Debates of May 9th, 2024

Report Stage

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege to stand this evening and speak on behalf of the constituents of Lethbridge and, of course, representing those across the nation as well.

I have the privilege of speaking to the budget implementation act concerning the 2024 Liberal budget, which was put forward on April 16. These are some headlines that came out in newspapers across the country following the dropping of the budget: “Liberal hike to job-killing capital gains tax is inexcusable”; “Capital gains tax change draws ire from some Canadian entrepreneurs worried it will worsen the brain drain”; “David Dodge wasn't wrong, this federal budget is 'one of the worst in decades'”.

Here is the next one: “The Liberals move from borrow and spend, to tax and spend”. Another one is, “Canada's budget 2024: More spending, higher capital gains taxes, and bigger deficits”. This one mentions that the federal budget is “the worst in decades”. These are the types of headlines that came out following the Liberal budget, and they are not wrong.

I am not sure if members have heard of an oil salesman. It is a term that originated in the 1900s from an infamous imposter who sold snake oil as a miracle medicine. It turns out that this snake oil was just a concoction of mineral oil, beef fat, red pepper and turpentine, but he would go around and he would claim that it had magical healing properties, so people would spend a whole lot of money on it in hopes that it would deliver the results that were promised to them. Eventually, this con artist was found out, was exposed for what he was doing, and he actually became a very powerful symbol used throughout the land to warn against false advertising.

When I look at the Liberals' budget of 2024, I see a snake-oil salesman, a commitment to doing something but actually achieving the opposite, and a commitment to helping Canadians but actually thwarting their success, which is why we get the types of headlines that I just read into the record.

On April 16, the Liberals announced that they would be strapping an additional $14 billion in new deficit spending to the backs of Canadians. This makes it the ninth year in a row that the Prime Minister has run deficits, while claiming that the budget would balance itself. We all know that is ridiculous; budgets do not balance themselves. He also said that we would change the economy from the heart out. We also know that this is ridiculous. Hard-working people change the economy in a positive way. A blind or ignorant prime minister changes the economy in a negative way, and unfortunately, what we see is a whole bunch of negative.

The Prime Minister continues to promise that Canadians are better off with his budget, but at the end of the day, we know that families are actually worse off. In fact, the National Post just came out with an article this week, saying that if the economy had stayed where it was in 2015, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, we would all be earning $4,200 more per year, which means that under the Liberal government, every single Canadian is $4,200 per year worse off.

In other words, the Liberal government is not actually helping Canadians; the Liberal government is hurting Canadians to the tune of $4,200 per year. That is alarming. That is a lot of money. That is a good chunk toward the down payment of a house. That is a good chunk towards maybe a new vehicle, maybe toward putting one's child in sports or just being able to pay household bills and to make ends meet.

This year, Canadians will have to pay over $54 billion just to cover the interest that has been incurred because of the government's out-of-control spending. That is a whole lot of money, $54 billion, and we lose sight of what exactly that means, so let me spell that out. That is more than what the government collects in GST paid toward just the interest payment.

That is double what this government has committed to our Canadian Armed Forces, the men and women who serve this country, who unfortunately are going without proper food, care and equipment because the government refuses to fund them adequately. Meanwhile, double the amount that is spent for the Canadian Armed Forces is being paid just to substantiate our interest payments.

Further to that, it is the same amount as what this government transfers to provinces for health care. Imagine the hospitals we could build. Imagine the doctors that could be hired. Imagine the types of care that Canadians could enjoy if we did not have to put that money toward just maintaining our debt.

This is the result of a government without vision for its people. It lands us in this place where things are broken. People are desperate. I hosted a town hall just over a week ago, and the room was filled. People were eager to come and share their concerns with me. Overwhelmingly, the things they talked about were housing, the cost of groceries, fuel and other essentials in life. They were desperate for me to offer them hope and, unfortunately, under the current government, I could not do that. All I could do was ask them to hold on for the day that a new government is coming. The way that the Liberal government has ruled and the decisions that it has made, as can be seen in the 2024 budget, simply bring us down.

