Debates of June 11th, 2024

Oral Questions—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on May 30, 2024, by the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin regarding unparliamentary language.

During question period that day, the Chair intervened after the member for Calgary Forest Lawn used the phrase “anti-Alberta minister”. In his point of order, the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin asked the Chair to clarify what constitutes unparliamentary language, because he asserted that the terms “anti-Alberta” and “anti-Quebec” had been used in the past with no objection from the Chair. The member expressed concern that the list of unparliamentary terms is getting longer and longer. When the point of order was raised, I promised to review the issue.

The Chair must take into account a whole range of factors before forming an opinion on what members perceive as inappropriate language.

I would refer members to page 623 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, and I quote: “[T]he use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscenities are not in order.”

However, a little later, on page 624, that book states the following, and I quote: “In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking, the person to whom the words at issue were directed, the degree of provocation, and most important, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber.”

In short, the Chair is required, often in the heat of the action, to assess the content of remarks, but also to take into account more subjective and contextual factors. As a result, a term found to be unparliamentary in one situation may not be considered unparliamentary in another. This may occur not because the Chair is being inconsistent but rather because the tone, intention and reaction are different.

Language found to be acceptable when used in a general sense may be unacceptable when it targets a specific person. The Chair may be stricter to prevent a given situation from degenerating, while in other circumstances, the Chair would be inclined to let the comment pass or issue a warning rather than rule it unparliamentary. Each case must be considered in its specific context.

It is true that the term “anti-Alberta” has been used without being deemed unparliamentary. However, calling a member or a minister “anti-Alberta” could fall into either category. In the moment, out of an abundance of caution perhaps, the Chair directed the member for Calgary Forest Lawn to rephrase his question.

As for the second aspect of the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin's point of order, the Chair notes that no list of unparliamentary words exists. As indicated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 624, “language deemed unparliamentary one day may not necessarily be deemed unparliamentary on another day.”

As I just explained, it all depends on the context, tone, intention and reaction. The Chair therefore encourages members to choose their words with care so that we can have vigorous debates without lapsing into incivility.

I thank all members for their attention.

Alleged Breach of Deputy Speaker's Impartiality—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am also now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on May 30, 2024, by the member for London—Fanshawe concerning an alleged breach of the Deputy Speaker's impartiality.

In her intervention, the member indicated that she had just been made aware that a picture of the Deputy Speaker, wearing his robes, was used to advertise a political event held last October for a Conservative Party constituency association. She further noted that he was identified with his title of Deputy Speaker and not as the member for West Nova. She referenced other recent questions of privilege where the issue of inappropriate use of the Speaker's robes was also considered, which raised concerns over the use of House of Commons resources and about the impartiality of the Deputy Speaker.

In response, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable pointed out that the photo used in the ad was a publicly available image that could be found on the internet. He added that the ad contained no partisan criticism and that the event was not a fundraiser. Referring to a ruling made by Speaker Fraser on March 9, 1993, he also noted that expectations differed between the positions of Speaker and Deputy Speakers.

The Deputy Speaker, for his part, indicated that he had no knowledge of the ad. He said that, had he been shown a draft, he would have objected to it, and requested that it not be posted. He shared his regrets for the confusion that this may have caused to the House.

The member for London—Fanshawe intervened again on this matter on June 6, noting that she accepted the apology from the Deputy Speaker, but that the House was still owed an apology by those responsible for this mistake.

Let me first elaborate on the process used to bring forward the current matter. As I have indicated before, there is a mechanism to raise concerns about the conduct of a chair occupant. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 323, states, “The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized in debate or by any means except by way of a substantive motion.” This is in keeping with past precedents, which apply to deputy speakers as well, though occurrences are rare.

In addition to the 1993 ruling, referenced by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, an interesting example can be found at pages 4365 to 4366 of the May 28, 1956, Debates. During what is known as the 1956 Pipeline Debate, the impartiality of the chairman of committee of the whole was questioned by the then leader of the opposition. Speaker Beaudoin determined that what has now become Standing Order 67(1)(p) should be used to call in question the conduct of chair occupants. He stated:

There is therefore no doubt in my mind that the proper course to be followed is for notice to be given of a substantive motion. Once the notice time has elapsed for the motion on the order paper, it is placed upon the routine proceedings, namely under “motions”. By virtue of [the Standing Orders] it is debatable and must be taken up when it comes up.

