Debates of June 13th, 2024

Main Estimates 2024-25

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

Madam Speaker, I have absolute agreement with the member on the fact that seniors are not doing well. They suffer the most when we have high rates of inflation. As my colleagues across the way pointed out, the reality is that the rate of inflation has increased, but all the costs in that high inflation are still baked in, and other programs have not kept up with that.

The best thing we can do for seniors is to make sure that we have a tight monetary policy to keep inflation under control so that their expenses do not get out of control. We need to bring down housing costs for seniors. We need to look at every possible solution to help those who built this great country.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague says we need to do everything possible to help people with affordability. The NDP has fought for the grocery rebate, fought for dental care and fought for pharmacare, which, for people with diabetes, can cost $1,000 a month. We have fought for affordable housing.

Unfortunately, Conservatives blocked every single one of those bills that the NDP brought forward when we were pushing the government to do the right thing for people. I am a bit surprised. Conservatives are saying on the one hand that we have to use all these tools, and on the other hand they are blocking all the tools that help people.

Why will Conservatives not join with the NDP and make sure that people are being taken care of? Thousands of people have benefited, in Conservative ridings, from the dental care program. Why does the member not support these important initiatives?

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

Madam Speaker, the reality is that history has proven over the last 100 years that socialism fails every time it is tried. We see it here in Canada. We see people going to food banks in record numbers. We see children in record levels of poverty. Canadians have never been poorer. They cannot afford a house. They cannot afford food.

What will it take for the member to realize that socialism has failed?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague bookended his speech with a truism quote from Margaret Thatcher. I have been wrestling with another quote, one that comes from Napoleon Bonaparte, who said we should never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be attributed to incompetence.

I wrestle with this. On the one hand, we have all of the spending scandals, the corruption and the crime that the government has inflicted upon the budgets and our economy. On the other hand, we see, through the capital gains measures it has proposed, the incompetence of that piece of legislation.

Could my hon. colleague comment on whether this is competence, incompetence, conspiracy, corruption or any other C he can think of?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the tough but fair question.

I can confirm that the government is both corrupt and incompetent.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my distinguished colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. That is unfortunate though, because I have so much to say.

I am going to break free from the populist, accusatory cycle where each person accuses another of having done this or that. I am going to offer some actual substance. In the last few minutes, people have been talking about the cost of groceries. That is what I am going to talk about. I am going to talk about feeding the people. I am going to talk about agriculture and agri-food.

Of course, there are a number of things missing from the government's budget. My colleague referred to seniors and old age security, which the government stubbornly refuses to increase starting at the age of 65, even though people need it. The government could consider making unconditional health transfers to the provinces, rather than inventing new pan-Canadian programs, claiming that it has the knowledge and is going to tell the provinces what to do. It is introducing a new program that will be added on top of what Quebec is already doing. What is more, in their emotional speeches, they have the nerve to tell us that they are inspired by Quebec, which is ahead of the rest of Canada on the social front. I have a confession to make: We are not just ahead of the game socially; we are ahead in a lot of areas.

I would like to see a federal government that looks after its responsibilities, that has the ability to issue passports on time and get work permits to our temporary foreign workers. These workers end up in a very vulnerable situation when their one and only employer, who was expected to employ them for a year or three, lays them off after three months. They are left with nothing. Our federal government is not competent enough to issue work permits in a timely manner. The government recently made a commitment to issue permits within 30 days. I look forward to that. I want to believe it. These temporary foreign workers have no choice but to work illegally, so they are exploited. That makes no sense. We do not have to put up with that in a G7 country. It is terrible.

Shoreline erosion is another issue that I work on a lot in my riding. We ask for funds but get none, even though the issue is caused by shipping on the St. Lawrence, which makes it a federal responsibility.

A while ago, I spoke with the President of the Treasury Board about defence. Canada is a junior member of NATO, yet it is still not investing the necessary funds, despite the current climate of uncertainty. Why?