People in my riding have been sending me their carbon tax bills. One shows that the cost of the carbon tax bill for a household is $4 more than their actual consumption. They are spending more on the tax than they are on the consumption. Another shows that this family is spending $18 more on the carbon tax than they are on their consumption. Another bill was double. Their actual gas cost was $33.11, and their carbon tax cost was $63.41. They are paying double on the tax versus consumption. There was another bill where they actually only spent $20 on consumption, and they spent $34 on their tax.

There is a business that is spending $600 more every single month just to cover their tax. Imagine that. Another business is spending nearly $1,000 more every single month just to cover the carbon tax.

Imagine the impact that it would have for Canadian families if the punitive carbon tax were to be scrapped. We know the Liberal government is not accomplishing any of its environmental objectives. It has failed on every single one of them, so we know the carbon tax is not about that. There is no metric to point at to show success. We are led to believe that it is for no other reason than simply to be punitive in nature. The government has accomplished its goal. Canadians are paying far more for the carbon tax than they are for the actual consumption of natural gas. Canadians are punished. Well done, Liberals.

At the end of the day, it means that Canadians are paying that carbon tax not just on their natural gas bills, but also on the fuel they put in their vehicles, the home heating, as well as the groceries and the necessities they require for their households. Folks are struggling. Two million people are lining up at food banks. In my riding, food bank use has increased by 75%. That is a problem.

The government could do something about that, should it wish to. However, the 2024 budget shows that it does not. It is the same failed policies that have led this government for the last nine years. Unfortunately, Canadians are caught in the middle of that. Conservatives will do better. That is our commitment to Canadians. We look forward to forming government very shortly.

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite must know about the challenges that many Canadians have faced in terms of postpandemic recovery, with mental health issues on the rise and with many Canadians stressed out about an uncertain future. Bill C-59 proposes to waive GST on accessing psychotherapy. I think that is a great measure for ensuring that Canadians can get access to the mental health care they need, when they need it.

Can the member opposite tell me whether she supports that measure?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked me to comment with regards to the mental health of Canadians. There is plenty of evidence to show that mental health is directly affiliated with an individual's economic well-being. When they cannot pay their mortgage, when they cannot pay their rent, and they are lining up at a food bank in order to survive, when they are sending their kids to school without getting the proper nutrition in the morning, yes, that does weigh on them.

I am so sorry, you are laughing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member that she is to address questions and comments through the chair and not directly to members.

Order, on both sides.

Again, I just want to remind the hon. member that she is to address questions and comments through the Chair.

I would urge the hon. parliamentary secretary not to egg her on. If he has other questions and comments, he should wait until the appropriate time.

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is really unfortunate that the hon. member across from me is laughing at that. The mental health of Canadians and the economic well-being of Canadians are not laughing matters. I wish the Liberals would treat this with some sobriety.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Lethbridge for her speech. Unsurprisingly, she spent a lot of time talking about the carbon tax.

Now it is important to look at the objective of pollution pricing. The aim is to get people to change their habits. When too much greenhouse gas is generated, it has an impact on the climate and on health, and it puts the financial system at risk too. I always use the example of cigarettes. When we wanted young people to change their habits and smoke less, we raised the price of cigarettes and we also stopped advertising cigarettes.

Given the climate challenges we are facing, what does the member propose to ensure that people change their habits and try to adopt behaviours that are more in line with environmental protection?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member just compared the carbon tax to advertising against cigarettes. In the same way advertising against cigarettes helped bring down the usage rate, I believe the argument she is making is that a carbon tax would also bring down the usage rate of fuels.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

I want to remind the hon. deputy House leader to keep his thoughts to himself, and if he wants to try to get up on a question and comment, he should try to do so. Again, I would ask him not to talk out loud and to maybe jot his comments down.

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, this way of thinking put forward by the Liberal government is absurd. We have folks across Canada, about 96% of them, who are dependent on natural gas for heating, which is not exactly an option in this country.

I come from Alberta, and we need to heat our homes in the winter. I think most other places, if not all other places in this country, need to heat their homes in the middle of winter. I think that is just a basic necessity of human life. Further to that, I come from a riding that is largely rural. Getting on a city bus or transit train is not really an option, so they depend on being able to drive a vehicle in order to provide for themselves or to get from point A to point B. Further to that, the transportation of goods in this nation is reliant on transportation units, such as semis and trains.

