Debates of May 9th, 2024

Report Stage

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things about this economic update that I am particularly happy with, of course, is something that I have been pushing for for a long time. It is the removal of the GST on psychotherapy and counselling services.

While I was frustrated that the current government and previous governments did not do anything about it and that it took a long time to do it, this is something that makes a lot of sense. If the member could talk about the importance of this measure within Bill C-59, that would be great.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, psychotherapy and counselling services are extremely important to the mental health of Canadians. My wife is a counselling psychologist, and I know how important the work she does is, as well as the work of many other folks across the country who help provide the support that Canadians need. The elimination of the GST will help reduce the cost for so many Canadians who need these essential supports. I think it is so important, and I am so grateful that the member across and other members of her party have supported this initiative.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I know we hear, every day, the misleading statements of Conservatives when it comes to climate change. They do not acknowledge that climate change is real. They do not want to fight climate change. They do not believe in the economic prosperity that comes with it. The fall economic statement bill offers investment tax credits for carbon capture, utilization and storage, as well as clean technology. It also doubles the rural top-up for the Canada carbon rebate, which puts more money in Canadians' pockets. I wonder if my colleague could speak to the importance of those measures for his region of the country.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my constituency was hit with a large storm a number of years ago, and $1.5 billion of damage was done by a hailstorm. Our city was faced with a flood that devastated our downtown core. This year, we are faced with another wildfire season and also drought throughout our province. While our government has brought forward ITCs for important initiatives and CCUS and clean tech, we have seen Premier Danielle Smith and her Conservative counterparts prevent renewable energy in the province of Alberta, preventing $33 billion of investment and thousands of jobs.

It is so unfortunate. We have a great opportunity to work together. That is why our government has doubled the rural Canada carbon rebate. In my riding, I know that the $1,800 that we get for constituents is a tremendous amount over the year to help support constituents in my community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say it seems a bit surreal to be here tonight debating Bill C-59.

In a way, it reminds me of the movie Back to the Future, because we are going back to the Liberals' fall mini-budget of last year with the hindsight of knowing what we know today because of the Liberals' recently introduced and massively failed budget 2024 document.

What did they call that budget again? Was it “Fairness for Every Generation”? I am still floored by that. Imagine leaving future generations of Canadians massive amounts of debt with zero plan whatsoever on how that debt will ever get paid. Only to the Liberals could this concept of leaving behind your bills for someone else to pay be considered some sort of generational fairness. Fortunately, everyday Canadians see the budget document for what it truly is, and they know that it is anything but fair to leave today's bills behind for our kids and grandkids to try to pay.

I realize we are here tonight to debate last fall's mini-budget and not the spring's latest budget failure, so I will focus my comments on the so-called mini-budget, also known as the fall economic statement.

There is one very fascinating thing about that mini-budget that caught my attention. Prior to it, the Liberals had forecast total debt would be $35 billion for the 2024-25 fiscal year and $26.8 billion for the 2025-26 fiscal year. This was comical. They actually forecast that the debt would go down in 2025-26. The sheer fallacy that this always-be-spending Liberal-speNDP partnership would ever spend less borrowed money is completely nonsensical, yet that is exactly what they tried to pass off to Canadians.

In this mini-budget, of course, the debt forecasts were revised and to the surprise of absolutely no one, except for possibly a certain CBC analyst, the debt forecast increased. The revised debt forecasts were now increased for 2024-25 and 2025-26 to $38.4 billion and $38.3 billion, respectively. However, it is all pointless, because we know the total debt proposed for this year is now up to $40 billion. Next year is an election year, so we can only speculate how much more debt will again increase as the desperate Prime Minister once again attempts to shovel as much money as he can out the door, hoping to buy Canadians' votes.

We are now in a position where we spend more money servicing debt than we are spending on the Canadian health care transfer. Keep in mind that this is just servicing the debt, not actually paying any off, because that is what “fairness” means to the Liberal-speNDP partnership: Leave today's bills behind for someone else to pay.

Going on nine years now, the Prime Minister has never honoured any such fiscal guardrail he has promised. The Prime Minister has never once tried to live within the fiscal framework he has established for his own government. Every year, the Liberal-speNDP partnership can pick a number they say the total debt will be, and every year, no matter how large that total debt number is, they still totally blow it off and come in higher. It is like they do not even try to live within their own means, let alone what is affordable for taxpayers.