This is the approach also taken from March 16 to 19, 1964, regarding the then deputy speaker and, in March 2000, towards Speaker Parent. An alternative outcome was ultimately negotiated between the parties in that case.

Placing a substantive motion on notice, as was described by Speaker Beaudoin, therefore remains the usual course of action. As imperfect as this mechanism may seem to some, members unsatisfied with the conduct of one of the Chair occupants should take this very serious step. They should not be raising a question of privilege or commenting on their conduct in debate.

After having made this determination, deciding today whether the standard of impartiality expected of the Deputy Speaker was met or not, seems less relevant. That is a matter for the House to decide, not for the Speaker.

That said, interested members can refer to Speaker Fraser’s ruling of March 9, 1993, where he stated at page 16685 of the Debates, that Deputy Speakers “remain members of their political party, may attend caucus if they choose and may even participate in debate.”

This makes clear that their degree of participation in political activities is an individual decision. Furthermore, House of Commons Procedure and Practice,, third edition, at page 362, states that “the Deputy Speaker must be governed by ‘good taste and judgement’.”

As such, considering the practice of the House, the Chair does not find that this is a prima facie question of privilege.

Beyond the specifics of this question of privilege, and recent similar ones, this is a fundamental issue that once more has been put before the House with profound implications. Now, through this question of privilege, and in comments made here in the House, two of the Deputy Speakers have been subjected to criticism. I would caution the House against dragging the different chair occupants into debate. It has a corrosive effect on their ability to effectively preside over the proceedings of the House. I would beseech all members to think twice before using the chair occupants as a sort of political football to settle scores or to criticize their political opponents. I have full confidence in each of the Deputy Speakers, and the House should too.

I thank all members for their attention.

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages the Government's responses to five petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

While I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #807

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I declare the motion carried.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

There are 161 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-69. Motions Nos. 1 to 161 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 161 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 81.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 82.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 83.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 84.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 85.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 86.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 87.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 88.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 89.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 90.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 91.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 92.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 93.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 94.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 95.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 96.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 97.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 98.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 99.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 100.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 101.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 102.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 103.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 104.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 105.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 106.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 107.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 108.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 109.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 110.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 111.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 147.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 151.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 152.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 153.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 154.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 173.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 174.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 175.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 176.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 177.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 180.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 181.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 184.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 185.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 186.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 198.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 199.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 200.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 201.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 202.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 203.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 204.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 205.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 206.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 207.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 208.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 209.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 210.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 211.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 212.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 213.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 214.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 215.

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 216.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 217.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 218.

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 219.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 220.

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 221.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 222.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 223.

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 225.

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 225.

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 226.

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 227.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 269.

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 270.

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 271.

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 272.

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 273.

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 274.

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 275.

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 276.

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 277.

Motion No.88

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 278.

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 279.

Motion No. 90

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 280.

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 281.

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 282.

Motion No. 93

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 283.

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 284.

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 285.

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 286.

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 287.

Motion No. 98

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 288.

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 289.

Motion No. 100

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 290.

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 291.

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 292.

Motion No. 103

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 293.

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 294.

Motion No. 105

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 295.

Motion No. 106

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 296.

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 297.

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 298.

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 299.

Motion No. 110

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 300.

Motion No. 111

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 301.

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 302.

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 303.

Motion No. 114

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 304.

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 305.

Motion No. 116

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 306.

Motion No. 117

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 307.

Motion No. 118

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 308.

Motion No. 119

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 309.

Motion No. 120

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 310.

Motion No. 121

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 311.

Motion No. 122

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 312.

Motion No. 123

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 313.

Motion No. 124

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 314.

Motion No. 125

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 315.

Motion No. 126

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 316.