If we continue to attach a carbon tax to these necessities, these things that are just a part of our way of life, it is not going to bring down carbon emissions; it has been in place for eight years now. It clearly—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have to allow for one more question.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Lethbridge is correct when she is talking about the increase in oil prices, diesel prices and gas prices. However, that has coincided with a massive profit increase in the oil and gas industry. Since 2019, their net profits have gone up by over 1,000%.

I am curious as to why the Conservatives keep ignoring the elephant in the room. Is it willful ignorance, or are they that afraid of confronting their political masters in the oil and gas lobby?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, again, I am not sure what fictitious world the hon. member comes from.

In Canada, we very much rely on natural gas to heat our homes, and the Liberal government has attached a carbon tax to that. We rely on using transportation in order to get our goods to market, and the Liberal government has attached a carbon tax to that. Farmers do tremendous good to actually take carbon from the environment and use it to produce food, and yet they are penalized with a carbon tax. Further to that, grocery stores have a carbon tax applied to them just for simply hosting the goods that we need to purchase.

Then all of that lands on the backs of Canadians. A carbon tax is an absolute farce.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑59 today. As tabled, the federal budget proposes a series of measures that will impact all of Canada. However, it is critical that we consider the unique impact these measures will have on Quebec, a distinct society within the Canadian federation. I believe that budgets should always reflect the general needs of Canada, as well as respect Quebec's specific needs and its jurisdiction.

The bill in question is a key document, as it outlines both the financial overview and specific allocations for various government programs and initiatives. It is sort of like setting political promises to a musical score. The main objective for the Bloc Québécois will always be to ensure that budgets consistently reflect the specific values, needs and aspirations of Quebeckers.

Bill C-59 is a nearly 550-page omnibus bill that contains 60 different measures, about half of which are tax measures, and amends or creates 31 acts and regulations. Naturally, Bill C‑59 is made up of good and bad elements, but there are two measures preventing the Bloc Québécois from voting in favour of Bill C‑59.

Indeed, the bill contains two measures that could be described as very bad. There is $30.3 billion in subsidies to oil companies in the form of tax credits, meaning that taxpayers will pay oil companies to pollute less when they do not need that money, which seems very sarcastic. That $30 billion could have been used to help families, who are struggling more and more every day. I think everyone agrees that families are currently in greater financial trouble than oil companies. Instead of greasing the wheels of oil companies, the government could have used that $30 billion to fight against homelessness and increase access to housing.

The government could have taken that $30 billion and done some of the good things the Bloc Québécois suggested. For example, it could renew the rapid housing initiative and make it permanent; create a program to acquire and renovate existing rental buildings for non-profit housing organizations; set aside a specific portion of funding in all housing programs to ensure that Quebeckers receive their fair share; increase the transfer for rent subsidies; transfer the affordable housing innovation fund and the new co-op housing program to Quebec; increase funding for renovation of the existing social housing stock currently under contract; support community rental housing projects by providing ultra-low-rate loans; offer lower-rate loans to first-time buyers to give young people access to home ownership again; relax the prohibition on the purchase of a home by non-Canadians for people who live here and intend to stay here, regardless of their status; significantly increase the envelope for indigenous housing to address the housing shortage on reserves by 2030; and tackle homelessness by increasing and renewing the Reaching Home program for five years.

We have a lot of homelessness back in Val-d'Or. There is no money. There is no support administered by the federal government or transferred to the provinces. The government could have set up an emergency fund to help cities and municipalities support the homeless in their communities, and could have given them the resources to do it.

As we can see, this $30 billion could have been used effectively to make a big difference in the lives of Quebec families. This $30 billion could have been transferred to the provinces and territories so that governments could better support and fund food banks.

I would rather see children going to school with full bellies and in good health than give money to oil companies with deep pockets and healthy finances. I also think that our seniors could have benefited from this money, because they deserve a lot more than what the federal government is offering them. They worked hard, very hard, their entire lives and they deserve to live with more dignity today. I am sure they would have been very happy to get that extra money. This $30 billion could have been used to increase old age security starting at age 65 or to implement measures for our seniors.