Here is one really wacko thing about that mini-budget. The budget update mentions more housing multiple times, but the most significant parts of those housing promises, even though they were announced in the fall update, in reality are for programs that are still years away.

A few examples of this include $15 billion in new loan funding for an apartment construction program, mentioned by the member for Calgary Skyview. However, that program will not be available until fiscal year 2025-26. Similarly, there is an additional commitment to allocate $1 billion over three years for what the Liberals call an affordable housing fund for non-profit, co-op and public housing. However, this funding would not begin until the fiscal year of 2025-26.

Of course, we have an election that will occur no later than October of 2025. So devoid are the Liberals of ideas that they are now actually making promises today, or I should say last fall, on behalf of a future government that is yet to be decided on by voters. No matter how I look at it, the fall fiscal update was yet another very expensive failure in a long line of expensive Liberal failures.

Now, remember, despite all this massive Liberal deficit spending, things are so bad that even the Prime Minister himself now openly admits that young people feel like they cannot get ahead in the same way as their parents or grandparents could.

Another point, which I raised recently in my budget speech and I will make here again tonight, is that when it comes to total spending and debt, the Prime Minister has failed in every single budget to do what he promised he would do in the previous year. Let us ask this question: If the Prime Minister, who, if we ask him, thinks he is pretty awesome, in nine years has massively and completely failed to come even close to balancing a budget, what is he expecting future generations of Canadians to do that he has never done himself, because they are the ones who will be inheriting all of this?

Of course, on that side of the House, the question is never asked, is it? Why is that? Every member on that side of the House knows that bills need to be paid, and this is why so many Canadians are struggling right now. At the end of the month, when they pay their bills, for a growing number of Canadians, there is no longer enough left to live on. For some, each month, the line of credit or credit card debt only grows larger. Many tell me that they realize their financial situation is just not sustainable, and that is why there is such a growing disconnect. They see a Prime Minister, propped up by the NDP, who will literally spend any amount of borrowed money. It is not helping the average family in the least, and they are frustrated.

I am certain there are members on the other side of the House who absolutely understand and know this. I am also certain that there are a few members on the other side who are probably frustrated, because we all know that much of this mess is made behind closed doors from that inner circle inside the Prime Minister's Office without much input from them. I have been reliably informed that, at least in one caucus, some matters are even decided upon without a vote.

I realize that there is an expectation that the official opposition will oppose the government's fall fiscal update. It is, after all, the opposition's job to oppose and to hold the government to account. That was for the NDP. However, in this case, it is not like the Liberal government even tries to live within the fiscal limits it proposes for itself. That is why I mentioned in my opening comments that it is somewhat surreal to be here debating this.

We all know that the recently released budget, much of it, is just a sham, much as budget 2024 will also go down as a sham. Next fall, there will be another fall fiscal update, which will have an even bigger debt than what was proposed here today, and record spending deficits will once again be through the roof. Is there any person in this room who does not doubt that? What will they call the next budget? Would it be the “even more fairness budget”, as it will leave more unpaid debt? It is obviously pointless to speculate on whatever ridiculous title the Liberals will try to use to sell their next budget.

Getting back to the fall economic statement, we could summarize it as Liberals saying, “Yes, we spent even more than we promised, but don't worry, our expensive new programs are coming soon.” That is really, to me, what the update says. It is pretty much what happens with every single Liberal budget and budget update. The bottom line is that I will oppose this latest debt-and-deficit bill from the Liberals, brought to us by their speNDP partners.

I would like to thank all members of this place for hearing my comments at what is a very late hour, and to the Canadians who are at home, particularly those in Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, I thank them for sticking it through this far.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, just last week, the Governor of the Bank of Canada appeared before committee. He gave very compelling testimony, answering questions from the Conservative Party, and said that the government, compared to the fall economic statement in this year's budget, has stuck to its fiscal guardrails and that there would be no impact on inflation. We also had the International Monetary Fund, which recently rated Canada number one in the world in terms of budget balance.