Motion No. 127

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 317.

Motion No. 128

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 318.

Motion No. 129

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 319.

Motion No. 130

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 322.

Motion No. 131

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 323.

Motion No. 132

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 324.

Motion No. 133

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 325.

Motion No. 134

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 326.

Motion No. 135

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 327.

Motion No. 136

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 328.

Motion No. 137

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 329.

Motion No. 138

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 330.

Motion No. 139

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 331.

Motion No. 140

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 332.

Motion No. 141

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 333.

Motion No. 142

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 336.

Motion No. 143

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 337.

Motion No. 144

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 338.

Motion No. 145

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 339.

Motion No. 146

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 442.

Motion No. 147

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 443.

Motion No. 148

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 445.

Motion No. 149

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 446.

Motion No. 150

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 447.

Motion No. 151

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 448.

Motion No. 152

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 449.

Motion No. 153

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 450.

Motion No. 154

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 461.

Motion No. 155

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 462.

Motion No. 156

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 463.

Motion No. 157

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 464.

Motion No. 158

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 465.

Motion No. 159

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 466.

Motion No. 160

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 467.

Motion No. 161

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 468.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again I am privileged to rise in the House on behalf of the people I proudly represent in Lévis—Lotbinière. Right from the outset I would just say that back home, when it comes to the word “budget”, we do not have the same definition, nor do we have the same approach to budgeting as this Prime Minister, who does not even know what the words “balance” or “economy” mean.

Once again, in my 18th year here in the House, I was in attendance when the budget was delivered. Since 2015, it has been truly ridiculous to see the Finance Minister and this Prime Minister stand firm in their conviction that they are introducing a budget that is good for Canadians. We are witnessing a spendthrift government prove for the ninth year in a row that the Liberals are incompetent and irresponsible. This government's particular talent is keeping us in the financial hole we have fallen into, in spite of ourselves.

We are seeing sky-high interest rates on a debt we will never be free of for as long as we live. The Prime Minister is proud to wear the same rose-coloured glasses as the Finance Minister and the extended Liberal family. They are out of touch with our reality in this country, when the facts and statistics speak for themselves. We are far from being the envy of the G7, the way we once were. The unholy and catastrophic alliance between the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc has plunged thousands of persons and families into misery and poverty.

Many of this Prime Minister's words ring false, starting with the words “budget” and “economy”. These investments on credit bring no value added to our GDP. We now have interest to pay down, in amounts that I cannot even visualize; I can only imagine stacks and stacks of cash in giant warehouses. Every one of my grandchildren born in the last seven years will bear this debt for as long as they live. They may never be able to buy a house. That is the case today for thousands of Canadians for whom home ownership is a distant dream.

As the ultimate spendthrift, our Prime Minister is a prime example of someone who never wanted for money as a child. He never had to earn a single dollar to put in his piggy bank or bank account. This same Prime Minister will be spending $40 billion in new money on his new spending spree, with the unconditional support of the NDP and now the Bloc Québécois.

The former Liberal governor of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge, said that he thought this budget was the worst since 1982. This year, Canada will spend $54.1 billion to service the debt, in other words, to pay the interest. That is more money than the government sends to the provinces for health care. It is a real scandal. The Bank of Canada and former Liberal finance minister John Manley both told the Prime Minister that he was increasing inflation with his spending, which was driving up interest rates. Obviously this spendthrift Prime Minister did not listen.

As a result, the Bank of Canada embarked upon the most aggressive campaign to raise interest rates in its history. Millions of Canadians are now realizing this more than ever as they renew their mortgages. This Prime Minister is not going to help them. The Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition is undermining people’s confidence in Canadian democracy and our institutions. Canadians did not vote for this kind of hypocrisy in the last election. It is not the first time in Canada’s history that a party that will never rise to power resorts to scheming with the Liberals to achieve its goals.

How many people can no longer make ends meet, even when they tighten their belts, even when they get higher wages? The inflation rate continues to increase the cost of mortgages, the price of housing, the cost of groceries and all basic necessities. Before this Liberal government, it took only 39% of an average salary to cover the monthly payment on the average home. Today this figure has increased to 62%.

