Debates of June 11th, 2024

Motions in Amendment

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

That is a good suggestion. Anyone who wants to have a conversation should take it out into the lobbies. That is what they are there for.

The hon. member for Joliette.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you. I also thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean.

Bill C-69 places Quebec in a dilemma in which there are no good options.

If we refuse to join the federal framework, our institutions will stay trapped in the 20th century while their federal competitors step into the technological 21st century. Maybe we could let our financial institutions opt in to the federal framework, but then Quebec would have to waive the right to apply its own laws to their activities that come under the open banking system.

Then there is the worst-case scenario. In order to survive against its federal competitors, an institution like Desjardins could choose to stop being a Quebec institution within the meaning of Quebec's Cooperatives Act and become a federal institution under Canadian co-operative bank legislation. Trust companies would face the same choice. Since the open banking system could eventually be expanded to cover insurance, all of our insurance companies could switch over to federal regulation.

If this worst-case scenario comes to pass, the entire financial sector and all of its activities will be completely outside Quebec's jurisdiction. That is a serious threat to Montreal's status as a financial hub. In short, by using its power over banks to regulate all companies that interact with them, Ottawa is trying to force Quebec and the provinces out of the financial sector, which it failed to do when it was trying to regulate securities.

Rather than taking the unilateral, centralist route, Ottawa should have chosen co-operation. It could have called a federal-provincial finance ministers' working meeting on open banking. It could have encouraged them to release a joint statement at the end of this meeting in which the governments announce their intention of developing a common regulatory approach with a clear deadline, such as 2025, and possibly setting up a federal-provincial office.

It could have sent a clear message to all financial institutions, not just banks, telling them to agree on a common technology, such as a secure data transfer protocol, because open banking is coming. Lastly, it could have worked on common technical regulations on accreditation rules for fintech companies, security standards, clarification of financial liability, consumer and data protection, and other such matters.

This is what we are asking the government to do today. We are asking it to take out the division on open banking that centralizes the sector exclusively at the federal level. We are asking it to take a few months to coordinate with the various players and the provinces and then to come back in the fall with a framework that respects jurisdictions and does not put provincially regulated institutions at a disadvantage.

The government could have chosen another model for the open banking system. There is the Interac approach based on self-regulation, as well as the securities approach. Securities fall mainly under provincial jurisdiction, but Ottawa has laws governing federally incorporated companies. The Supreme Court has also recognized federal jurisdiction over systemic risk in the financial sector. In Quebec, the Autorité des marchés financiers is the regulator.

To ensure that businesses could raise capital across Canada and that registrations in one province would be recognized everywhere, governments decided to coordinate. That is why Quebec's Business Corporations Act is very similar to the Canada Business Corporations Act and to the corporation laws of all the other provinces. The same is true for all legislation governing the various aspects of securities.

Quebec retains its legislative powers. The Quebec act may be stricter in some respects. For example, Quebec is the only province that requires a French version for all corporations registered with the Autorité des marchés financiers. However, this version must comply with the common standard adopted by all governments. This is the approach I prefer. This is the approach preferred by the Bloc Québécois.

There is another concern. In Bill C‑69, the government delegates the administration of the framework to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, an agency that mainly promotes financial literacy and that does not have any of the required expertise. In committee, FCAC representatives acknowledged that they did not have expertise in sharing financial data in a way that minimizes the obvious cybersecurity risks. They also told us they do not currently have a plan for developing the expertise needed to oversee the security aspect of open banking.

We also asked several questions that the FCAC representatives said they were unable to answer. For example, since fintech companies are not banks, they are not federally regulated. We asked if the government had obtained the consent of the provinces, particularly Quebec, which has its own civil laws, before tabling this bill. They were unable to answer. The answer is no.

During the briefing on the notice of ways and means preceding Bill C-69, it was my understanding that provincially regulated financial institutions could join the federal framework if they so chose, provided that the province consents and declines to regulate on its own those activities involving the open banking system. Is this in fact the case? I am unable to get an answer.

Which provincial laws will have to take a back seat to the federal laws? There is no answer.

Who will be tasked with certifying the technology companies, Ottawa or the Autorité des marchés financiers? I am unable to get an answer.

Will Quebec's Consumer Protection Act apply to the activities of the open banking system? There is no answer.