What I want to know from the member opposite is this. His party leader has said that he would fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Is that because he does not like the truth?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada put this out yesterday: “Higher debt-servicing costs reduce a household’s financial flexibility, making them more financially vulnerable if their income declines or they face an unexpected material expense.”

I have talked about all the billions of dollars that the government does not have and that it has been borrowing and spending. Could the member opposite please explain how what the Bank of Canada is warning for personal households and their inability to handle that much mortgage is any different for a Prime Minister who has doubled the debt and has spent more than all prime ministers combined?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, before 2013, there was a food mail program that was to help alleviate the prices of groceries.

During the former Conservative government, the food mail program that was going directly to consumers was changed to nutrition north. Nutrition north was changed so that the price of groceries was supposed to be reduced, but instead it has become a subsidy to protect corporate greed. For example, the North West Company had $200 million in profits, $67 million of that was subsidies from the federal government through the nutrition north program.

I wonder if the member could explain to the House what the Conservatives would do to make food more affordable, rather than protecting corporate greed. How would they help alleviate poverty in the communities?

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly commend that member for continually getting up on the issue of affordability.

In fact, when I was on the finance committee, we had a former premier of Nunavut come and discuss concerns around the carbon tax, specifically how, in Nunavut, the Nunavut government was essentially subsidizing much of the diesel that supplied power for people to keep themselves warm during the winter, 90%.

The question I asked the premier at the time was how it worked, if they were subsidizing the fuel that people use, when the federal government put on a carbon tax. He said it just means they have to subsidize more, and they will use less to support people on low incomes with new housing and other supports. Since then, the Liberal government has said it will triple the carbon tax. No region in the country will feel it as acutely as Nunavut. If there are things that we can do to make food more accessible, I will certainly be looking to support those things.

Let us start with the most basic of fundamental things. Let us stop the federal government from making life impossible in northern Canada.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about young people. Young people do not just feel lied to or let down by the Prime Minister; they are actually despondent now. They feel like they do not have any hope. Many of them cannot afford a home. Many of them are living in their parents' homes, and these are kids who are 35 years old.

What would the hon. member say to them?

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's contribution tonight. Barrie—Innisfil is very lucky to have him.

What I would say is that we had the member from Calgary Skyview specifically talk about two areas. Number one was the tax-free savings program for young people. When I speak to young people, they have no savings. They do not have $8,000 to tuck away for a home some day. When they hear this particular member start talking about $15 billion in new loan funding for an apartment construction program, that program would not be available until fiscal year 2025-26.

Those young people need help and support, not a sham of a fiscal update and not the heckles of a member who should probably give it a break.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here tonight to discuss Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, for which we have been waiting for some time. Unfortunately, Conservatives have blocked debate on it and therefore its passage, but they came along tonight, and that is a great thing to see.

Hopefully we will see less obstruction on key legislation going forward, and the bill before us is key legislation. It includes within it items that are fundamental to this country's future, items that my constituents and constituents throughout the country really care about, like mental health, for example.

Through the years, and especially during the pandemic, I have talked to many mental health practitioners in my community of London, and I know I speak for many colleagues on this side of the House and on the other side of the House as well who made the case that the GST and HST should be removed from the cost of psychotherapy and counselling services. I think that is absolutely critical. We have seen that the government has moved on that. That is a testament to the government's commitment on mental health. Of course there are other things we have done to advance mental health, but this was something that previous governments had not recognized. I want to thank constituents again for raising the issue, because without their advocacy in the first place, I do not think we would have seen that change.

With respect to the environment, I am not going to talk about carbon emissions. I could, because there is a lot in the economic statement that addresses the issue of carbon emissions. However, our fresh water is a source of pride for Canadians. Canada has 20% of the world's total freshwater resources. What the economic statement opens the door to is the establishment of the Canada water agency that would be headquartered in Winnipeg. Here, all orders of government, indigenous peoples and researchers would collaborate on ensuring the management of this country's freshwater resources.

Again, that speaks to a fundamental concern that Canadians have. They want clean air and clean water. They want to ensure that we have sustainable resources going forward for current and future generations. I have a two-year-old little girl. I want her to grow up in a country that values all of these things. When we talk about the future, we cannot talk about Canada without talking about—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Tony Baldinelli]

The member for Barrie—Innisfil is rising on a point of order.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will just call for relevance.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Tony Baldinelli]

That is not a point of order.

The parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is an experienced member, and his comment just shows he has not read the bill, which contains within it the establishment of the Canada water agency through an act. He should read the bill. My advice to all my colleagues across the way is to just read the bill. If they are going to raise a point of order on relevance, they should make sure that they know what they are talking about. As I was saying, the collaboration that we would see in Winnipeg at the agency is something that we should all be very proud of and look forward to.

Housing is a fundamental concern. I have the honour of working as the parliamentary secretary responsible for housing. We have seen, through the economic statement, GST lifted from the construction of co-operative housing. There are 250,000 Canadians who live in co-ops across the country. We would see many more living in co-ops as a result of this measure, which would lead to many more co-ops being built.

In this fiscal environment, with high interest rates, we have to provide incentives to the private sector to respond, and this measure would be exactly that: an incentive on the table for the private sector. I am glad that we have seen collaboration on this in working with agencies, with advocates and with members of the opposition, but not with the Conservatives.

In fact I was stunned a few months ago when, let us not forget, the Leader of the Opposition said that co-op housing amounts to Soviet-style housing. What an absurd statement. This is from someone who aspires to be Prime Minister of this country. What would he tell the 250,000 Canadians who live in co-op housing? Would he say they live in Soviet-style housing? That is not serious. If we want to have a serious debate on the issues of the day, and housing is really at the top of that agenda in terms of the challenges the country faces, let us be serious about what we are facing and let us have a constructive debate to that end.

On that note, earlier tonight, I will not say I was surprised, but I was disappointed to hear the member for Oshawa equate the government's policies with Marxism and to Leninism. That is not how we advance a genuine dialogue in Canada. Yes, the country's problems are significant. We are living through very challenging times. We have just come through a once-in-a-hundred-years pandemic that has impacted this country's social, political and economic fabric in ways that we are only beginning to fathom.

Let us not forget comments such as the one by the member for Oshawa, who just a little while back, about a year ago, sat down, with other Conservative colleagues, with far right politicians from Europe. It is no surprise that the Leader of the Opposition recently sat down with, met with and talked with adherents, those who espouse the message of far right groups like Diagolon. That is the absurdity of the moment we are in.

If the Conservatives think that they are going to win the day on social media by advancing these kinds of populist tactics, they might get some clicks, and they certainly do, and they might fundraise off these things, but democracy matters. That is no way to advance an agenda that is constructive and that is going to help rebuild this country. That is what I would say to my colleagues on the other side.

I know that my colleague from Oshawa apparently wants to equate our policies with communism; however, they are anything but. Let us look at what Moody's, not a communist organization at all, said. It is a very important organization because it, among others, helps set the ratings for this country. The fundamental fact that we have an AAA credit rating is the result of ratings agencies like Moody's that have recognized that. Its recent report states that the Canadian government's history and continued focus on maintaining a prudent fiscal stance stands out, as does the high rate of competitiveness in the Canadian economy.

Things like that stand out. An AAA credit rating is something this country has. We will continue to have it, along with the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio and one of the highest rates of foreign direct investment.

The country is going through a tough time. That is true, but we have a lot to look forward to. I will end on that note, and I look forward to questions from friends across the way.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way is my constituency neighbour in London. I also have to admit that his daughter is ridiculously adorable.

We were at an event a few months ago, and the hon. member was talking about some of the different innovations within housing. He was talking about mobile units potentially being built. I think he was in Alberta to visit a plant there. I had conversations about those mobile units with members of a firefighters union when they were here in Ottawa, and a concern was raised. We spoke about the construction of the units and how the firefighters are maybe not being consulted with respect to codes and so on.

Could the member talk about that? Innovation in housing is very important, but so is safety.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am certain that all members can agree that his daughter is indeed adorable.

The hon. member for London North Centre.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

She gets all her looks from her mother, actually, Mr. Speaker, but I appreciate those kind remarks.

I have talked about the importance of modular home construction. I think it is fundamental to dealing with the housing crisis that is at hand. I have said that. The minister has said that. Advocates across the country have said that. I applaud the member for meeting with advocates, along with firefighters, in the work they are doing in union advocacy. Certainly, the Conservatives would not sit down with unions, or maybe they would but it would not be serious.