I just mentioned all those things, and now I will get into my speech. This speech is for the folks at home. It is for people who live in Quebec City, Montreal, Rimouski, Saint‑Félix‑de‑Valois, Louiseville, Trois‑Rivières and everywhere else in Quebec. It is for folks in Laval who are tuning in, sitting in front of the television in their basement. It is for Hugues and his son, Noah, who are watching us and wondering if we are going to help them and make sure grocery prices go down. Let us be serious. What I am seeing in the government's measures is that Canada is still spending less than 1% on support for agriculture and agri-food. I think that is totally ridiculous. I think the government needs to wake up and put some money into that.

I want to talk about that and address the people at home because I also want to draw their attention to the fact that most people take the agriculture and agri-food sectors for granted. This week, there was a press conference with produce growers, strawberry and raspberry producers, berry producers. They came to explain to the Minister of Agriculture why he urgently needs to launch the AgriRecovery initiative that he never seems to get around to launching. We keep being told that the officials are doing the math. I would like them to work overtime because this aid has to go out. It is needed. For almost a year now, our farmers have been asking for an emergency fund, for support to help them cope with interest rates. The Government of Quebec took action. Announcements were confirmed. However, that is not enough. Let us not forget that half of our money is here in Ottawa and that agriculture is a shared jurisdiction. Talks should start without delay.

We have been talking all day about a government that was forced to release a document because this motion was about to be moved and everyone knew it was going to be adopted. That is why the government released the document, but if there had not been a motion, it would not have done so. This government is always like that.

I wish it would not wait for food shortages before taking action. It made a strange decision recently in the agri-food and agriculture sector, one that is highly open to criticism. A decision was made to reduce the percentage of foreign workers in processing plants from 30% to 20%. Someone will say that it was just a pilot project to see what would happen. All right, but we know that we need these individuals. There are not a lot of people. Only 7% of the population has even the slightest interest in agriculture and agri-food, especially processing plants, but people need to eat. We need these workers. Our industries are in jeopardy because of a serious labour shortage.

There are measures for skilled trades, of course, but the government should think more carefully before taking such action, especially since we have heard a rumour that it is thinking of reducing that number to 10%. Good luck with that. Let us be serious. These are key sectors. When will there be an investment fund, an incentive for businesses to modernize their facilities without going deep into debt and putting themselves at risk in the coming years?

Unfortunately, we saw an example of that in recent weeks with Saladexpress, which just closed. The company renovated its plant two years ago, but because of supply chain issues, inflation and problems with imports, it had to close its doors because it was so far in debt. The government needs to be there.

Various studies by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food show that there are gaps when it comes to infrastructure investments. The government needs to do more to help our farmers and to recognize what they are doing. For years, I have been pushing the idea of providing financial compensation for positive environmental actions, because when farmers protect waterways, everyone benefits. That is taking a long time to get off the ground.

The whole day has been spent talking about taxation and more negative impacts, so to speak. Can something positive also happen? I think we have to trust the people on the ground, the people who are going to innovate the first chance they get. We just need to give them the space to do it.

I want to talk about risk management programs. We asked for an emergency program to help farmers, but nothing has happened. It has been seven months since the Quebec government asked for this program, which is supposed to come to the rescue when no other program has worked. It is called AgriRecovery. Farmers have been asking for it for a year, but it has not been offered yet. We need something faster than that. We need something responsive.

Speaking of responsiveness—I have talked to the minister about this so much that I am probably nagging him—I would invite the government members to sit down with industry representatives and immediately start thinking about how we as a society are going to share the risks collectively for farmers.

The sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership will end in 2028, but the government should not wait until 2027 to start working on this. Let us not forget that the previous negotiations were held up for months because some provinces did not want to participate.