Just last weekend I took part in the Relay for Life in Lotbinière/Lévis, a walk to raise money for cancer. I was worried when people told me they no longer recognized the country we live in and no longer feel safe with the direction the country is headed in. Life is getting dire for millions of Canadians who have exhausted their savings and their credit. They are at the end of their financial resources. Many skip a meal a day, and more and more people have to rely on food banks every week. When is this going to end? It is just so sad.

Canada has the fewest housing units per 1,000 inhabitants of any G7 country. The number of housing units per 1,000 Canadians has been decreasing since 2016 because of the strong population growth.

We need more housing units to keep the ratio of housing units to population stable. According to the CMHC, we need 3.5 million more units than planned to restore accessibility. In 2024, this figure will climb to 5.8 million.

The Prime Minister has stated yet again that he will bring in foreign workers to address the labour shortage when we already have a hard time providing decent housing for the homeless, Canadian families and seniors. No one can tell us when the promised units will be built. Since the Liberals came to power, mortgage and housing costs have almost doubled. Stress and anxiety have become facts of life for millions of Canadians. They are worried parents, children and grandchildren who know opportunities are getting harder to come by in Canada. Not so long ago, many believed they would never find themselves in a precarious situation. They are caught in a nightmare from which they cannot wake. In nine years, the Liberals have brought us to a point from which there may be no return.

Legalization of marijuana has not helped. Written briefs to the House and the work of committees can attest to that. Countries that legalized marijuana saw an increase in crime. Not surprisingly, Canada is also now experiencing this, with an ever-increasing crime rate. They also reported an increase in mental health problems. We too are seeing an increase in the number of people who are facing mental health challenges. We are also seeing rising addiction and deaths from hard drugs, which the Liberals pushed to legalize at all costs. It is a disgrace. Our big cities now look like places where zombies come to die. There are even neighbourhoods where no one dares go anymore. What can we say about schools and day cares with injection sites as neighbours, keeping parents awake at night?

As they say in Quebec, you have to be tough to live in this reality. For many, that refers to the chaos and decline they are experiencing under this Prime Minister. Not so long ago, it could be said that any problem could be dealt with through policy. That was before the Liberal–NDP-Bloc Québécois coalition.

We are powerless to stop these irresponsible budgets, which are populist in the worst sense of the word. They do not correspond to the reality that all responsible, well trained economists recognize. No one in their right mind would deny that Canadians of every social class are paying far too much in taxes because this Liberal government is wasting too much money. Any right-minded individual suffering day after day is looking forward to the upcoming elections to get the country back on track and show this government the door.

The Liberals think they have a license to print money. Good times or bad, they never stop. Taxpayers pick up the tab in the form of a higher cost of living. They do not even benefit from higher-quality services. On the contrary, these services have greatly deteriorated since 2015.

The 2024 budget is a continuation of the Liberals' horrendous record. This is a government addicted to tax increases and inflationary deficits. That is why I will vote against this budget, in honour of those who work hard for their money and who know how to count.

I would like to reassure voters that there is hope. Only one year, at the very most, remains of this Liberal-NDP-Bloc Québécois nightmare. Common-sense Conservatives will axe the carbon tax and lower prices on the staples Canadians need. This is not the sort of budget Canadians need in these difficult times. What they need is elections as soon as possible to axe the taxes, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

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

Madam Speaker, I always am amazed at the passion the member puts into his oration in the House. Daily in the House, the Conservatives cite food bank lineups as being an issue they care about. However, when it comes to supporting children, when it comes to feeding hungry children, and I note Breakfast Club of Canada is very popular in Quebec and does a great deal of work supporting breakfast programs in that province, could the member opposite speak to why the Conservatives have said they would vote against a budget that would feed 400,000 more kids per year and would commit to $1 billion over five years to lift up kids and ensure they get a healthy start every day? Could he speak to why he would stand in the House and vote against that?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, look at what nine years of Liberal policies have brought us: We are at the point where we have to feed kids breakfast at school. Before 2015, when the Conservatives formed the government, we were helping third-world countries feed their children. Now we have to do the same thing in Canada. It is time for an election.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

He is laying it on a bit thick, Madam Speaker. I do not have enough time to go over and correct my colleague's remarks. Everyone is to blame but them. Basically, he is promoting single-party rule, a return to totalitarianism. His conception of democracy is that Canada would be better off if all 338 seats went to the Conservatives.