Regardless, there is a national building code that ensures certain standards of safety are maintained. On my end, I will continue to work with those advocates who want to ensure that. There are many provisions in our national building code, which, of course, is interpreted at the provincial level by governments as well, to ensure safety in the way that the member advocates. I think that she and I are on the same page in that regard.

Let us move forward on these things together.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting conversation about modular homes. They are being built in a way right now that far exceeds any normal building standards. They are an option for the housing crisis in this country. The challenge with modular home builders right now is that, although they could scale up and actually build two or three times more than what they are building right now, they have a problem with cash flow. Oftentimes, they are required to pay out the development, which causes problems in terms of their ability to put these modular homes on developed spaces.

I just visited a modular home builder and cash flow is critical, so finding some way of advancing or eliminating the cash flow crisis that exists can actually help build these homes and scale them up in a much greater capacity. However, this budget does not address that.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for my hon. colleague, because I know he cares about his community. We may have certain fundamental disagreements on matters of policy, but I know he cares about his community. I have heard how passionately over the years he has raised the issues facing his community.

While modular homes are not the focus of the fall economic statement, they certainly have been given attention in the recent budget of 2024. If the member wants to see businesses, perhaps in his community, receive loan support, which is in budget 2024, among other supports, I would advise him to get behind budget 2024, read it and support it, along with the housing accelerator fund, which the Conservative Party has voted against.

The member talked about lifting certain restrictions at local levels. I think it is fundamental that Conservatives get onside with a better way of doing things.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, every day, Conservatives stand up in the House and cite food bank lineups, as if they care. They are also clear that they are going to vote against the national school food program. One of the other measures that we have taken, of course, in Bill C-59 is competition reform.

I wonder if my colleague could speak to the importance of having more competition.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we do need more competition. In fact, I was very encouraged to hear the Minister of Industry confirm that he is looking at making sure that we have more competition in the grocery sector. It is something I have advocated for, for a very long time locally in London. This is something that we need to see across the country.

Whether it is the measures my colleague talked about specifically in terms of the Competition Act, or looking beyond our borders to bring in more competition, this would be a great thing.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise, as always, to speak in the House. Tonight, we are talking about the fall economic statement. Yes, members heard me right. We are talking about the economic statement from fall 2023.

It is worth pointing out that the Liberals have an arrangement with the NDP to support them, so they actually have a majority. How badly does one have to mismanage the House schedule to not have finished passing the fall economic statement by the time one actually has introduced a new budget in 2024?

It is what it is. The reality is that it does not matter which budget or economic statement the Liberals bring forward, because their elements are all the same. The first thing that one will see in every budget or economic statement that comes from the Liberals is huge government overspending, a huge deficit.

The fall economic statement did not disappoint in that respect. We see, again, that they continue to pour deficit spending on the inflationary fire. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has said that this makes it very difficult for him to lower interest rates, something that is hurting Canadians. We know that affordability is an issue, and this large deficit spending is just not helpful.

The second feature and benefit that one can always see in an economic statement or a budget from the Liberals is increased taxes. Once again, we see that they are increasing taxes in the bill.

The other thing one can count on is that there will be all kinds of programs, but the execution of the programs will not actually benefit anybody in the country. Those are really the main elements in the fall economic statement.

Interestingly, I have a new intern in my office. She is 20. She is very interested in getting involved in the political process. I gave her an exercise to go and write a speech about the budget. Without any of the usual talking points or anything, this is what she wrote, and I think it applies, to illustrate my point, equally well to the fall economic statement.

She wrote, “After nine years of this Prime Minister and this Liberal-NDP government, Canadians are worse off than ever. Housing costs have doubled, interest rates have skyrocketed, and food banks can't keep up with the demand. Instead of helping Canadians, this new budget proposes billions of dollars in inflationary spending...which will only increase the cost of living and make life harder for Canadians!

“To briefly outline some of the main aspects of the budget, this coalition government promises to create economic prosperity within Canada, as well as building more homes and making them affordable. However, these promises are not new. Rather, they are almost identical to the promises made over the past nine years, promises that the Liberals failed to deliver time and time again. It seems this Liberal government believes that if they try the same thing over and over, it will lead to different results. That's the definition of insanity.”