It might also be time to start accepting the fact that one-size-fits-all measures for all of Canada do not make sense. We do not all have the same climate or the same soil. We are not all the same size. Adaptation is necessary, and that means decentralizing decisions. Again, I know the good old centralizing government will not like what I am about to say, but it will have to agree to transfer funds and accept that people on the ground are best equipped to make decisions.

Eating and drinking is not optional. No matter what people do with their lives, they all eat and drink every day. Let us remember that and respect the people who get up early in the morning and go to bed late at night because they feed our people.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank and congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech and his comments that are always appropriate. We sit together at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and I realized that he shared my view on this budget: There is almost nothing in it for agriculture. If we want people to be fed, we might want to take care of that.

Bill C‑234 came back to the House because it was amended. In fact, it was gutted of all substance by the Senate. My colleague from Foothills proposed an amendment to restore the bill to its original form. I would like to know if my colleague would be in favour of the amendment proposed by my colleague from Foothills for Bill C‑234 to revert to its original form. We must not forget that heating buildings is just as important as drying grain.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that he should mention that, because I raised it earlier in the day. I do not know if he heard my speech.

What I would like to say is that we have two choices. We have a bill that has been amended by the Senate. We can choose to accept the amendments and immediately give our grain producers a win, since they would be able to get the exemption this fall, and then do something different for the rest of the buildings. I hope that my colleague understands that this bill has never applied to Quebec since we first started debating it. In supporting this bill, the Bloc Québécois was simply making an effort to do the right thing.

The message I would like to send to members of the Conservative Party is that they should stop getting speakers to fill up the entire hour of debate. We know where everyone stands now. We could move on to a vote and score a victory for people for the fall, but the Conservatives would rather score political points on the backs of the farmers they claim to defend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my colleague. There is one thing I am a little confused about, though, and that is the Bloc Québécois's position on the pharmacare program that the NDP has put forward here in the House.

This bill will of course require additional spending. The reality is that there is a broad coalition of nearly two million Quebeckers affiliated with the major unions, including health care professionals, the Union des consommateurs and others, who are calling on all members from Quebec to vote in favour of this NDP bill to implement the pharmacare program, which will cover diabetes medication and contraception to begin with.

However, the Bloc Québécois members voted against it. A broad coalition is calling for members to support this bill, so I do not understand why the Bloc Québécois members, who should of course listen to Quebeckers, are saying no. Could my colleague explain why they voted against the interests of Quebeckers?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I see some impatience to answer the question, but I want to let the member know that this question was the same length as the previous one.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was impatient because I was so excited to answer. What a great question. I am certainly getting spoiled this evening.

We are not against pharmacare. Let us ask these union representatives the question and give them the choice. Let us tell them this: The federal government is increasing health transfers and we can put more money into our Quebec pharmacare program, which has been around for many years and which should serve as a model and inspiration for Canada, instead of having Canada come in once again to crush our system with its pan-Canadian version.

That is exactly what I was talking about at the beginning of my speech. The NDP did not run for politics in the right Parliament. I would invite them to read the famous contract that they signed behind our backs one night in 1982. Ironically enough, the Bloc Québécois is the only one that abides by that contract because we have no other choice. We respect the institutions. We came here to defend our people and we are stuck with a contract that was forced upon us. However, it seems as though we are the only ones who have read it.

Health care falls to Quebec and the provinces. Give us our money. We have a program. What I find most shocking about all this is that we have a public system in Quebec and now they want to replace it with a private company that is going to line its own pockets. It was the same thing with ArriveCAN and all the goddamn Liberal scandals that have come to light since this government came to power.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Before we resume debate, I know that people are very passionate in the House, but I ask members to be very careful about the language they use here.

The hon. member for Rimouski‑Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals never stop asking us for more money. They always want more, more, more. We can agree on some things, but they have to be good and serve the needs of the people. It should not just be more money to buy a new pipeline. Oil and gas companies are already making billions of dollars in profits. They can buy their own pipelines.

