced with and vote for my bill, Bill C-223, to put in place a guaranteed livable basic income.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member asked a rhetorical question: Who would vote against putting food into the mouths of children? Who would vote against a national school food program? I will tell her that it is the exact same people who get up every day and talk about the struggles of people and having to go to a food bank; these people talk about the problem but have absolutely no interest in helping to create a solution.

The reality is that the Conservatives are almost rooting for the opposite, for failure in government policy. They see that as a political win. Unfortunately, we are at this place in the House where Conservatives do not have an interest in outcomes being successful. They just have an interest in their political opportunity.

The member and her colleagues have shown great leadership over the last number of years in their ability to bring forward ideas. What are her thoughts on that?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of those ideas is a guaranteed livable basic income. This has been researched and studied, and it is something that is being facilitated in some of the happiest countries in the world right now.

We know that, when we look after people, it is good economics. I hope that my hon. colleague across the way supports good economics, supports ensuring that people can live in human rights and dignity, and supports my bill, Bill C-223.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, who is such a passionate, strong voice in the House of Commons, speaking up for equality for women and gender-diverse peoples, as well as for reproductive health rights. She is an extraordinary advocate for many Canadians.

I want to ask her about the guaranteed livable basic income. We know for a fact that the government, like the previous Conservative government, loves to shower money on corporate CEOs, overseas tax havens and banks. However, the guaranteed livable basic income that she proposes would make a fundamental difference in the lives of people who are struggling to make ends meet, put food on the table and keep a roof over their head.

Could the member talk about what a difference it would make for so many Canadians to have the bill adopted and to have a guaranteed livable basic income for people in Canada?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I love working with my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby. He is such a wonderful House leader and colleague.

In saying that, he is absolutely right. The Liberals are talking about fairness. They need to go after offshore tax havens and rich CEOs, and they need to take that money and spread it out to those who are being left behind.

Every day, I have to sit in the House of Commons and listen to Conservatives and Liberals talk about how people are struggling. However, when a solution is put on the table, they are nowhere to be found. This solution is well-researched, and the Province of P.E.I., for example, wants to pilot it.

This would mean that people living in poverty could actually live in dignity. These are the people who are falling through the cracks of the current social safety net, folks that I have to hear the member from Carleton put down and poor bash daily. He talks about people who are poor as being criminal. He fails to talk about the very wealthy, the corporate elite, as being related to the reason so many are poor and very few are rich.

This would save lives. This would ensure that people could live in dignity and with human rights.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague from Winnipeg Centre on the status of women committee.

I have been listening to her speech, and I can understand how disappointed she is. We are disappointed on this side of the House as well. Very simply, will she vote against the budget, yes or no?