Debates of June 13th, 2024

Main Estimates 2024-25

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know that there is more work to do, but I want to underline that this is the first time in the history of Canada that a disability benefit has been introduced. I would like to say that we are the government that put that on the table, and we are the government that will continue to work with persons with disabilities to ensure that we are augmenting the supports across the board.

It is an issue I take very seriously, accessibility across the board, at the Treasury Board Secretariat. I know my colleagues in the House and across government will agree with me that we are standing behind the community of persons with disabilities.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the main estimates

One of the key components to our estimates process is to ensure that we have an open, transparent and accountable government. Canadians and the parliamentarians who represent them have a right to know how public funds are being spent so they can hold government to account. That is why, in addition to the estimates documents, reporting tools such as the GC InfoBase and the Open Government portal provide easily accessible and easy-to-understand information to Canadians about authorities approved by Parliament.

With respect to the specific numbers, I will begin with the highlights of the main estimates for 2024-25. This year's main estimates present a total of $191.6 billion in voted-on spending. Also presented are non-budgetary expenditures of $1.2 billion. Some significant investments included in these estimates are $28.8 billion for national defence, including support for Ukraine, and training and equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces; $20.9 billion for Indigenous Services for programs for indigenous communities and legal settlements; $8.4 billion for Global Affairs Canada to advance Canada's international relations; $8.4 billion for Health Canada, including funding to expand the Canadian dental care plan; and $5.6 billion for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for much-needed housing infrastructure.

All the funding in the main estimates allows the government to provide many different programs and services to Canadians and support other levels of government, organizations and individuals through transfer payments. The statutory spending in the estimates, which is the spending that has been approved in previous legislation, includes $81.1 billion in elderly benefits, $52.1 billion for the Canada health transfer, $25.3 billion for fiscal equalization, $16.9 billion for the Canada social transfer and $11.4 billion for the Canada carbon rebate.

I would now like to turn to the supplementary estimates (A). Overall, the estimates present a total of $12.7 billion in programs and supports for Canadians. Here are some of the highlights. First I would like to note that much of the new voted spending is requested by Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada for settlements with indigenous groups. As the Prime Minister has stated on several occasions, no relationship is more important to Canada than our relationship with indigenous peoples. This is why we are continuing to work collaboratively with indigenous peoples to honour treaty rights and resolve historical wrongs.

To that end, the supplementary estimates include $1.8 billion for agricultural benefits claims. These funds would support the negotiation and settlement of agricultural benefit claims related to Treaty Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 10, which are part of a series of 11 treaties made between the Crown and first nations from 1871 to 1921. There is also $1.5 billion for federal Indian day schools and Indian residential schools day scholars settlements. This will be used for compensation, administration costs and legal services relating to these two settlements.

There is $1 billion to replenish the specific claims settlement fund, based on anticipated payments for negotiated settlements and tribunal awards up to $150 million. The supplementary estimates also include $447.9 million to settle historical claims, and the federal government is committed to resolving legal challenges through respectful discussions and mediation. As such, it is in active discussions related to various legal challenges. The funding would ensure that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs is in a position to quickly implement negotiated settlements should agreements be reached.

Finally, there is $393.1 million for land-related claims and litigation, and another $303.6 million for a settlement providing compensation for individuals placed in federal Indian boarding homes.

There is new voted spending for the Department of Indigenous Services to improve the lives of indigenous peoples and create new opportunities in communities across the country. For example, there is $769.7 million for water and waste-water treatment. This includes the construction of new water and waste-water infrastructure on reserves, repairs and upgrades to existing systems, facility operations and maintenance, training of system operators, water monitoring and testing, and development of local governance capacity.

The Department of Indigenous Services is also requesting $633.5 million to improve services that preserve the ability of indigenous families to care for children in their communities, such as the availability of safe and adequate housing for children on reserve.

Let me also mention spending for immigration. Canada continues to bring people from other countries to safety and provide them with resettlement and settlement supports. As such, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is seeking funding for support and services for migrants. This includes $411.2 million for the interim federal health program, which provides limited temporary health care coverage to specific groups of foreign nationals, including asylum claimants and refugees who are not yet eligible for provincial or territorial health insurance. There is also $314.5 million for the interim housing assistance program, through which the government provides funding to provincial and municipal governments to address housing pressures resulting from increased volumes of asylum claimants.