The fact is that the Bloc Québécois made some good proposals to the government. We asked the government to implement an action plan to encourage the retention and hiring of experienced workers, including an increase in the employment income that can be earned without affecting the GIS. The government could have provided a tax credit to encourage experienced workers to stay on the job. It could have continued to pay the deceased's OAS and GIS to the surviving spouse for three months. It could have enhanced the caregiver tax credit and made it refundable so that everyone could benefit, including people with modest incomes.

No, none of that was done. This government thought it would be better to help rich oil companies than our seniors. In my riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and elsewhere in Quebec, there is also the forestry sector that could really use a helping hand. Since last summer's forest fires, the forestry industry has taken a beating. Hundreds of people have been laid off at various mills in Quebec. In my riding, for example, Resolute Forest Products announced to its 50 employees on March 26 that it was suspending operations at its sawmill in Comtois, near Lebel-sur-Quévillon, for an indefinite period. The Béarn sawmill in Témiscamingue, owned by Chantiers Chibougamau, closed its doors indefinitely on April 25. A total of 120 workers were laid off. In just over a month, nearly 600 workers have been affected by this wave of layoffs across Quebec.

The money for oil companies could have been used to help the forestry industry. We do not know what will happen this summer. Are we going to have to live through the same hell we experienced last summer? How much forest area will burn? The forestry industry in my region is an important player in our regional economy. Is it or will it be in jeopardy? One really has to wonder. I also think that it would have been a good idea to use the money for rich oil companies to increase the health transfers to the provinces thus guaranteeing equitable access to care for everyone, particularly after the challenges posed by the COVID‑19 pandemic. In short, there are many examples of how those billions of dollars could be put to better use.

The second bad measure in this bill is the creation of a federal department of municipal affairs. Yes, Bill C‑59 creates the department of housing, infrastructure and communities. There is already a minister, but unfortunately, there is no department and we cannot count on an army of civil servants to interfere in provincial jurisdictions, which is the Prime Minister's favourite activity. By creating a full department, Bill C‑59 gives the minister the organizational capacity to interfere more, to impose more conditions on the provinces and municipalities, and to intensify disputes and delays. I wonder who in the House likes to pick fights. This bill definitively answers that question. What about the massive amount of money it will take to run this new department? That is money that could have been used elsewhere, to make life better for everyone. One thing is very clear. Housing, local infrastructure, land use planning and municipal affairs are not federal jurisdictions.

In closing, although the budget implementation bill also contains some good things, it remains essential that these proposals be adjusted to more specifically meet the needs of Quebec. The Bloc Québécois will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that Quebec is not just a partner, but a key player in designing policies that affect its constituents. We are at a decisive crossroads. Before us is the chance to shape a stronger, fairer and more sustainable Quebec. In the future, we see an innovative, green and prosperous Quebec, a Quebec that thrives and inspires not only within Canada, but around the world. Quebec has to be master of its domain, and its jurisdiction has to be respected. We do not accept a budget that would treat Quebec as just another province, without taking into consideration its specific realities. We are advocating for a strong Quebec in a just Canada. Accordingly, because of the measures cited, we will be voting against Bill C‑59.

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

Madam Speaker, we know, and the member most certainly knows better than I do, as I live in British Columbia, that many people in Quebec cannot afford groceries, while the grocery giants and CEOs continue to bring in billions of dollars in profits. It is a very unfair situation.

We know that the NDP, the leader of the NDP and my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford have done a lot of work to make changes to the Competition Act that are included in the fall economic statement, which includes stricter prices for companies involved in price-fixing.

I wonder if the member feels that we should continue to allow rich CEOs to reap extraordinary profits off the backs of people who are struggling to keep food in their fridge.

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

Madam Speaker, the $30 billion could have been allocated differently. Oil companies do not need money. Our families do. People are trying to find housing and there is none. Why wait until after 2025 to provide money for housing?

It makes no sense. The government is not taking action.

I think that families and children are what is most important.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, there are many good measures in the 2024 budget that resonate with the people in my riding of Sherbrooke, including the school food program, money for housing, money for the New Horizons program and money for homelessness. However, what I am hearing the most is that students are very happy to see that the grants for post-secondary education have been increased.

I am wondering if my colleague is also hearing positive things about that measure in her riding and if, as a result, she will vote with us in favour of the budget.

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

Madam Speaker, we must keep in mind that it has been 20 years since students have seen an increase. Thanks to my colleague who has worked very hard on this file, the government is taking action.

