Debates of May 9th, 2024

Report Stage

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

Madam Speaker, the fall economic statement is supposed to build an economy that works for all Canadians, but I can tell from the member's comments that clearly it is not working for the economy in Quebec. I wonder what the member thinks the government should have put forward in order to promote the economy in Quebec.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is a saying that goes, “If you want something done right, do it yourself”. That is good, because the Bloc Québécois is a separatist party. It is in favour of independence. It wants to take care of its own business by itself, for itself, without needing anything from a federal government that does not always share Quebec's priorities.

As my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton just said, this is clearly a direct attack on Quebec's jurisdictions. The government no longer wants to let us make decisions for ourselves, by ourselves, for the well-being of our people and in accordance with our priorities.

There is no way we can vote in favour of something that is not in line with our constituents' priorities. Our autonomy is being compromised. There was not even any consultation. That is completely unacceptable. We are therefore well within our rights to vote against this bill, another brazen attack on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, when we talk about the importance of people being able to make ends meet, there are two things in this bill that stand out for me. One is around the pregnancy loss leave, which would establish a new paid leave for workers in federally regulated sectors who experience loss of pregnancy. When talking to constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, this is something that comes up often.

Another piece that stands out is the adoption benefit for employment insurance, which introduces a 15-week EI benefit for adoptive parents. I really appreciate seeing items like this being included to make sure that caregivers and those who have experienced the loss of a child are able to take the time necessary either to be with their loved ones or to grieve the loss of a loved one.

I am wondering if the member can share if he feels that those are important items that we have in place for Canadians across the country.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of this measure, which finally recognizes how distressing such situations can be for parents.

We did not wait for the federal government to create our child care system. It has been around for 25 years. The same goes for our other social programs, such as the Quebec parental insurance plan, which has been around for many years. Quebec has a strong social safety net. Again, we did not wait for help from the federal government.

The Quebec parental insurance plan provides between 15 and 18 weeks of benefits after the type of situation my colleague mentioned, whether it was a spontaneous miscarriage or a planned termination. There is an adjustment that varies depending on the situation, but all that is to say that this is a good measure.

However, just because there is one small measure in a sea of bad measures does not mean that we are going to support this budget. When things are good, we have to say so. When they are not so good, we should not be shy about saying so either.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the regions, which we know have needs with regard to transportation and airports. I would like him to explain the needs we have in the regions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has one minute to answer.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, it will take me a lot longer than a minute to make the federal government understand that the regions exist and that they have specific needs, just like Quebec, which is also distinguished by its nationhood and its own specific needs.

Air transportation is practically non-existent in the regions. When its pals at Air Canada ask for millions or billions of dollars in wage subsidies, the government is there to help. However, when it comes to providing services to regular folks and putting planes on the tarmac, the government is nowhere to be seen.

As for rail transportation, our friends at Via Rail want financial support to renew their rolling stock, which is so old it cannot run any longer. It requires constant patch-ups and repairs. In the near future, what will happen? How will the trains keep running?

Once again, the government is abandoning public transit, especially in the regions of Quebec. That is completely unacceptable. It compromises life in the regions, including the empowerment and growth of rural residents.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the fall economic statement for the constituents of Kootenay—Columbia and for Canadians.

After nine years, the Prime Minister has repeatedly demonstrated a concerning lack of regard for the best interests of Canadians. The pattern is unmistakable and is underscored by a persistent tendency toward overspending that has become all too familiar.

Instead of prioritizing the needs and concerns of Canadian citizens, the Prime Minister has consistently favoured overspending, disregarding a balanced budget essential for economic growth. The irresponsible approach not only undermines the trust and confidence of Canadians, but also jeopardizes the long-term economic stability and prosperity of our nation.

It is our duty, as representatives of the people, to hold our leaders to account and to demand accountability for their actions. We must ensure the government's spending is aligned with priorities and the values of Canadians, promoting transparency, efficiency, effectiveness and accountability at every turn.

The Prime Minister's track record of overspending serves as a stark reminder that he refuses to acknowledge the role in Canada's massive debt, which has grown to a staggering $1.2 trillion. It is an absolutely unfathomable amount. Along with that debt comes interest. The interest is $54 billion. To put this into perspective, $54 billion is more than what we spend on a Canada health transfer to support provinces and territorial health care.

It is deeply disturbing and downright offensive to Canadians that the NDP-Liberal government treats our constituents' hard-earned money this way. The level of management is unacceptable and undermines the fundamental trust between constituents and elected officials. We owe it to our constituents, frankly, to do better.