As the House knows, a priority of the government is to also cut greenhouse gas emissions. To help meet our 2030 emissions reduction target and reach net zero by 2050, we are making it more affordable for Canadians to switch to zero-emission vehicles. Accordingly, the Department of Transport is requesting $604.9 million to provide purchase incentives of up to $5,000 for eligible zero-emission vehicles.

Another organization, the Department of Veterans Affairs, is requesting $471.4 million for compensation and administrative costs relating to settlement for veterans as part of the Manuge class action settlement.

I would also note that, of the planned voting, about $1.6 billion relates to the funding announced in budget 2024. This includes the already mentioned incentives for the zero-emission vehicle programs as well as the interim federal health program.

The voted funding already announced in the budget also includes $141.2 million for temporary accommodation and support services for asylum claimants, $121.3 million for the Inuit child first initiative and $100.5 million to advance indigenous children and family service laws.

I would also like to address the changes in the plan's statutory expenditures, which are shown for information purposes. Statutory budgetary expenditures are forecast to rise $1.5 billion, 0.6%, to a total of $259.1 billion.

Finally, there are statutory non-budgetary expenditures. These are forecast to rise, reflecting the additional allocation of $1.3 billion to the International Monetary Fund's Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust announced in September 2023.

To conclude, the funding for federal programs and services presented in the main estimates and supplementary estimates (A) demonstrates the government's actions to make life better for all Canadians. It shows that the government is responding to immediate needs while continuing to make long-term investments that benefit all of our citizens.

I would remind my hon. colleagues that we have a responsibility to authorize the spending on behalf of and for the benefit of Canadians, and I encourage everyone to support this.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am looking at the main estimates, and Public Safety is asking for $1.6 billion, yet when I look at its departmental results, it failed to achieve 54% of its goals for the year. Why should Canadians trust the Liberal government to continue such spending, $1.6 billion, when it is failing over 50% of the time?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I have said before, Conservative cuts have consequences. While we are investing in public safety to keep Canadians safe, Conservatives would actually cut programs, things like keeping our communities safe with investments in our guns and gangs programming and helping to support young people in their communities. Conservatives cut the budget for public safety and then stand up here and claim that they somehow would provide safer communities. Those cuts have consequences. What we are seeing is that our government investing to keep our communities safe.

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

Madam Speaker, we are talking about the government's budget, but what about indigenous people? We know very well that many communities do not even have water. Is there anything for that in the budget? Climate change is also a big problem. People in these communities are even experiencing food insecurity.

Seniors aged 65 to 74 have also been forgotten. Is there anything for them in the budget?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely a shame to see any community across this country without clean and safe drinking water. It is precisely why I outlined, in the main estimates, significant funding to help these communities not only to make the infrastructure investments, but also to make the investments in job training to ensure that members of the community can also be part of the continued work ongoing, to ensure that every community right across this country has access to safe and clean drinking water.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the record. If the member looks at the public accounts, she will see that the spending actually started to drop in 2015, as soon as the Liberal government took over. There were cuts to public safety and also to CBSA. As the member talked about safety in the community, I noticed one of the failures of the government was that it set a target of 5,200 police-reported crimes for 100,000 population, yet it actually ended up with 6,625. That was a 27% higher number of police-reported crimes than what the Liberals targeted. Why is the government failing to protect its citizens?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the contrary, Conservatives continually gutted our budgets, including budgets of CBSA, for example to inspect illegal guns and drugs coming into this country. We have made the right kinds of investments to support communities. Conservatives like to cherry-pick numbers without looking at the overall record, and theirs was an abysmal failure. We are making those investments back to keep our communities safe.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I want to thank the member for speaking so much to indigenous issues and expenditures for Indigenous Services. Unfortunately, as the member knows, because there has been underinvestment for decades, including in this budget, with upwards of a $425-billion infrastructure gap, these expenses that we are going to see are only going to address 1% of the infrastructure needs for indigenous peoples. If the Prime Minister does say that there is no relationship more important than that with the first nations, Inuit and Métis, why has the Liberal government spent so little to improve indigenous people's lives?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that there have been decades of underinvestment in our indigenous communities, and it is something that we must continue to invest in and support. We will continue to make those investments. We are going to make sure that we are doing it with each community, making sure that we get this right, and we are committed to doing so.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is the evening when we vote on the estimates, and they are estimates, in fact, because we really never know how much the government is going to spend, so we really can only estimate. Today proves to be no different.