The important thing is that the government stop shelling out billions of dollars to oil companies. It is very important to help families and people in need. There are a lot of homeless people everywhere. We are seeing it in Val‑d'Or. We need to help these people too.

The money must be transferred to the provinces, and Quebec in particular, because there are needs and this is essential.

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

Madam Speaker, this bill talks a lot about the middle class. However, in my riding, the middle class is poorer because of rising taxes and the rising cost of housing and food.

What is the situation like in Quebec? Is it the same there?

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

Madam Speaker, yes, the situation is the same pretty much everywhere, in Quebec as in the rest of Canada. Everyone knows that. I am still talking about families and parents who need a home or a place to live for their family. There are children going to school who do not even have enough to eat. Food insecurity is becoming more and more of a problem pretty much everywhere, so we need to help these people.

The government needs to do something about this, and fast.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague gave a very down-to-earth presentation describing what the Bloc Québécois had proposed to really help people.

When she talked about the billions of dollars going to oil companies compared to what could have been done, she listed a lot of things. She was full of ideas.

I would like to know which of these ideas she would prioritize if money could be diverted from the oil companies to something else. What would be her priority?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who does great work.

I would like to see the environment prioritized more. Not enough money is being spent on the environment. We have had forest fires and we expect more. Other places have had floods. What is the government doing?

The government cannot wait. It must act now.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take to my feet today to talk about the fall economic statement.

First, if I have some latitude, I want to say that Canada just lost a national treasure not too long ago. It came out in the National Post that Rex Murphy passed away this evening, at the age of 77, after his battle with cancer. I hope that I will be able to read some of Rex's best quotes into the record. I am sure that we will recognize him later on, but I thought it would be fitting. He was, I think, an iconic writer in our country for years. I think he has the respect of all sides. He was a great, proud Maritimer as well. I googled some of his best quotes. I am going to read a couple here.

Rex Murphy said, “Everything written, if it has anything in it, will offend someone, and if the mere taking of an offence were to amount to a license to kill the offender, well the world will be sadly underpopulated of novelists, columnists, bloggers and the writers of editorials.”

He also said, “Not every article in every magazine [or] newspaper is meant to be a valentine card addressed to every reader's self-esteem.”

This is a personal favourite of mine: “Stay away from philosophy kids. It'll ruin your mind.”

He also said, “Hollywood is a narcotic, not a stimulant. It wants to sell you something. Literature wants to tell you something.”

This is another personal favourite. I am a country music singer, so this is the last one. He said that Shania Twain has done more for country and western than heartbreak and whisky combined.

To Rex Murphy, may he rest in peace.

The fall economic statement was a disappointment from our point of view. It really did not address some of the major concerns and issues we had. It did not fix the budget, stop the crime, build the houses or axe the tax. We know that Canadians from coast to coast are continuing to find it harder and harder to put food on the table. That is something that sorely needs to be addressed in this country. As of last year, two million people used a food bank across this country. It is now expected, from food bank data, that three million people will do so in 2024. This is not the Canada that I want my children to grow up in, and I think most people would agree with that.

I had a great opportunity this week to attend the Food, Fuel, and Fertilizer Global Summit, held in Regina, Saskatchewan. They had some of the most forward-looking thinkers in the industry when it comes to prudent agriculture, energy and resources. One of the speakers was Tim Gitzel from Cameco, a company located in northern Saskatchewan. They said an agreement was made among 24 nations, and in the next couple of decades, they want to triple the amount of nuclear energy to fight climate change. That is a big commitment from nations across this world. That means they can go from 400 to 1,200 nuclear reactors.

That was not addressed in the fiscal update or even in the budget at all. Canada can be a world-leading nuclear power, but it is falling by the wayside because the government has an ideological philosophy that is not in favour of nuclear power.

Another speaker at the summit was Bruce Bodine. He is the CEO for Mosaic, which has its head office in Regina, Saskatchewan. They are one of the leading producers and exporters of fertilizer in the world. That is so important; a speaker said at this summit that, in the next couple of decades, we are going to have to produce as much food to feed the world as we have in the past 10,000 years.