It is not just about fulfilling our duties as elected representatives, but also about honouring the trust and confidence our citizens have placed in us to steward our nation's resources wisely and responsibly. There is a profound expectation for us to make decisions that will foster prosperity and progress for our country, to build a Canada that Canadian citizens are proud to call home.

Regrettably, what I am hearing from my constituents paints a different picture. The country's debt has a ripple effect that touches every aspect of our society.

One area where we see this impact is in housing. The cost of housing has skyrocketed to the point where many young families in their thirties are realizing that their dream of owning a home may never become a reality. They have resorted to renting from homeowners who are also experiencing record-breaking interest rates on their mortgages, which is forcing higher rent increases.

At the same time, our population is growing rapidly, but we are not building enough homes to accommodate everyone. The imbalance between supply and demand is inflaming the housing crisis and is making it more difficult for people to afford housing.

Those who try to help are denied. Stephen from Revelstoke reached out to me regarding his grant application, which is approximately $15 million over the course of a few years to a housing accelerator fund that he and his organization had been denied. Realizing that the lack of housing and affordability is the number one issue in Revelstoke, the same as in many other communities, especially those in the hospitality and tourism industry, Stephen was curious how the communities would keep up with demand. They were shovel-ready, yet they were told they were too organized, so they would not be getting the funding.

Another area where we see increases is with taxes. Allan from Kimberley wrote to me quoting the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance saying that the budget is “to help Canadians.” However, in his words, he said that it would not help his granddaughters, aged 3 and 14, and that they would be the ones to pay for the federal debt when they start work.

Brenda from Creston is frustrated and wrote to say that surely it is understood that burdening the already overly burdened public with yet more taxes is unfair, while those in office take liberties with how they spend money. She said that she was adding her voice to those who have already asked that steps be taken to reduce spending and that the Government of Canada identify with its citizens during these expensive times. In other words, they are asking that the Government of Canada be accountable to the taxpayers.

Rick from Cranbrook said that he just wanted to drop a quick email to state his opposition to the budget. He said that it does nothing and provides no benefit for Canadians other than the privilege of paying a rapidly increasing proportion of their taxes to service ballooning debt. Again, it is $53 billion.

My constituents are fed up. They are fed up with the financial stress, the limited financial flexibility due to higher interest payments, the lack of economic growth and the certain intergenerational burden the government has brought upon us.

A question asked by many is about how such a resource-rich country is in so much debt. With the minerals, forestry and energy, we should be global leaders and well into the black.

The lengthy permitting process for new mines in Canada can take up to 25 years to get approval. This is a significant challenge for the mining industry and hinders the timely development and export of critical minerals. To address these challenges, it is essential for the government to allocate the necessary resources to expedite environmental reviews and permitting processes. The government has to recognize the need to accelerate the permitting processes and the production of the critical minerals that are essential for a variety of industries, including technology, renewable energy and defence. However, these permitting policies continue to undermine Canada's attractiveness to mining, investments and others.

Trail has critical minerals, and the Elk Valley has steel coal, a critical mineral for steel. Yesterday, KC Recycling came to Ottawa to talk about how it recycles 95% of lead-acid batteries, yet we are still shipping batteries from Canada to third-world countries instead of recycling them here.

The ongoing U.S.-Canada softwood dispute has placed Canadian manufacturers in a prolonged period of uncertainty with no negotiated settlement in sight. The extended period of instability has a significant impact on the forest industry, limiting its ability to generate revenue and to contribute to the economic growth of our country. Canadian lumber producers are burdened with punitive tariffs that impede their competitiveness and that hinder their ability to thrive in the global market. The imposition of tariffs has not only undermined the profitability of Canadian lumber exports, but also exasperates the existing challenges faced by manufacturers, including the rising production costs, supply chain interruptions and market unrest. Furthermore, the uncertainty surrounding softwood lumber stifles innovation within the industry, hindering long-term capability.

Canada has an abundance of natural gas, especially in British Columbia and Alberta. Exporting liquefied natural gas to the EU presents a fantastic opportunity to tap into a new market and potentially to boost our economy. Selling LNG to the EU could play a critical role in diversifying Canada's energy exports. Right now, we rely on the U.S. market for energy exports, which leaves us vulnerable to shifts in its energy policies and market conditions. By expanding our reach to the EU, we could spread out our risk and could ensure a more stable income stream for our natural gas industry.