This is the result of two things. First, there is the complete out-of-control spending by the Liberal government. We have seen it since 2015, but it has increased rapidly since 2020, and now it is just completely out of control. The second thing, as a result of this out-of-control spending, is that the government makes Canadians pay for its incompetence and for its moral disregard, time and time again. This has three negative effects on the nation. It taxes generational wealth. It taxes the middle class. It destroys productivity.

Let us take a quick look at the numbers to justify what I am saying. We have a current deficit of $39.8 billion. In the beginning, I used to have to double-check myself to see if I was supposed to be saying “million”. Now, I feel very confident in saying billion because it is, in fact, $39.8 billion. There is new spending of $52.9 billion, which is a huge number. There are debt servicing costs of $54.1 billion and additional debt servicing costs of $1.9 billion. That was a surprise I raised at the government operations committee to the President of the Treasury Board, which I think I would notice an anomaly like that on my credit card, were that the case.

The government claims to have refocused $15.4 billion of spending. That was the government's initiative, but that initiative is 3.5 times less than the actual amount of new spending. There is quite a differentiation between the two. We see here a government that just has an absolute spending problem.

In fact, it was reported in The Globe and Mail, in an article I have. It states, “the government does not have a revenue problem. Annual federal revenue is increasing and has grown (nominally) more than $185-billion (or 66.2 per cent) from 2014-15 to 2023-24.

“Before tabling the budget in April, the government was already anticipating annual revenue to increase by more than $27-billion this year. But the government has chosen to spend every dime it takes in (and then some) instead of being disciplined.

“Years of unrestrained spending and borrowing have led to a precarious fiscal situation in Ottawa.”

The government “largely chose” to continue spending, and “clearly raising taxes to generate revenue was unnecessary and could have been avoided with more disciplined spending.” It was unnecessary.

Next, I would like to provide some examples of that wasteful spending. There was the $169.5 million sole-sourced contract for ventilators purchased at $220,000 each, that have now been sold for $6 apiece for scrap. That is the first example. The second example is Parks Canada spending $12 million on culling deer in British Columbia, a job my caucus colleagues say that Canadian hunters would have done for free. The Auditor General identified at least $32 billion in overpayments and suspicious payments by ESDC, which is not a surprise at all with the current government.

In March, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, someone the government likes to gag, released a report, warning that the Prime Minister's government spending plans remained out of control. The amount that taxpayers spend just to service the national debt is expected to go up 33.4% in 2024 and 11.6% in 2025. That means the amount we pay just to cover the interest on the national debt will rise from $35 billion to $46.7 billion in 2024 and to $52.1 billion in 2025.

It is important to put those figures in perspective because those debt payments offer no services and rob precious dollars from services that the government likes to brag about. The debt payments will be double the amount we will spend on the military. When I make reference to these amounts, they are not small amounts that I am referring to.

I will now turn to the second part, which is the pain that the government inflicts upon its citizens in an effort to compensate for its spending problem. This is out of incompetence and a lack of moral guidance.

The first example I will give is from an article in The Globe and Mail. It states, “50 per cent of taxpayers who claim more than $250,000 [worth] of capital gains in a year earned less than $117,592 in normal annual income from 2011 to 2021.... Contrary to the government's claims, the capital gains tax...will [actually] affect 4.74 million investors in [different] Canadian companies.”

This also means, as I said, regarding the productivity, as it says in the article, “that potential entrepreneurs or investors are more likely to take their ideas and money elsewhere, and Canadians will continue to suffer the consequences of a stagnating economy.”

On the carbon tax, just this week Canadians discovered that, for years, the Prime Minister has been hiding the fact that the carbon tax will cost Canadians $30.5 billion by 2030 and that this works out to $1,824 per family in extra annual costs.

As well, I will be splitting my time with the wonderful member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, an individual I like and enjoy very much.