In the case of fraud or damages, will it be possible to launch a class action suit under the Civil Code or the Consumer Protection Act against a fintech company? Again, I am unable to get an answer.

Will the sharing of financial responsibilities between the financial institution and the technology company necessitate changes to the financial institutions' prudential standards? Will the Autorité des marchés financiers need to change its rules to comply with the federal framework? Here again, I cannot get an answer.

None of this is surprising. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada is not well positioned to manage this framework. It learned it would be receiving this role just before the budget was tabled. This is ridiculous.

To avoid a disaster or some risky back-pedalling, let us act today. Let us take this division out of Bill C-69, do our job better and come back with a good bill this fall.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work at the finance committee. I have enjoyed working with him. I understand that there are interjurisdictional issues that the member has rightfully pointed out in the debate today in relation to the consumer-driven banking framework. He and I have had some good discussions about that, and I look forward to more.

There are a lot of other things in the budget implementation act. I understand that the Bloc will not be supporting the BIA for the reasons that members on that side have given, but could the member speak to the merits of the BIA in relation to, for example, the Canada carbon rebate for small businesses, the investment tax credits for clean-tech manufacturing and clean hydrogen, the new research infrastructure funding, funding for grads and postgrads, or a national school food program? I believe that the Bloc is in support of all of those things.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his remarks. I really like working with him too.

Bill C-69 seeks to amend 67 different statutes. It contains some good things and some that are not so good.

For example, it contains the global minimum tax aimed at countering tax havens, and that is good. My colleague was talking about credits for what the government calls “clean” hydrogen. In fact, this is an $11-billion subsidy for the oil companies and the hydrocarbon industry to help gas companies with that. We do not support this. However, we do support the measure that earmarks $1 billion for the school food program. This was one of our asks.

And so it goes. There are things we support and things we do not support. Overall, the cons outweigh the pros, so we will not be voting for this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's remarks.

I want to pick up on what he said at the end of his speech, when he called this budget ridiculous. Can my colleague elaborate on the ridiculousness of the current government?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question and for all his interventions in the House.

In my speech, I focused on division 16, the open banking system. Clearly, the government did not consult Quebec, the other provinces or any market players. The sector, in other words the business community, has been asking the government to legislate since about 2016. The government finally presented a rough sketch of a bill, but there are major problems with what it is proposing. It really seems like the government does not listen and is slow to act. It does not do much. When it finally does do something, it creates serious problems, as it did in this case. Everything will be decided next fall in a future bill. What is being decided here in this bill is that the federal government is taking control of all jurisdictions that should normally be shared.

I therefore urge my colleague to talk to his Conservative Party colleagues about voting with us to have this division taken out of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the items brought up by my colleague is a national school food program, and I want to touch on that.

We all know of and see the great programs that Quebec put into place for child care and school food programs. I am wondering if the member could speak to the difference those programs have made in the lives of children and students and how important it is that children across Canada have access to school food programs, in contrast to what we are seeing right now, which is the Conservatives blocking, delaying and voting against essential programs that Canadians across the country rely on.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her thoughtful comment.

I would say to her that, after the Quiet Revolution, Quebec started developing a social model, Quebec's social-democratic model. This model continued to develop while the governments of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin slashed transfers to the provinces, particularly for social services, in order to balance their budgets.

We saw poverty shoot up and the wealth gap widen significantly in the other provinces. Meanwhile, Quebec used the means at hand to implement various measures with the help of community and social groups, people who believe in the redistribution of wealth and equal opportunity for all. Everyone tightened their belts to implement these measures. That is when the family policy, including child care centres, was rolled out, allowing more women to join the workforce. That is also when we adopted a pharmacare plan that covers people without prior coverage. That is all very limited, but while the federal government was slashing transfers by 40%, we put this in place to preserve the social fabric.

As expert studies show, at that time, the level of inequality in the other provinces began to look similar to that of the United States, while the conditions in Quebec began to look more like what is found in Scandinavian countries. There are a great many elements, and we always get community groups involved.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are poor, a theme that is all too common after nine years under the Liberal-NDP government. Canadians know that they could do all the right things: They could go to school, have a part-time job while they are going to school, make ends meet, get a job, and work and put in as much as they can to save up. However, at the end of the day, the government will do everything in its power to work against all that hard work.