Moreover, exporting LNG to the EU aligns with global efforts in the transition to cleaner or more sustainable energy sources. Natural gas is a cleaner alternative to coal and oil, and supplying LNG to the EU could help it reduce its carbon emissions and meet its energy needs in a more environmentally friendly way. This can strengthen Canada's reputation as a responsible energy producer. Additionally, fostering strong economic ties with the EU through energy trade can enhance our diplomatic relations and co-operation with other countries. It is a win-win situation that benefits both Canada and the EU.

With the basic examples provided, it is absolutely a disservice to Canadians for the NDP-Liberal government to not try harder to keep the debt down and balance the budget. Every family knows that if they spend more than they bring in, they go into debt. The main difference is they realize they have to pay back their debt, while the Prime Minister tries to pay back his debt by increasing taxes on Canadians.

When will the Prime Minister own up to his financial failings, admit we need to do better and balance the budget?

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

Mr. Speaker, before I pose my question to the hon. member, I too want to express my sincere condolences on the passing of a Canadian icon and a Canadian treasure this evening, Rex Murphy. The Speaker seems surprised. Obviously, this is news to him.

On the reverse of that, I want to wish Lillian Vaughan, a Barrie—Innisfil resident, a happy 105th birthday today. I know that she is a big supporter of the Barrie Colts. She is at home this evening with Bryan and Jennifer. Happy birthday to Lillian.

Rural Canada is obviously a big part of the member's riding. I wonder if he can talk about the fall economic statement, the latest budget and their impact on rural Canada. I represent half a rural constituency in Innisfil, and I find there is a disproportionate negative impact on rural Canada. I wonder if he could speak about that.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for informing the House of the passing of a great Canadian.

I also wish a happy birthday to Lillian.

The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia,.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the thing about rural Canada is that we have to drive. We have to drive our families to events, whether it is for school events or whether it is for a hockey game, and some of our driving is 300 kilometres, sometimes further. Our seniors have to drive to go to medical appointments, which could be in hospitals that are 200 to 300 kilometres away. Where it gets difficult is with the rising price of the carbon tax for our people who use vehicles. We do not have transit systems like downtown Toronto. It is very disproportionate, and it makes it very hard for those on a limited budget, like seniors, to be able to afford to go get the help that they need.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the tail end of the member's speech, he was talking about LNG. Let us call it what it is: It is methane, CH4. No one here will argue that, when burned, it is cleaner than coal. That is a scientific fact. I do not think people have a problem with the burning of it; it is the unburned methane that is a very real problem. When that escapes into the atmosphere, it is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is.

I think the real problem is that Canada has many abandoned and leaky wells. Often, the companies that have exploited that gas have left it to the people of Canada and our tax dollars to clean up. I want to hear a serious response from the Conservatives on how they address that problem. We are not disputing the fact that it is cleaner-burning than coal, but what do we do with the leaky wells that we have often had to pick up the tab for?

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I have travelled together, and I have a lot of respect for him.

With natural gas, I do believe that the government already had some funding to fix the leaky wells. I believe it was in budget 2017, 2018, 2019, somewhere in there.

The thing is that there is a lot of money to be made by selling our LNG to places like the EU, which is just a start. If we start doing that and start getting the tax dollars, because the government has no money and the only money it has is what it gets from taxes, that will, in turn, help us to be able to fund, like the member said, leaky wells and other issues that we need to fund, because we do not have any income coming in, and it would help our GDP.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to respond to the NDP member who spoke earlier with regard to leakage from abandoned wells.

I would just observe that Canada can adopt regulations and rules that will be a world standard. We talk about doing the same thing with our carbon pricing. Therefore, if we believe we can be a world standard with rules that are adopted with regard to carbon pricing, surely we can be a world standard with regard to leaky wells, and if that is so, then gas produced in Canada will be a superior substitute and better for climate change, producing less climate change due to less leaking methane, than in other countries. That is a very good reason to expand our industry here in Canada rather than to shut it down.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to speak on behalf of the people of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook in Nova Scotia, and I am pleased to speak to Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023.

When I say “fall...2023”, I know that those listening to me must be perking up their ears. It is because the Conservatives have been dragging their feet, as they often do, to slow down the process and delay the passage of bills that will help and support Canadians.