I will continue with my examples. CTV News wrote that Joseph Steinberg, an associate professor with the University of Toronto's economic department, said, “I don't think that this...policy is likely to be successful”. He also said, “Given what my research into policies on raising taxes on the wealthy has found...since we don't enforce any rules against tax avoidance and tax evasion, these kinds of policies are really unlikely to raise much, if any, in the way of tax revenues.” This is not surprising given the ESDC fraud I mentioned moments ago.

The CTV news article went on to say, “The Canada Revenue Agency estimates Canada loses nearly $3 billion a year in offshore investing, which is close to how much the government projects to bring in each year with the changes.”

In addition, economist Jack Mintz estimated that “1.25 million individuals—not just 44,000—will make a capital gain greater than $250,000 at some time in their taxpaying life”, not just this year alone. He states, “Many of these people will have relatively modest incomes and only earn extraordinary capital gains at retirement or death.”

The official opposition shares these stories every day, during question period and in our interventions, in the House of Commons.

Jack Mintz says, “How many Canadian investors would be affected by higher capital gains taxes at both the personal and corporate level? In 2021, 4.74 million tax filers (15.7 per cent).... Of those, 69 per cent—3.29 million—had incomes below $100,000.”

They are the middle class. He goes on to say, “The increase in corporate capital gains tax is going to hurt many Canadians investors with middle or modest incomes.”

The Globe and Mail states, “the Liberal plan to raise the taxable portion of capital gains over $250,000 for individuals, and of all capital gains for corporations in most trusts, is not the end result of a careful examination of tax policy, but of the Liberals' need to raise billions of dollars to plug a hole in their latest budget.” The government is always reactive.

The article goes on to say, “The increase to the capital-gains inclusion rate will take place [right] when Canada's lagging productivity needs a boost. Higher taxes on investment will be a drag on the economy and could harm our diminishing prosperity.”

The government has had years in office to address the issues dominating Canadian politics today, such as housing costs, affordability and, yes, the income gap, which has grown steadily since 2015, yet it has failed to address these.

The Financial Post has a headline I love, which reads, “Liberals playing with inclusion rates is divisive policy at its worst”. The article states, “the government ignored almost every single recommendation made about the proposals by very qualified people and great organizations. The Joint Committee on Taxation of the Canadian Bar Association and CPA Canada made some excellent technical recommendations [that were ignored].”

Thomas Sowell is quoted in the article as saying, “The real goal should be reduced government spending, rather than balanced budgets achieved by ever-rising tax rates to cover [increasing] spending.”

As I come to the last 30 seconds of my speech, I would just like to reiterate what I said at the beginning. The current government has a significant spending problem, which is evident by the numbers I have put here today. It does not responsibly address it through lowering its spending and through not having unethical overspending like we see with the arrive scam and the green slush fund; rather, the government enforces this on Canadians. It makes them pay for its incompetence and for its moral disregard through tools like the carbon tax and the capital gains tax. This has to stop. Tonight in the estimates, though, we are not going to—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, in part of the estimates, we have included funding for the Canada dental care plan. Would the member opposite tell Canadians tonight that this is a program she would recommend we cut and that seniors who need dental care should not have access to that?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is very sad that the government continues to point to failed programs. I have said time and time again that the government takes so much from Canadians and gives back little crumbs with the hope of keeping Canadians dependent. The capital gains tax is just another example of that. If the government had its way, Canadians would be dependent on it forever.

Conservatives believe in Canadians. We will fix the budget and right the deficit and the debt.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear my colleague speak.

The Conservatives pride themselves on being the party of common sense. Something in the supplementary estimates does not make sense. I am referring to a $3‑million increase for something that had already been allocated $22 million. Ottawa is investing an additional $3 million in little medals to be awarded in connection with the coronation of King Charles III following the death of Queen Elizabeth II.

More than 70% of Quebeckers oppose the monarchy. It is an archaic symbol and an undemocratic institution. I would like my colleague to tell me whether her common-sense party is for or against the monarchy.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not going to talk about the monarchy, but I am going to talk about common sense. A Conservative government will have something for all Canadians, including Quebeckers.