I would like to know why my colleague always votes against the Bloc Québécois's proposals aimed at doing away with tax havens. He said that Canadians of every social class are paying too much in taxes. Canada's big banks have tax shelters and make billions in profits each quarter. Why does he vote against that?

Why does he vote in favour of oil companies continuing to receive tax subsidies despite making billions of dollars a year? Is that his vision of equity across social classes?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will address the first premise of the question posed by my colleague, whom I thank. Yes, the greater the number of Conservative members, the better off Canada will be.

I in turn have a question for my colleague: why did the Bloc Québécois vote in favour of $500 billion in budget appropriations to prop up this government and its reckless spending over nine years?

The Bloc Québécois is part of the problem.

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

Madam Speaker, I do like my colleague, but we lived through the Harper regime. More Conservative members means more hardship for all Canadians.

We have seen the Conservatives block dental care, despite the fact that hundreds of people in Lévis-Lotbinière are already benefiting from the NDP program. The Conservatives also wanted to block pharmacare. Today we have these foolish amendments moved by the Conservatives, who are blocking measures to ensure affordable housing, food for children, student loan forgiveness and the tax credit for volunteer firefighters.

I have a very simple question: Why are the Conservative members constantly blocking everything that could help Canadians?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me get back to the question posed by my colleague, who has my thanks. I will talk about real hardship, hardship in which the NDP is complicit because it is supporting the Liberals.

Thousands of Canadian families are struggling to put food on the table because their mortgage payments are too high. They are paying far too much for everything, including their mortgage, gas and food. We have come to this point because the NDP always supports the government.

I hope that the NDP will stop supporting this government as soon as possible so that Canadians can have a real choice, that being a new Conservative government.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, we know the results are in. After nine years of the Liberal government, it is clear that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost for any generation.

Food Banks Canada's recent report card said that nearly 50% of Canadians feel financially worse off compared to last year and that 25% of Canadians are currently facing food insecurity, a reality that should be unthinkable in a country like Canada, but, instead, is a growing problem.

The news from the Salvation Army is equally alarming. Nearly 75% of Canadians feel they are having difficulty managing their limited financial resources and 25% of Canadians continue to be extremely concerned about having enough income to cover their basic needs. That is the Prime Minister's record.

However, those are more than just figures. It is everyday Canadians who are working hard, doing everything they are supposed to be doing, stretching a dollar where they can and cutting costs where they can. They are struggling just to afford basic necessities. That is because groceries are at record highs and the costs are going up year after year. Families will be paying, on average, $700 more on groceries just this year alone, and it keeps going. Rents have doubled, mortgages have doubled, fuel costs are up, home heating is up, taxes are up, everything is up.

Canadians who are already struggling to keep their heads above water cannot afford higher taxes and more inflationary spending that drives up the cost of everything and keeps interest rates high. Canadians are desperate for some relief, but the NDP-Liberal government is just not listening. Instead, what Canadians got in the budget was more of the same mismanagement and inflationary spending, which has resulted in this pain and misery that Canadians are feeling. It is a kick in the gut to Canadian families that are desperate for some relief.

This budget would add nearly $40 billion in new inflationary spending, and it will cost the average Canadian family an extra $3,687. More of the same of what got us into this mess does not help Canadians or address the affordability crisis. The Conservatives had clear demands in advance of this budget, one of which was to get spending under control, that for every new dollar spent, the government should find a dollar in savings. This is a simple, common-sense budgeting concept that Canadians apply to their own budgets on a daily basis.