The Canadian experience, or the Canadian dream, that we used to have in this country used to include things that would seem very basic for any country. If people put in hard work, they could own a home, own a business and send their kids to a good playground or a school where they would not find such things as needles and crack pipes. They would be able to just walk down the street without fear of being mugged or fear of going through tent cities such as those we are seeing across this country. However, after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, that experience is gone. Nine out of 10 young people say that they have lost the dream of home ownership. They see a Liberal-NDP government with a carbon tax scam, which has been increased once again. Because of this, single moms have to make decisions about skipping meals now.

There is a woke, ideologically extremist government that will do everything in its power to make sure Canadians will never be successful. This is because we have an out-of-touch Prime Minister who has probably never had to fill his own car with gas or go grocery shopping on his own. I am not even sure if he knows how to open doors anymore. He probably needs to be retrained after next year, when he is not going to be prime minister anymore. The sad part is that the incoming Liberal leader is no different. It is Mark “carbon tax” Carney who is going to be crowned. The pain that the Liberal-NDP government is inflicting on Canadians does nothing to these trust-fund babies or these elitists, but it does everything to harm the middle class and workers.

We do not have to look very far to see the pain the government has caused after nine years, with nothing but blind support from the NDP. On top of the tent cities, there are food banks with larger and larger lineups at them and with different demographics than there were nine years ago. In fact, people can have a well-paying job and still have to line up at a food bank. They could be a teacher or a nurse but still end up sleeping in their car because, after nine years, the Liberal-NDP government has doubled housing costs. The government spent $89 billion on housing. Rents and mortgages have doubled; in fact, rents are at the highest rate they have ever been in Canadian history.

However, this is no surprise, because we have an out-of-touch Liberal-NDP government that has no clue. According to them, Canadians have never had it so good. However, none of the Liberal or NDP MPs or the Prime Minister actually talk to Canadians. They would rather rub elbows, as Mark “carbon tax” Carney does, with the elites of the world. They would rather do that than sit at a dinner table with everyday Canadians and workers, such as the ones who cannot afford groceries anymore, who are deciding whether they should get that extra grocery item or who are thinking about whether they can actually afford heat or rent this month. Kids are starving because of the cost of food. That is nine years of the Liberal-NDP government.

The problem is that productivity in this country has declined once again, for the seventh consecutive quarter. GDP per capita tells us how productive the country is. I spoke on Bill C-69 just weeks ago; at that time, GDP per capita was at the lowest rate since 2016. The week before that, GDP per capita was at the worst rate since 2017. Today GDP per capita is worse than it was in 2014.

Canadians have been hit with 40-year highs in inflation because of the Liberal-NDP government's out-of-control spending. They got the most rapid interest rate hikes seen in Canadian history. They got slammed by a carbon tax scam that only went up, did nothing for the environment and only made the cost of gas, groceries and home heating even more expensive. Not only did the government do that, but it also made sure that investment in this country fled. More than $200 billion of investment has already fled since 2016. That is the record of the current government; however, again, Canadians have never had it so good according to the Liberals.

In fact, Canadians have had it so good that they want to leave. More Canadians are leaving each year now because of the high cost of living. The Canadian dream that everyone thought of or came here for, just as my family did, is gone, and the proof is in the numbers: the food bank usage, the people fleeing from here or thinking about leaving here, the number of bankruptcies and the insolvencies.

I will give an example of a small business owner. Small business owners are the ones the government considers to be tax cheats. I have a friend in the GTA, who left everything back at home and took the big risk of coming to this country. He came at a good time, when taxes were low and rent was half of what it is today. That was under a Stephen Harper government. It was a time when people knew that they could put in hard work and get something back.

He started his first job as a janitor in this country; now he is a very successful transport owner. What happened in that time, and what has happened to him now? He was able to save up. He was able to send his kids to a good school, and now they are a part of that business as well.

Now he is being taxed more than ever before by the ideology-driven government. In this country, after nine years, success is vilified. If people make money, the Liberals are going to take it. Now my friend has been hit with higher carbon tax costs; he cannot find workers, because the government has broken the immigration system; and, on top of all that, extortion has happened to him. After nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, he is getting hit with every single bad policy: He is paying higher taxes, he is not getting the labour he needs so he can grow his business, and his success is not only vilified by the government, but now extortion is happening to him because the soft-on-crime policies of the current government have done that to him and his business.