That means we are going to have to grow our agriculture sector. In the fall economic statement, there is nothing that looks at growing our agriculture sector. In fact, the government has had policy after policy that continues to kneecap this sector. By 2030, the carbon tax will cost ag producers $1 billion a year; this will come out of the pockets of our agriculture producers across the country. Can one imagine the innovations that they could have if they kept that money themselves and put it into new technology and new machinery?

I was able to go to Ag in Motion in Saskatoon. It is one of the leading agricultural shows in North America, where they actually have on-site demonstrations. I was able to go to a Yara plot. The person who took me from Yara said to scan some leaves. I had a little instrument. I scanned 20 leaves in a plot, and it gave, to the decimal point, how much fertilizer one is supposed to put on that plot.

A lot of people in the chamber and in the ag community do not realize how advanced agriculture has become. While fertilizing in a field, that changes the amount of fertilizer one puts in real time. Lower spots have a bit more moisture, so one puts less fertilizer. Higher spots on the hill are drier, so one puts a little bit more. We do not need the government to tell agriculture producers how much fertilizer they need to use; they are already doing it.

Another great technology that has come out of, not government but the private sector for agriculture, is GPS and field mapping. I remember 10, 15, 20 years ago, on our farm, we had a disker, and we would over-seed 10 feet all the time just to make sure we had enough seed. Now, with GPS and field mapping, there is no over-seeding; there is no going back and forth over a field. That is saving emissions when it comes to the machinery, which is not going back and forth over the field as much.

However, we did not see anything in the fall economic statement to promote agriculture. In fact, we always hear the opposite from the NDP-Liberal coalition. We see that agriculture is a bit like a person the Liberals do not want to talk about. They like it because it brings in some money, but they do not promote it on the world stage. They always ask, “How can agriculture in Canada lower emissions?” However, according to the ECCC, they are not even tracking them. Actually, the environment commissioner just came out with a report on the agriculture strategy of the Government of Canada, and there is no strategic plan in the Department of Agriculture to lower emissions. That is straight from the environment commissioner's report.

The Liberals have been in government for nine long years, and they talk about climate change every day, but there is no strategic plan to lower emissions. That is exactly what the non-partisan environment commissioner said in the report. It is actually a condemnation of how little the Liberals have planned. They will throw a bunch of programs at the wall, but none of them have stuck, because they actually do not have a plan to lower emissions.

The carbon tax is not a plan. It is not an environment plan; it is a wealth distribution plan, and we see that time and time again. When we are talking about how the Prime Minister is not worth the cost, he is not worth the cost of food, because people now cannot afford to put food on the table. He is not worth the cost of housing, because, despite the fall economic plan and the budget, housing costs will continue to increase. They have doubled since the Liberals took government. The Liberals have doubled the cost of mortgages, and they have doubled the cost of home properties.

The amazing part is that, 10 years ago, it took 25 years to pay off a mortgage in Canada. Now, under the NDP-Liberal government, it takes 25 years to save for a down payment to get a home. It is no wonder now that eight out of 10 young Canadians believe that they will never own a home. That has happened over the nine long years that the government has been in power. It is no wonder that the Liberals' polling is the worst it has ever been with younger Canadians. They have lost faith, because they do not believe this is the country where they can get ahead.

I had the pleasure to serve with Premier Wall in the Saskatchewan government. On his last day, when he gave his final speech in the Legislative Assembly, he ended with this, and I'll end with this as well. This is about how a person should always be judged after they leave politics or when they are done: “Did you leave things better than you found them?” The unequivocal answer for the Liberal government is absolutely not.

I know the Liberals are fans of slogans, so I will leave them with this: Instead of build back better, they should put it back the way they found it.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that great speech. I know that he always represents his constituents greatly in this place, and I want to thank him for all the experience that he brings, particularly from Saskatchewan.

It has been coming up more and more in this place, and I am not sure who came up with it first, but someone is proposing that we change the GST to the DST, or the debt servicing tax. Could the member make some comments around that?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I know that the member represents his constituents well also.

I would say it is a scary point in Canadian history when the federal government, the NDP-Liberal coalition, is spending more money on debt servicing than on health care. My friend is right. The amount of GST the government is bringing in is equivalent to what it is paying in debt. There is so much more that we could be if we had our fiscal house in order. That is something we will deliver as a common-sense Conservative government, and we will make sure we give Canadians the government they deserve.