I would like to remind those tuning in about something very important. The largest infrastructure project in Canadian history is not designed to support health or education. No, it is a pipe for producing more oil for export to foreign markets. Canada, this great big, beautiful country, is an oil monarchy.

Now, let me get back to the matter at hand. Before proposing further additional spending every three months, I would encourage this government to think about whether it needs to spend money on things that could be described as unnecessary or low priority. I am talking about spending that is not really in step with the needs and necessities brought on by the kinds of crises facing people in this country.

We know that the supplementary estimates provide an overview of spending requirements that were not necessarily fleshed out when the main estimates were prepared, or that were clarified after the main estimates were tabled to take into account any changes that had occurred in certain programs and services. Either the Liberals planned their budget poorly with their colleagues, or they see us as cash cows and think we will pass all their future budgets, or else they are negotiating a little agreement on the back of a napkin to make sure that their government survives. I think the last option is the most likely scenario.

These estimates present $12.7 billion in additional spending, raising budgetary expenditures for the year 2024-25 from $449 billion to over $461 billion. Voted budgetary spending will increase by $11.2 billion, or 5.8%, to $202.8 billion in voted appropriations alone. This does not include statutory expenditures.

Those include a $1.9‑billion increase in public debt charges, primarily due to higher projected interest rates and higher borrowing requirements, broken down as follows: a $764‑million increase in interest on unmatured debt and $1.1 billion in other interest costs.

It is a crazy amount of debt that exploded under this government. Why does the government continue to propose costly public policies in areas that do not even fall under its responsibility? The federal government is incapable of providing good, effective public services, with programs in areas under its own responsibility. Nevertheless, it keeps funding projects that contribute to global warming. Again, Trans Mountain cost $34 billion. The goal is to extract more oil and help oil and gas companies that do not need help because they are billionaires.

Let us get into a detailed breakdown of these supplementary estimates. Basically, we can say that we agree with the way 80% of this roughly $11 billion will used, because it will go toward providing first nations, among others, with better health services, social services and better access to drinking water. Yes, I did indeed say drinking water. It is 2024, and Canada, an industrialized country that is part of the G7 and that has the largest reserve of drinking water in the world, is still incapable of providing people living on Canadian soil with drinking water. That is shameful.

In contrast, we strongly criticize allocating $22 million for national honours to mark the transition of the Crown in Canada. Some people might think that there is a lot of support for the monarchy. However, over 70% of Quebeckers are against the monarchy. This government, which supports an archaic and undemocratic institution, is asking for an additional $3 million in funding to give out little crowns and medals bearing the image of a king. Apparently, a top priority for this government is handing out little medals adorned with the effigy of someone who does not even live here and who was not democratically elected.

This country is not serious. It is completely out of touch with reality. I do not want Quebeckers to have to pay out of their own pockets for things that have very little impact on their reality and that are low on their list of priorities. I would like to remind the House that over 70% of Quebeckers think it is time to reconsider our ties with the monarchy and that the Quebec National Assembly has already ended the requirement to take an oath to the King. As we know, Canada and Quebec are two very different nations and will eventually be two very different countries.

My Conservative colleagues say that they support common sense, but they are all about the monarchy. Members will recall that the former Harper government even renamed Her Majesty's ships. These people's offices are full of monarchy memorabilia: framed pictures, posters, calendars, playing cards. Here is some common sense: $25 million supported by the Liberal and Conservative parties. The NDP has the word “democratic” in its party name. However, we do not hear the NDP members speaking out against the monarchy. I am wondering why they are supporting an additional $3 million for medals. I guess that is also a priority for the NDP.

On top of all that, there is an additional $66.8 billion that was not included in the estimates. That, along with other adjustments, bring total federal budget spending to $534.6 billion. I would like to highlight some increases that seem significant. At least, that is what the government says.