Now, this person's family lives in fear every single day. The family members live in separate hotel rooms. They have bulletproof windows on their house and cars. On top of that, they are now thinking about leaving. This is a story that is all too common in this country after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government. By every measure, productivity has gone down; that always affects the most vulnerable people and the middle class, the ones whom the Liberal-NDP government is supposedly always standing up for.

However, hope is on the horizon; it cannot come soon enough. Under a common-sense Conservative government, we would turn this country around. That Canadian dream would be revered once again around the world.

Under the leadership of the member for Carleton, we would axe the tax. We would get rid of the carbon tax for all and bring down the cost of gas, groceries and home heating. We would make sure business owners can keep that money, so they could invest more in themselves and in workers.

\We would fix the budget. We would bring in a dollar-for-dollar law, so that a dollar spent needs to have a dollar of savings somewhere, and this would help lower inflation and interest rates. The current government does not understand this, because the Liberals think that budgets balance themselves.

We would build the homes, not more of the bureaucracy that we have seen under the government, which has doubled the cost of housing in all respects.

We would stop the crime by bringing back mandatory minimum sentences so that we can have safe streets and safe communities once again.

Under a common-sense Conservative government led by the member for Carleton, we would bring home that Canadian dream once again. This is something that, after nine years, the out-of-touch Liberal-NDP government has destroyed.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was a bunch of slogans strung together with a lot of falsehoods scattered throughout.

The main one I would take issue with right now is that the member blames the federal government for global inflation. Members in the Conservative Party do this on a daily basis. This is interesting because every country in the world, postpandemic, has been dealing with an inflationary environment. The member opposite does not acknowledge that and is trying to pin that on the federal government.

In relation to this, though, we have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio, the lowest deficit and the strongest projected GDP growth in the G7. We are rated number one for budget balance by the International Monetary Fund. We have 141% postpandemic job recovery, which is higher than that of the United States, and we have maintained our AAA credit rating. We are the first country in the G7 to have experienced a rate cut by our central bank. How does that square with the member opposite's claims?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a little rich, coming from the specific member, to be talking about falsehoods.

If the Liberals want to talk about falsehoods, they should remember how they sold the carbon tax scam. They said it would be revenue-neutral. Well, that was false. They said it would somehow fix the forest fires and the environment. That was false. In fact, their own environmental department says they do not even track how much this carbon tax scam brings down emissions, and emissions went up. The Liberals know it is just like the Prime Minister: not worth the cost.

On top of that, the member wants to talk about inflation. The carbon tax scam added to inflation. It is a big chunk of today's overall CPI number that we see. In fact, if the Liberals were to take away the carbon tax scam, as Conservatives would do, it would dramatically bring down inflation, which means we could bring down interest rates.

This carbon tax scam is nothing but a Ponzi scheme under the Liberal government, supported by the NDP, because all they want to do is protect their leaders' pensions.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we heard my colleague talk about small business. As the former small business critic for the federal NDP, I know that the Conservatives were literally invisible during COVID-19.

They did not bring any new ideas to help protect workers or to help small businesses survive. The NDP brought ideas to work with the government and to make sure that we protected jobs. In addition, when it came to credit card merchant fees, we saw the big credit card companies raking over small businesses, but the Conservatives sat silent. It took years of the federal NDP putting pressure on the Liberal government to actually cap merchant fees so that we were in line with Australia and the European Union.

We are bringing forward ideas to deal with the labour market crisis, such as child care, dental care and pharmacare. We heard from small business that child care is critical to unlocking workers that need to participate in the workforce.

Why are the Conservatives blocking supports, such as child care, dental care and pharmacare, for small businesses?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if he had been an effective small business critic, he would still be in that role.

I will tell Canadians why he is not. It is because the NDP has propped up this corrupt, inept, incompetent government. In fact, the member talks about small businesses, but it is because of them that more small businesses are going insolvent and that there are more bankruptcies. The NDP helped jack up the carbon tax scam. That is not just for businesses; it is the workers of those small businesses—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. I know the hon. House leader for the NDP is way down at the end, but I am having trouble hearing the member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that they might be a little farther away after the next election, but that is okay. They can heckle me all they want.