The bill is really our government's economic plan for making life more affordable and ensuring that we continue to invest in housing and create an economy that works for all Canadians. Over the past few years, our government has introduced a number of measures to help Canadian families. We know that many families are struggling right now because of the cost of living. That is why we are introducing direct measures to help Canadians in difficult situations.

For example, the Canada-wide early learning and child care system that we are implementing from coast to coast to coast is saving many families a lot of money. When I say “a lot”, I do mean a lot. Thanks to this new national system, families across the country are saving between $2,000 and $14,000. My colleagues can imagine what that means to these families. I can say that my daughter used to pay nearly $2,000 a month for child care for her three children, and now she pays $800. Now she can invest the remaining $1,200 in something else to help her family. There is no doubt that this is making a big difference for families and their budgets.

Furthermore, our government's enhancements to old age security, the Canada pension plan and the guaranteed income supplement allow more retired people to live comfortably in dignity. It is very important that the benefits increase every year so that they do not fall behind.

We are well aware that groceries cost more. My children remind me often, and when I go to the grocery store, I also notice that the prices are too high and that something needs to be done. In June last year, we distributed a grocery rebate worth hundreds of dollars to 11 million Canadians to help them out.

We also made college and university more affordable. We helped young people by permanently eliminating interest on student loans and Canada apprentice loans. To help students, we increased grants from $3,000 to $4,200.

Our government fully understands that better competition means lower prices, more choice and more innovative products and services for Canadians. That is why, with Bill C-59, we are proposing to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act to ensure that Canadians have more choice when it comes to the companies that they do business with. With these changes, we will be able to strengthen the Competition Bureau's tools and powers. We will be able to further modernize merger reviews, which is always an important issue. We will be able to strengthen consumer and worker protection. We will give the competition commissioner the means to examine more types of anti-competitive collaborations and find solutions that work.

These measures will help us increase competition. This will enable Canada to align itself with international, not just domestic, best practices, to ensure that the domestic marketplace promotes fairness, affordability and innovation.

Our government also understands that psychotherapy and counselling services play a key role in the lives and mental health of millions of Canadians. With Bill C-59, we are making essential services more accessible by eliminating the GST and HST on professional services provided by psychotherapists and counselling specialists.

On another matter, our government wants to help adoptive parents through Bill C-59. While EI maternity and parental benefits provide essential support for new parents, adoptive parents are currently entitled to EI parental benefits but not the 15 weeks of maternity benefits. We are therefore introducing a new 15-week EI benefit for adoption that both parents can share.

As members can see, our government has already implemented several measures to make life more affordable. We are continuing our work with Bill C-59.

In conclusion, I think it is clear that the government wants to make life more affordable for Canadians. We have already implemented a number of measures over the past few years to help take the strain off Canadians. We will continue in the same direction to support Canadians. Obviously, we are making sure that the measures we propose fall within our ability to pay. Fortunately, we are in a very strong economic position to invest in Canadians. We continue to make those investments.

I invite all my colleagues in the House to vote for Bill C‑59 so that we can continue to make life more affordable for Canadians.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would note that my hon. colleague comes from northern Canada, as do I. Where we come from, the distances are large and the climate is cold, and the carbon tax is costing all of our constituents a lot of money just to live.

Would the hon. member agree with us that it is time to axe the carbon tax, so that our constituents can afford to live?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that when he talks about axing the tax, he is talking about axing the rebates.

I would like to remind him that eight out of 10 Canadians are getting more money back in their pockets than what it is costing them up front. He should know, as his constituents are receiving over $1,500 per year, and he is talking about making those cuts. Those cuts would be the beginning of the process, because we know that the Conservatives would cut a lot deeper. They would cut the dental plan, which is, of course, major for seniors, with over nine million people receiving it. The Conservatives would be making cuts after cuts, like they did to veterans in 2014.

We are investing, and the Conservatives are looking at making cuts.

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

Mr. Speaker, the federal housing advocate has called out the government for failing to uphold Inuits' right to housing. For the people in Nunavut especially, and my colleague has done an incredible job of representing them, there have been significant failures to address the significant housing shortage there now.

We were pushing for the federal government to provide Nunavut's request of $250 million in housing in this fall economic statement. Could he explain why that did not happen and when the federal government will meet its obligations to people in Nunavut?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for all the hard work she has done on the veterans affairs committee. I appreciate that we have been able to work together on a number of projects.