Deficit spending is pouring fuel on this inflationary fire, driving up the cost of interest rates, and it is not just the Conservatives saying this. We know that the Governor of the Bank of Canada has been clear that the government's deficit spending is not helpful in bringing inflation down and lowering interest rates. We know that the Prime Minister has admitted that he does not like to think about monetary policy, but Canadians cannot ignore the repercussion of that negligence.

The Prime Minister's reckless spending and taxes forced the Bank of Canada to slam on the brakes, with the fastest increase in interest rates in Canadian history. Millions of Canadians renewing their mortgages are facing massive hikes in their mortgage payments to come. That is a very real repercussion to millions of Canadians.

Let us not forget that while the Prime Minister spends and spends, it is taxpayers who are footing the Prime Minister's bill. They are paying for it today, but they will also be paying it for years and years to come. This year alone, Canadian taxpayers will spend $54.1 billion to service the Prime Minister's debt. That is more money than the federal government is sending to the provinces for health care. It is money that could be better spent, but Canadians are on the hook for it.

The NDP-Liberal government's tax-and-spend agenda is hitting Canadians from all sides. The carbon tax scheme is adding to the cost of food, fuel, shelter and just about everything they buy. The PBO has already proven that the vast majority of Canadians are worse off under this carbon tax scheme.

Certainly, in rural communities like mine, the negative impact of the carbon tax is even greater. Rural Canadians are punished for having to drive a couple of hours for a medical appointment, to get to work or even just to go the extra distance that is required for them to get groceries. There are no alternatives. However, the Liberals stand in this place, day after day, and try to spin a different narrative. They try to tell Canadians that they are better off. Canadians are just not buying what they are selling.

Now we know that the Liberals are knowingly promoting deceptive marketing practices. Their own economic analysis has proven that the carbon tax is hurting Canadians, but their solution is to hide the results. We know the PBO is under a gag order: “we've been told explicitly not to disclose it and reference it.” Those are the words of the PBO at committee, when he was asked about the government's economic analysis. He was clear that his office had seen the Liberal government's own analysis, which confirms the report the PBO had already published. The results do not fit the NDP-Liberal government's narrative, so instead of acknowledging the misery it has caused Canadians, it has simply hidden the results.

However, Canadians do not actually need to see the analysis; they know the results. They live the results every single day. They feel the carbon tax impact every time they pump fuel at the gas station, open up their energy bill or pick up groceries for dinner. The NDP coalition does not care. Even in the midst of growing poverty and food insecurity, it hiked the carbon tax anyway and is hell-bent on quadrupling it even further. It has proven time and again that it does not care if families are struggling to put food on the table.

Even though the Liberals have failed to meet every single environmental target they have set for themselves, they are obsessed with checking the carbon tax box. We see that activist-driven agenda with the obsession they have to punish our farmers. The Prime Minister is fighting tooth and nail to keep the carbon tax on farm operations. The carbon tax is increasing the cost of food production and is a huge hit to the bottom line of our farmers. Farmers are paying astronomical carbon tax bills, not to mention the GST that is charged on top of the tax: a tax on a tax. These bills are jeopardizing the viability of their farm operations and food security in our country and also abroad.

The carbon tax scheme also fails to recognize the valuable contributions that farmers already make to protect the environment. Environmental stewardship is the cornerstone of farming practices. Not only does the carbon tax scheme fail to recognize that, but it limits the ability of our farmers to innovate. Bigger and bigger hits to the bottom line of farm businesses means there is less and less money to reinvest in new technology. Filling up government coffers on the backs of our farmers does nothing to safeguard the environment. It is counterproductive, and it certainly does not help make food affordable. When food is taxed at every point in the supply chain, consumers will pay for it at the checkout, and they are. Only common-sense Conservatives will axe the carbon tax for everyone for good.

This budget proves that the NDP-Liberal coalition is not taking the affordability crisis in this country seriously. Every time the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance stands up in this place and tells Canadians how they are better off than they truly are demonstrates how out of touch they truly are with Canadians. Canadians are desperate for some relief. Only common-sense Conservatives will bring down interest rates for good by axing inflationary taxes and placing a cap on government spending.