Canadians know that workers were hurt the most by the Liberal-NDP government's woke, extremist, ideological thinking, which drove them into food banks more than ever before. However, they take pride in saying that they are somehow the saviours of this country. In fact, we just have to look at their record. Ever since the NDP has been propping the Liberals up, there has been more food bank usage, more bankruptcies and more insolvencies. Moreover, the workers they supposedly stand up for are impacted the most by their failed policies.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere pleasure to stand before the House in support of the budget implementation act, 2024, No. 1, which would implement many of our government's key priorities in budget 2024, entitled “Fairness For Every Generation.”

All children deserve a fair start in life, and I think we can all agree on that, yet nearly one in four kids in Canada lives in a household with too little income to buy enough to eat, impacting their health and their opportunities to learn and grow. That is just not right. Therefore, in budget 2024, we proposed a new national school food program that would help ensure children across Canada get the food they need to thrive, regardless of their family background.

The children of today are tomorrow's doctors, nurses, electricians, teachers, scientists and small business owners. By supporting them, we lay the groundwork for a brighter tomorrow. Therefore, I urge my hon. colleagues to pass Bill C-69 swiftly so we can get this program up and running and do right by Canada's kids.

We are proposing to invest $1 billion over five years into the national school food program, which will provide 400,000 more kids across the country every year with food in school. That is 400,000 more kids beyond those currently served by the patchwork of provincial, local and charitable programs that currently exist across Canada. By working together with provincial, territorial and indigenous partners, we will expand access to school food programs across the country as early as the 2024-25 school year, which is incredible.

For kids, this investment will mean not being hungry at school or missing crucial nutrients from their diet. That is important because studies show that students who consistently consumed a nutritious breakfast and lunch achieved higher grades in reading, math and science compared to their peers.

Meanwhile, for moms and dads, and caregivers across Canada, this investment will mean peace of mind knowing that their kids are eating healthy meals and are well looked after in school. Healthy and nutritious food for all our kids is an investment into the future. Parents will no longer have to decide on whether they purchase healthy and often more expensive alternatives or pay their rent on time.

Even with inflation easing significantly over the last year, specifically over the last four months, which has led to Canada to be the first country in the G7 to have its central bank cut rates, affordability pressures are still causing many more Canadian families to face food insecurity, which, frankly, should worry all of us. After all, food insecurity is strongly linked to poorer health outcomes, including higher rates of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure, but also higher rates of mental health issues like depression and anxiety. All of this puts a large burden on our already stressed health care system.

The national school food program will be a safety net for the parents who need this support the most, including first nations, Inuit and Métis families, many of which have some of the highest historic rates of food insecurity in Canada. Once up and running, it will save an average participating family with two children as much as $800 per year in grocery costs. That is extra money families can direct toward clothing, toys and books for their kids, as well as groceries and other essential goods.

Further to that point, evidence shows us that school meal programs do not just reduce health inequities for kids. They also promote sustainable food systems and practices, and create more jobs in both the food service and agriculture sectors, especially for women. This is feminist social policy in action, and it is smart economic policy too.

Speaking of that, something that should always be mentioned when we are talking about vulnerable kids and youth is that we have done a lot. That is why we have made generational investments into the Canada child benefit, which has helped lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty since its launch in 2016. About $91 million comes into my riding of Whitby on a yearly basis to support 14,000 families just in my riding alone.

This program provides families with up to nearly $8,000 per child per year to provide the essentials that kids need. That is why we are continuing to deliver an early learning and child care system across all provinces and territories, which has already cut fees for regulated child care to an average of $10 a day or less in eight provinces and territories, and by 50% or more in all others.

We are also improving access to dental health care for children under the age of 12 through the Canada dental benefit, and soon for children under 18 with the Canadian dental care plan, so that parents do not have to choose between taking care of their kids' teeth and putting food on the table.

To help younger Canadians get the mental health and addiction support right when and where they need it most, we are also launching a new $500-million youth mental health fund. My youth council was a group of young people who identified this issue a number of years ago and has advocated for more supports for youth mental health. Therefore, it is great to see this in the budget. This new fund will help community mental health organizations across the country provide more access to mental health care for younger Canadians right in their communities, so we can help more kids and youth live healthy, happy, supported and fulfilled lives. Canada's success depends on the success of younger generations.