I would like to remind my colleague that the big reason we have a housing crisis is because, when the former Conservative government was in power, it did not see any responsibility in contributing toward housing. Whereas, our government brought forward the first national housing strategy ever in the country, and we have put some major projects on the table.

As well, we have just invested, in budget 2024, a continuation of rapid housing with the accelerator fund and the use of modular homes, which is a new innovative approach, and taking the tax off the construction of rentals. We are doing this right across the country, and we will focus on every part of the country. I am sure Nunavut will be at least part of that process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do believe the member is an honourable member, but when he stands up in this place and he says that more Canadians are getting back more from the carbon tax than what they are paying, nobody believes it.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that is not true and that more Canadians are paying more in the carbon tax. In the province of Ontario, it is $600 more. Canadians are paying more for gas and to heat their homes, and businesses are paying more in the carbon tax. How can he stand up here and say that to Canadians when the information out there is contrary to what he says?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is an honourable member as well, but he is taking pieces of the report and trying to apply them to the whole. We know that eight out of 10 Canadians are getting more money back, and the people in his riding are receiving more money back as well. One cannot just cut little pieces to make them look like something else.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

What a difference four months can make. Indigenous peoples, leaders, advocates and Canadians were shocked and angered at the cuts announced by the Liberals to Indigenous Services Canada in the fall economic statement. How could the government, in the face of a $350-billion infrastructure gap for first nations, be proposing cuts to the services indigenous peoples and communities rely upon?

The Liberals said it would not affect services, but never in the history of cuts this big has that been the case. While they will never admit it, the Liberals reversing some of those cuts is a tacit admission that it would have been the case.

Let us be real about what a $350-billion infrastructure gap looks like. It is a lack of a hospital for the Island Lake region here in northern Manitoba, a region the same size population-wise as Thompson. Communities, such as Shamattawa, are having to deal with a tuberculosis outbreak because the housing crisis is so bad.

First nations on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, such as Poplar River, St. Theresa Point, Garden Hill, Wasagamack, Red Sucker Lake, Oxford House, God's Lake Narrows and God's River, have to live in enforced isolation by the federal government because of the lack of an all-weather road, and the devastating impact of climate change that is rendering its ice roads less and less dependable.

Communities such as Peguis have recently announced that they are taking the federal government to court because of the lack of support they received during the devastating floods of 2022. It has crumbling roads, a housing crises, and a lack of care homes, day cares, youth drop-in centres and recreation centres.

How could the government show this kind of disdain when it comes to its most important relationship? The Liberals say this gap will be closed by 2030, but we know that is not true. Department officials have made it clear that this will be another Liberal broken promise. The AFN has estimated the gap will not close until 2040. The ministers in charge of indigenous services, northern affairs, infrastructure and Crown-indigenous relations refused to meet with the Assembly of First Nations representative to discuss the government's failure on infrastructure and housing.

Ultimately, this failure rests with the Prime Minister, who always says the right thing when it comes to first nations, but pathologically refuses to deliver. He is now refusing to release the quarter billion dollars on housing. The federal government shortchanged first nations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta because the federal government was using outdated census data. For a Prime Minister who says he is committed to first nations and reconciliation, it seems his preferred method for delivery of services is court ordered.

First nations were clear that the cuts to Indigenous Services Canada for key programs, such as Jordan's Principle, could not stand. The sunsetting of programs related to mental health or the harmful legacy of residential schools was a non-starter. The NDP was clear on this too. I am proud of the work of our team has done, in solidarity with first nations, Métis and Inuit communities, to roll back these cuts. We were clear with the government that it had to reverse these cuts if it wanted NDP support because it is that important.

However, it is clear the Liberals still do not get it, or they do, but they simply do not care. What other conclusions can one draw when the Liberals are investing less than 1% of what is needed to end the housing crisis facing first nations? It is a housing crisis so severe that we could double the amount of homes for first nations and people would still be living in overcrowded conditions.

It is no wonder the Minister of Finance did not mention the word “reconciliation” once in her speech on the budget. Why would she? This year's budget highlighted the $57 billion the government is spending that is court ordered. It is clear the government only helps first nations when either the NDP pressures it to or the courts order it to do so.

I know many of the people across the country are sick and tired of the harmful and divisive partisan bickering that takes place in this chamber every day and of how nothing is done here the way it should, but the NDP showed what principled politics can look like. We held firm on our demands. The Liberals folded, and we reversed the cuts. We did that with 25 MPs. While the Conservatives were happy to spend their days arguing and fighting for the best clip to use for fundraising, we in the NDP got to work to make a difference for people who in many cases need it the most.