Common sense does not just apply to the budget or to just one province. It applies to all of the provinces, including Quebec. Common sense is for all Canadians.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, in the main estimates, there is over $46 billion just in interest payments on the debt of the government. Could the member explain some of the things that Canadians could use that $46 billion for instead of paying off wealthy bankers?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, what could Canadians not use this $46 billion for? They could use it to put groceries on the table, to put gas in their vehicles and to keep their homes warm. They could use it to buy homes if there were a better supply of habitations in this country at this time.

I think the point my wonderful colleague from Edmonton West is making is that the government has unnecessarily spent not only this generation but following generations into complete debt and despair. The estimates that we will be voting on this evening are another example of that.

I wish I could offer a brighter outlook to my colleague from Edmonton West, but I see gloom and doom ahead until a Conservative government is elected.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives say they stand with Ukraine. In the main estimates, there is funding to help support and train Ukraine. Will they finally stand and vote to support Ukraine?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is a Conservative caucus, an opposition and a government in waiting that supports democracies around the world. I was very proud to testify in front of the member at the procedure and House affairs committee today, where her government, frankly, once again let parliamentarians from all parties down by not reporting the cyber-attack.

My point is that Conservatives support democracies around the world, such as in Taiwan. We support those who have been oppressed in Cuba or in South Korea. This also includes Ukraine. The first step the government could take is protecting us from those who not only try to intimidate—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to start this conversation with a quote from Margaret Thatcher. Of course, the honourable and fabulous Margaret Thatcher said that the problem with socialism is that one eventually “run[s] out of other people's money.”

We have hit that point. I think it is official. The government has hit rock bottom. However, it will find a way, just as it has done with ethics scandals, to find a level even below rock bottom.

Let us take a look at the facts right now. When we look at the way to balance a budget or to bring a fiscal house in order, a government has three levers. One is economic growth. The more an economy grows, the more production there is, and the more there is to tax. That brings us to the next one, which is revenue. The more revenue there is, the more money is coming in. The higher the taxes are, the more revenue is coming in. The third part is expenditures. We have seen, of course, that this is the money going out the door. We have growth. We have the money coming in the door and going out the door. Let us take a systematic approach. We will start with government expenditures.

The reality is that no government has ever spent anywhere near the amount of money the government will be spending this year and what it has forecast in its main estimates. The main estimates present a spending of a total of $449.2 billion; $191.6 billion is to be voted on, and $257.6 billion is statutory.

We can take that and look at where we were at the end of 2015, when we were spending about $250 billion. This is nearly a doubling of government expenditures in less than 10 years. That is truly a shocking number. The reality is that this could actually be affordable, potentially, if we had the economic growth to back it up. However, as we will see in a moment, we do not. The reality is that more Canadians are paying more money. Nine out of 10 in the middle class are paying more. We have seen, right from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that the carbon tax is costing the majority of Canadians money. We saw, actually, just from their own secret report, because of the pushing and prodding of one of my colleagues at finance committee, they admitted that $30 billion in additional funds is coming out of Canadians' pockets just in the form of indirect costs of the carbon tax alone.

We have seen that the spending just keeps going. The question we will often hear from the other side of the aisle is this: What would Conservatives change?

Here are a couple of things that I will just rattle off: $250 million to the Asian infrastructure bank, $76 million of funding awarded in the green slush fund to brazen conflicts of interest, $12 million in ineligible contracts, $50 million to Mastercard and $12 million to Loblaws for fridges. It just goes on, with $200 million to McKinsey and millions of dollars being wasted by the government. It is truly just a firehose of spending going anywhere and everywhere. We have seen the expenditures increase and increase.

Before we talk about the increase in taxes, let us talk a bit about economic growth. The reality is that, if an economy is thriving and doing well, it will benefit everyone, depending on how the wealth gets split up. There are arguments to be had, and those are arguments that are valuable and should be had. If, however, there is no revenue coming in, there is no revenue to redistribute. Often, in worse economic times, the ones who suffer the most are the most vulnerable.

Let us look at the government's economic record. Since 2015, we are looking at a nearly flat or a zero growth in GDP per capita. GDP per capita can really be used interchangeably with incomes, because it is a measure of how much every Canadian's economic livelihood is increasing on average. We have had almost no growth when it comes to Canadians.