The national school food program is at the top of our list. It is a generational investment to help families and make life more affordable across the country. Thanks to this crucial investment, we will be helping families by ensuring that kids do not spend the day at school hungry, and at the same time bringing peace of mind and relief to parents and caregivers. However, we cannot do it alone.

I hope my honourable colleagues will support Bill C-69 and join us in our vision of a Canada where every child and youth has enough food to eat to focus in school and reach their full potential.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way spoke about a lot of the government's programs and the big spending announcements that it has brought forward over the last few years, including in this budget. Unfortunately, it is the government's policies, its spending and programs that have led to the cost-of-living crisis we are seeing after nine years. Instead, could the member speak to when his party will finally listen to common-sense Conservatives and Canadians who are struggling, and listen to our plan to axe the tax and stop inflationary spending so we can help address this cost-of-living crisis that Canadian households are facing right across the country?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that the Conservatives have only slogans. They produce no solutions or offer any solutions of any kind for any of the issues that Canadians are facing today. Our government is busy putting forward solutions and implementation plans and making investments in Canadians. We know that we have to invest in people to create the kind of prosperity and country that we want.

Obviously, our country is going through the same inflationary crisis that the entire globe has been going through postpandemic, but we have fared much better than many other countries, and that is clear based on the statistics. We are the first country whose central bank has cut interest rates. We should all be very proud of that.

We can invest in Canadians and make life more affordable at the same time.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are accusing the Conservatives of not having a plan, but the Liberals' plan is to spend money in jurisdictions that are not its own, that they are not responsible for and that are the sole purview of Quebec and the provinces, by imposing conditions. Quebec has established social programs, child care, dental care, health insurance and housing solutions. The federal government is investing billions of dollars in our areas of jurisdiction. At the same time, it is not spending money on strengthening its own social programs, such as old age security, employment insurance and its immigration policies.

Does my colleague not think that his government's priority should be to invest in its own areas of jurisdiction?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Bloc Québécois regularly brings up interjurisdictional issues when it comes to the federal government making key investments to support Canadians. Whether they live in Quebec or any other province, all Canadians deserve investments in the kinds of supports they need to solve the affordable housing crisis, to create a stronger social safety net, to increase research and productivity and innovation in our economy. Why would Quebec not want to benefit from those key investments?

We, as a federal government, would not be carrying out our duties if we were not trying to work with Quebec and ensuring it gets the investments it needs as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are all hearing from constituents across Canada about the tremendous toll that the cost of living is taking as it continues to skyrocket.

One group, in particular, I am hearing from in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith are those living with disabilities. It is not enough for people living with disabilities to receive $200 a month. There was a glimmer of hope that people living with disabilities would finally be lifted out of poverty, that they would be consulted by the government in the way they deserve to be.

When will the Liberals finally consult with those living with disabilities? When will they ensure that people living with disabilities are no longer legislated into poverty?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since being elected in 2019, I have been an advocate for individuals with disabilities and have advocated for the Canada disability benefit from day one. I have been in touch with my constituents living with disabilities and I feel strongly about the $200 more per month, notwithstanding that provinces and territories have neglected to provide the supports necessary to individuals living with a disability. It is within their jurisdiction to do so, but, we, as a federal government, are stepping up yet again to supplement where provinces and territories happen to be failing Canadians. We are making the investments.

I do agree with the member that $200 is not going to lift all people living with disabilities out of poverty, but it is certainly a good start and it will bring provinces to the table, when we we can tell them that they should not be cutting back on any of the supports for individuals with disabilities, so in the future we can raise that amount and ensure we lift all people living with a disability out of poverty.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the Conservatives do not believe it is a good idea to invest in children. We are talking about a budget that would help feed young people who need food, fix teeth, invest in mental health and the most very basic form of child care, which is essential for strong families.

Why does the parliamentary secretary believe that investing in children is one of the best things this government can do?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, children are our future. I have young children. All of us with children certainly understand that they are the future of our country. We could make no better investment in the future generation than investing in children, whether it be food, dental care, pharmacare, child care, all the things that our government is doing to support families, so they can achieve and have a fair chance at success.