Let us talk about science and evidence. Some parties are thought to be more or less supportive of science. Others say science is important, but apparently only when it suits them. Let me give the facts. There is $8 million for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and $400,000 for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, which is not insignificant. However, these are small amounts. It is one step closer to the promise made by this government in light of a report tabled by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research about the Government of Canada's graduate scholarship and post-doctoral fellowship programs in particular.

Is everybody sitting down? Twenty years is how long it has been since the federal government increased graduate scholarships by a single penny. We are not talking about painting walls in schools. For 20 years, students with the highest potential have been told that not one more penny is available for them. Science certainly must be a priority if scientists and future researchers could not get a penny more for 20 years. Despite it all, these two parties tell us that science and evidence are important. What a joke. When something is a priority, increasing financial support for it does not take 20 years. That is not what got them moving, despite all the pressure. However, historic progress has been made thanks to the work of the Bloc Québécois and my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Science and Research. We finally managed to increase the indexation of graduate scholarships.

I would say in closing that there are some positives, if we look for them. The good things that will be improved also need to be acknowledged. Canada has been lagging way behind on research investment for the past 20 years. It was at the back of the pack in the G7 on investment as a share of GDP. The consequences are serious, particularly for graduation rates at the graduate level, but also for the students, the researchers who want to stay here in Canada. The proof is that Canada is the only G7 country to have lost researchers since 2016.

There are certainly things we can accept in the supplementary estimates. There are other things that are not considered a priority. It is clear, once again, that the priorities are not always part of the current government's reality.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate. Perhaps it is the late hour, but I find that the Conservatives, as well as the Bloc Québécois, are resorting to slogans and easy solutions. They are overlooking certain realities to convey a simplistic message.

It is true that the federal debt is much higher than it was before the pandemic. Relative to GDP, the federal debt is still at a decent level compared to other G7 and G20 countries. The debt is quite high because of the expenses incurred during the pandemic, but also because of certain expenses that Quebeckers really appreciate. I am talking about dental care. The federal government sent money to the provinces, including Quebec, for child care. We know that—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I invite the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis to ask his question.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague oppose the fact that the federal government made these expenditures during the pandemic? Does he oppose the money transferred to Quebec for child care?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not late for me. I am wide awake and alert, even without coffee.

I will answer my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis's very simple and easy questions. He did not mention that Quebec has had its own child care program for 25 years. We did not wait for the federal government to give us money to do that. Now, he is waking up 25 years later and thinks this is important. If it were so important, why did the federal government not invest any money in this area over the past 25 years?

My colleague is talking about a dental care program. He is leaving himself wide open again. The Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec already provides a dental care program. Yes, it could be improved. However, it has already been around for over 10 years. We did not wait for the federal government to implement that program. We could also talk about the pharmacare program. My colleague did not mention it, but Quebec has had a pharmacare program for 30 years.

If my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis wants to convince me, then he will have to prove to me that the Canadian government can do things that the Quebec government cannot.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy working with my colleague, but I do not understand the Bloc Québécois at all.

The NDP forced the government to bring in a dental care program. Quebec is where the program is the most popular. The vast majority of dentists who joined this program are located in Quebec. In Canada, the largest group of people already using these dental care services are Quebeckers. The new program has only been operating for a few weeks, but it is popular. Tens of thousands of Quebeckers have already received dental care through the program.

Why does the Bloc Québécois oppose a program that Quebeckers want?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to answer my colleague's questions.

The New Democratic Party says it is democratic, but it defends the privatization of certain programs and approved a dental care program that is run by a private company, Sun Life. That was done with the support of the NDP.

In the meantime, what we in the Bloc Québécois are asking for is not to not help the people who need supplementary dental care. We already have a program for that. The Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec runs that program. What we are asking for is to have our money to run our own program. We are not saying that it is not good to do this, but we want jurisdictions to be respected. Care, social services and health fall under the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. It is easy to understand. My colleague should understand that. A Constitution is something that is supposed to be democratic. I would remind the member that Quebec never signed it.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, hallelujah, the Bloc Québécois has seen the light. Its members have realized that it is important to read the supply documents.