We have also seen record numbers of children now falling into poverty and people going to the food banks, including record numbers of children. We have an economy that is stalled. We have a lost decade here in Canada.

It is not just me saying what I am going to say. Members can look to John Manley, former Liberal finance minister; Bill Morneau, former Liberal finance minister; and David Dodge, current Liberal and former governor of the Bank of Canada. These individuals are all saying the same thing: Canada needs to focus more on growth. We need to have our economy grow because, of course, this will help our citizens, and it will also help secure our government. More economic growth means the government can collect more and do more to protect health care and other important social safety nets. Just to sum up, we have actually had record revenue because the current government is obsessed with increasing taxes and increasing the burden on middle-class Canadians. Nine out of 10 people pay more.

Of course, the Liberals' most recent cash grab is the capital gains tax. They create the fabrication that it will only affect the ultrarich. Nothing could be further from the truth. LiUNA, a union, recently came out opposing it because its members realize it. Physicians, electricians and mechanics realize it. Canadians who are taking the steps to secure their retirement through a secondary rental property realize it. Parents who are buying a secondary house to invest in their children, because the children cannot afford a house anymore, realize it. This is a cash grab. It is true that there is a limited portion of the population that will realize it in a given year; however, the reality is that although only 1% of Canadians will die in a year, 100% of us will eventually die. Much the same logic applies to capital gains.

We have seen the government increase the tax burden on the middle class to pay for the McKinseys and, perhaps worst of all, to pay $54 billion in interest, which goes to wealthy bankers and bondholders. The government is literally robbing the middle class, endangering our most vulnerable in order to help its Liberal-insider buddies. That is the Liberals' story on taxation. We have seen what happened to spending, and the Liberals' growth is equally as bad.

What is the result of this? People at the Fraser Institute said that we are in the worst decline in the standard of living in the last 40 years. I am thankful for the Fraser Institute's work, but simply talking to our neighbours and to our constituents will reveal the same thing. It was almost taken as a given, when I was growing up, that we would do better than our parents and that my kids would do better than I did. This was just a reality that was going to happen. Unfortunately, we have seen that reality disappear in front of our very eyes. At this point, to be able to afford a house is beyond the aspirations of many Canadians and many young folks, who are just struggling to barely get by.

We are in a place where there are encampments from coast to coast to coast. There are dumpster-diving communities, who need to get food out of garbage cans. Workers are living out of their cars. Students are living underneath bridges. This is not right, and we can quote all the empirical numbers we want, but all we really need to do is go out there and talk to our constituents, and we will hear just the same. I am sure, whether Conservative, Liberal or NDP, we are all hearing the same thing.

As I noted when I started my speech, Margaret Thatcher once very wisely said that the problem with socialism is that one eventually “run[s] out of other people's money.” With a debt of over $1.3 trillion, with interest payments of over $54 billion and with a government incapable of doing the most basic of services, such as delivering passports, we have hit rock bottom. I do not want to see what is next in the current Liberal government.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the most vulnerable, yet he and his party have voted against dental care for the most vulnerable and child care for families across this country. They voted against the school food program and the Canada child benefit. Canadians who could use investments and supports are the ones the Conservatives vote against. Who do they stand up for? It is the wealthiest in this country, fewer than 1%, whom they are speaking up for, saying that they should pay lower taxes than someone such as a nurse. If the member cares about the most vulnerable in this country, why do the Conservatives vote against measures to support Canadians while protecting their wealthy friends at every turn?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could go into a policy debate, but the reality is that while the government has been in power for the last nine years, there are 55% more children in poverty. There are 0% GDP rates. People cannot afford houses and they cannot afford food, and there is a child care program that does not deliver child care. The Liberals have a food program that does not deliver food. They only know how to deliver for Liberal insiders.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, speaking of people who need help, my colleague just mentioned families. However, another group that needs help is seniors, and something that they are calling for is the passage of Bill C-319, which his party supported both in the House and in committee.

There are people who need extra help, and that includes seniors. Of course, families need help, but seniors are also asking to be treated fairly. The government decided to only increase the pensions of seniors aged 75 and up, but financial insecurity does not wait for people to turn 75. Seniors are asking for a little more old age security income.

Does my colleague still support this bill, as his party has from the start?