Imagine what we could do with 35 MPs or 50 MPs, or even as the official opposition or government. An NDP government would not give away hundreds of millions of dollars to billionaire CEOs so that they can pay dividend checks. We certainly would not have bought fridges for Galen Weston. We definitely would not have spent less than 1% of what is needed to end the housing crisis on first nations.

With 25 MPs, we reversed the cuts to indigenous services, forced the Liberals on dental care and pharmacare, and brought in a capital gains tax. We did not point fingers. We did not plug our fingers into our ears. We just got to work to deliver for indigenous communities, for working people and for Canadians, because for every failure in the budget, there is an important win to be found.

While there is no wealth tax, we did force the Liberals to bring in a capital gains tax on gains above $250,000. While the Liberals refused to reverse the Conservative $60-billion corporate giveaway they have ignored for almost a decade, we forced them to deliver so that kids would not go to school hungry. We also know that 3.7 million Canadians will now have access to diabetes medication and 9 million Canadians will have access to free birth control, all due to NDP pressure.

Meanwhile, we have a Conservative Party, led by a hyperpartisan Conservative leader, that seems hell-bent on bringing back a war on women. Shamefully, we also saw at least one Conservative MP stand with anti-choicers, who were standing against a woman's right to choose and against women's human rights on Parliament Hill today.

Looking at this budget, and looking at the wins for working-class people, how could one make their signature opposition to it be access to free birth control in 2024? Why is the Conservative Party so bereft of ideas that it is forced to recycle their worst ones from yesterday, a few decades ago or maybe even a few centuries ago, when it comes to women?

It is no surprise they are single-mindedly focused on making Parliament fail for people. For a leader who likes to cosplay as a defender of the working class, he sure is happy to echo the message of the well-heeled lobbyists he pretends not to meet. He may say he will not meet lobbyists, unless you include his chief strategist. He may say he will not connect with billionaire CEOs, but he will fundraise off them. He may say he will not speak with the wealthiest corporations in the country, but he will echo their every message. I want to point to the recent work of The Breach in uncovering the extent to which so many people connected to Loblaw, Metro and others are big donors for both the Liberals and Conservatives.

It is ironic that the Conservatives, a party whose slogan is “bring it home”, are so fundamentally opposed to housing solutions in the country. What homes are they “bringing it” to? They are consistently opposing funding for housing for first nations living in overcrowded and mouldy homes, and their approach to housing would mostly help rich investors make more money off the housing market and leave Canadian families behind.

Our message to Canadians is clear. If they want more cosplay and stunts, if they want more coddling of billionaires and if they want to watch their tax dollars go to the wealthiest people in the country, they should vote Liberal or Conservative, but if Canadians want a country where indigenous justice is a priority, where no one is left behind, where we can have a health care system that is truly there for our needs, and where the wealthy pay their fair share to fund the services and the society we need, the NDP is the party for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, it certainly sounds like Conservatives are living in this member's head with the constant attacks. I recall when I was House leader and the costly coalition was formed, the unholy alliance between the NDP and the Liberal Party, I referred to that situation as the NDP heading to an abyss of irrelevance. Certainly, if I check out the latest polls, the NDP has not gained any status at all among Canadians. In fact, many Canadians feel like the New Democrats have sold their collective soul to the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party. As such, I am wondering how the member can reconcile that, given the status of the party in the polls.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it curious that the member is hyperfocused on what I said about his own party. Perhaps he is feeling a bit defensive. If he had heard my speech, he would have heard the wins that we in the NDP pushed for, as I mentioned, such as the reverse to the major cuts that were being planned to Indigenous Services Canada.

I know that the Conservative Party does not care much about investing in indigenous communities, so maybe that was not heard or cared for. Also, we talked about what we have delivered on pharmacare and on dental care, particularly around diabetes medication and birth control.

Again, these are priorities that the Conservatives are actively fighting against. I think that speaks more about them. Our wins speak to our work and our values.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, whenever the NDP asks questions about the lack of investments that the Liberal government and the previous Conservative government have made to indigenous housing, we are always told about how much more the Liberals have been investing. I wonder if the member can tell us what the impacts of those statements are on indigenous peoples who live in overcrowded housing conditions and who live in mouldy conditions.

Meanwhile, children are going to school without the sleep that they need to get the good grades that they need.

Can the member explain what happens when those promises are being broken?