Does my Bloc Québécois colleague regret not voting against the previous budget allocations?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has 15 seconds to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, 15 seconds is not enough time to demonstrate that the common-sense plan makes no sense.

When I asked a question earlier, the Conservative Party completely avoided talking about the monarchy and the $3 million being spent to hand out some little medals. I would like my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable to ask his constituents if they support that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to split my time with the wonderful member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

Tonight we debate a supply bill, and for those Canadians who may be watching, this is an important parliamentary vehicle that authorizes the spending of money to pay for government programs and services. It has been said that it is the primary duty of parliamentarians to scrutinize and authorize executive spending, and that is what we are doing here tonight.

I would like to start with a few general observations about the economy and government. In the New Democrats' view, the economy is not a sterile entity. It is not a vague concept removed from human contact. It is instead a vital expression of our social activity. In other words, it is not something that we are to serve. The economy is something that, in New Democrats' view, should serve people and the citizens who make up our great country, and a budget is an expression to us of priorities.

As President Joe Biden famously said before he was president, “Don't tell me [your values]. Show me your budget, and I'll tell you [your values].” I think those are wise words. There are very different values expressed in this Parliament.

For the NDP, government is a positive force in society that is in place to serve Canadians. Among other things, one of the most important jobs of government is to deliver programs, services and resources that people need but are unable to provide on their own and that the marketplace is unable to deliver. To others, notably Conservatives in the House, government is something to be distrusted. It is something to be feared. It is something to be reduced to the greatest extent possible.

To the NDP, the economy is something to be incentivized, to be nurtured and to be developed to serve people. That is the end of having a healthy economy. To others in the House, and I am thinking primarily of my Conservative colleagues, people's interests are often subservient to the economy, especially to corporations whose interests are generally to prevail over individuals, with the faith that, if we let corporations have their way, somehow or other, ordinary citizens will magically benefit.

To the NDP, the budget is to spend the people's money in the best way possible to benefit Canadians and their families. To others, again, particularly Conservatives, spending is bad, and they believe that, essentially, people should be left to sink or swim on their own. The supply bill invokes several of these underlying concepts.

The supply bill is part of broader appropriation acts this year that so far will propose to spend some $191 billion this year. Major expenditures of that $191 billion would include the following: $80 billion would be spent on Canada's seniors in elderly benefits; about $52 billion would take the form of health transfers to provinces so that Canadians can go to hospitals and their doctors to get the health care they need when they need it; and about $8 billion would be spent on indigenous reconciliation, services and justice. As my honourable colleague from Nunavut points out so powerfully in the House all the time, that is a fraction of the money that is needed to deal with the huge indigenous infrastructure deficit in this country.

The supply bill that we are debating tonight would authorize approximately $128 billion of spending. What are some of the priorities that Canadians will get for that money? We can start with dental care. We made the dental care plan a condition of support of the Liberal government, and make no mistake, this is not a shared priority between the NDP and Liberals. The Liberals voted against dental care every chance they got until the NDP forced the Liberals to bring it in as a condition of our support for the government.

So far, over two million Canadian seniors have enrolled in that dental care plan. Over 100,000 seniors have already gone to the dentist. I was in a denturist office just yesterday when I was told moving stories of seniors who had not been to the dentist in many years. They had had terrible pain and suffering in their mouths, and they were getting, for the first time, their dentures they needed to help them have proper nutrition and to take care of their health.

On June 28, in a matter of two weeks, every child under the age of 18 in this country, in families that make under $90,000 a year and do not have the benefit of a private employer dental care plan, just as every person in the House has, will be able to sign up for this plan, including people living with disabilities. That will add millions more Canadians to the Canadian dental care plan.