That is what a 20-year-old thinks about the budgets and the economic statements that the Liberals are bringing forward. It is no wonder, because, in 2015, when I got elected, the Liberals promised to make housing more affordable. They have promised it and promised it; here we are, nine years up the road, and they are still promising to make housing more affordable.

The reality is that housing costs, mortgages, rents and down payments have doubled; the average Canadian is now spending 61% of their disposable income on housing. The Liberals have not made housing more affordable, and I do not see anything in the economic statement that is going to do the trick.

In fact, what I would say is that some of the ideas in here are unbelievable. They talk about leveraging the Infrastructure Bank to build housing. The Infrastructure Bank took $35 billion from municipalities, money that was supposed to build infrastructure in those municipalities, and put it into this bank with the idea that they would be able to attract private investment and leverage money to build projects. They loaded up with all the Liberal insider friends to run the thing and never built any projects.

Here we are, five years up the road, and now they think they are going to use that bank, which attracted no private investment, to build houses. It is ludicrous. It is not going to happen.

What I would say is that the Liberals have taken some of our Conservative leader's good ideas and they have put them in here. Taking the GST off new houses is one, which is a great idea, and there are a couple of other ideas that our Conservative colleagues had. I see a number of ideas from private members' bills that talked about maternity benefits and adoptive parent benefits, things like that, which were adopted in here, so it is good that the Liberals could learn from the good ideas that Conservatives have. Using federal lands and freeing up federal lands to build housing on is another great idea from the Conservatives.

Those are the highlights of the economic update, but one of the titles in the economic update is “Making Life More Affordable”. I already talked about the housing part of it. Let us talk about the rest of it. The Liberals have jacked up the carbon tax, and the carbon tax has driven the cost of everything up. It has added 17¢ a litre to gasoline. It is a multiplier on the increased cost of food. If I think about the Parliamentary Budget Officer, he was saying that every year food prices have increased. The average person is paying $1,400 more for food than they used to pay. I add that to the carbon tax, which, depending on the province one is in could be $1,800 a year, and then I will talk about some of the other things.

I have a staffer who just got her insurance premium update, and it went up $1,000 a year. They said the reason that it was going up was inflation and car theft. Again, it is these Liberal policies that are driving inflation and not addressing the catch and release of criminals who are stealing vehicles. It is unbelievable.

Before the pandemic, 50% of Canadians were within $200 of not being able to pay their bills. With all the things I just quoted, if I add those up, it is an extra $500 a month. Everybody is in the red. The Liberals have taken the middle class and they have turned it into the poor hoping to join back to the middle class. It is unacceptable.

We see that the Liberals, at the same time, have piled on with increased CPP and EI premium taxes, tax increases at a time when Canadians can least afford it, and they intend to quadruple the carbon tax. They also have increased the tax on alcohol and beer. This is something that is an every-year measure without any parliamentary oversight. It was put in a budget a few years ago, and Canadians are feeling the pinch.

Another title in the budget is “Making Groceries More Affordable”. Have the the Liberals been to the grocery store and seen how expensive it is? It is ridiculous. They offer support for Canadians in their energy bills. In addition to the carbon tax, we have brought forward some great ideas like Bill C-234 to take the carbon tax off farmers to make food more affordable, but the government is keeping that from going forward. It has done nothing to help keep food more affordable.

What about supporting small businesses? The government would not let them extend their CEBA loan repayments, even with the hard-pressed small business environment from the pandemic, and now they are getting squeezed with a capital gains tax, even though these small business owners were told that this is how they would accumulate money for their retirement because they do not have pensions as they are entrepreneurs. Now the government has changed the rules, and it has changed them retroactively. Instead of saying going forward it is going to change them, now it is punishing small business owners.

There are all these programs, and I do not have enough time to go into all of them, but the school food program has no food in it. It is provincial jurisdiction, so that is a waste of time. The dental program has no dentists signed up in most of the provinces. In P.E.I., Northwest Territories and Yukon there are none there. If I look, it is 25% or less in some of the other provinces, and people are left with the impression it is going to be free. It is not free. The government only covers 70%. People who cannot afford dental care cannot pay that other 30%, so it failed. That is my conclusion

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly got a lot out of that—