Ultimately, we are seeing the beginning of the first, most expansive expansion of public health in this country in half a century. This will see nine million Canadians able to get the primary oral health care they need and deserve, which they have not had for six years. I would tell my Bloc colleagues that provinces, including Quebec, have not proven competent in providing this service to Canadians, even though there are certain programs in provinces. Obviously, millions of Canadians are not covered for this, and the NDP has made sure those people will have the same access as members do.

This bill would provide $1.5 billion for pharmacare. As I pointed out, this is a historic first in this country. For the first time ever, through a single-payer system, Canadians will be able to walk into pharmacies and walk out with the diabetes medication and devices and contraception devices and medication they need without paying for them directly, just like all of our other necessary and essential health care costs.

In terms of diabetes medications, pretty much every single medication necessary for a type 1 diabetic and almost everything for a type 2 diabetic would be covered by this plan, as well as continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps, test strips and syringes and needles. For contraceptives, it is not only contraceptive medications by prescription, but also devices, including IUDs. That is an extraordinary measure that would help liberate women, providing them with free agency and control over their health.

There is $1 billion over five years that will be established for a school nutrition program. Canada is the only G7 country that does not have some form of universal access to school nutrition, and this, by the way, is not anywhere near enough. This plan would only cover a fraction of the children that go to school from grades 1 to 8 in this country, but it is a start. This is something the New Democrats also demanded.

I want to turn to housing. The housing crisis is robbing young people in this country of their hope for the future, and we are saddling our children with challenges that the generations before them did not face. Owning a home seems increasingly unattainable. Building a life and a family of their own appears increasingly unaffordable. To New Democrats, our children deserve a world of promise and possibility. The Prime Minister claimed before that housing is not his responsibility, but has failed to acknowledge the fact that it was the Liberals who walked away from this federal responsibility in the first place, and it was Conservatives who removed social spending from the CMHC out of housing a generation ago.

Today, Canada's stock of non-market housing is among the lowest across the OECD peers, at just 3.5% of total dwellings. As a consequence of successful Conservative and Liberal neglect, Canada now finds itself decades behind. Because the Conservatives and Liberals have abandoned the federal government's position in housing, encampments are expanding across the country at record levels. The financialization of housing has left one-third of all seniors' housing in Canada in the hands of institutional investors, as well as 30% of purpose-built rental buildings.

Young people are being shut out of the housing market, renters are losing hope of ever owning a home, and rent and mortgage payments are devouring an unbelievably high share of people's incomes. We need to build some nine million homes over the next 10 years. International evidence demonstrates that it is only with direct financing of non-market housing, such as co-operative, non-profit and public housing, that we will meet this challenge. This budget goes some distance in addressing that need. By the way, public spending on housing is anti-inflationary. It expands supply and puts downward pressure on prices across the housing market.

I will conclude by saying that New Democrats are supporting this budget and supply bill because we believe the federal government needs to invest in Canadians and provide the conditions so that all Canadians can thrive and prosper in this economy. That is core to New Democrat values, and we are proud of those values.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in his intervention, the member referenced the spending of people's money. I understand that to the extent of present Canadian taxpayers. We can talk about the amounts, but my question is about the present federal debt of $1.255 million and the ongoing deficits.

Who are the people whose money is being spent? My four children are all taxpaying citizens right now. Is he referring to my grandchildren who are not paying taxes yet? Are those the people he is referring to?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always somewhat ironic when a Conservative rises in the House and talks about responsible government spending. In 2008, the Department of Finance analyzed the spending of every government of every hue and at every level in Canada since 1867, and found that it was New Democratic governments that balanced their budget the highest percentage of times. That is not an ideological statement; it is a matter of fact that the member can check.

I was in the House from 2008 to 2015, when there were eight consecutive Conservative deficits in a row, so I do not think we will take any lectures from Conservatives about responsible government spending or the impact of deficits and debt on Canadians. It is the New Democrats who actually have the best record in that regard.