Debates of June 17th, 2024

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, with its targets, the government is well on its way to ending fossil fuel subsidies. There are a couple of exceptions that I am aware of. For example, thinking of the environment, something needs to be done with orphan wells. There is government support to deal with them. Also, in certain situations in the north, we will see some subsidies.

Can the member give an indication as to what other specific subsidies he is talking about? I ask because I am not necessarily aware of them.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was only talking about subsidies to oil companies, which are often indirect.

My colleague mentioned wells, which are reused for carbon capture. That is where the captured carbon is buried. That is the current plan.

I am not saying it is 100% negative. At least they are being used for that rather than being rehabilitated, as they were supposed to be a few years ago, if memory serves. A lot of money was injected into rehabilitating these wells, which, incidentally, were created by oil companies that have not had to foot any of the bill for the damage they have caused to the environment.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am glad the member talked about oil and gas companies. I want to ask him a question similar to one that I have asked in the House before regarding how investments could be made, especially during this time of climate change.

The Liberals have been offered a solution: Nunavut communities could help combat climate change by transitioning to not relying on diesel anymore. However, the Liberals are refusing to fund that project. Nunavummiut could contribute to combatting it.

I wonder if the member can explain to us why investing in Nunavut through the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link project could help Nunavummiut and Canada reach their targets, which, in my view, they are far from reaching.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is 2024 and it is time to put the brakes on oil. Fortunately, there are alternatives. We are talking about wind turbines and solar energy harvesters that can support entire villages. At my cottage in the Laurentians, I even installed a system that is not fully operational yet but will enable me to take 1,500 square meters completely off-grid in a few years.

This is affordable for everyone. Let us not forget that solar panels cost half as much as they did 10 years ago. They can be installed anywhere on the planet, in Nunavut in fact.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand today to speak to Bill C-69, the budget implementation act. As we have heard in the debate going on tonight regarding the bill, there are a number of concerns on this side of the House, specifically the government's new spending ideas: $61 billion in new spending. We do this when we are having and dealing with a very real inflation crisis that is causing real hardship throughout the country.

The number of people who are raising their voices to that fact is something we have never seen before. Food bank usage across the country is up to record levels. There are homeless encampments now in pretty much all of our major cities, not to mention the smaller rural communities as well, where this was never seen or heard about.

To make matters worse, this year we will be spending $54.1 billion to service the national debt. It is unfortunate, because we are paying more money for interest than the federal government is sending to the provinces for health care. That is absolutely significant. I do not think I have ever heard a single person articulate the benefit of paying more in interest payments on the national debt, how that actually makes sense. It is wasted money.

Not only that, but because we are paying only the interest, we are not actually paying down the debt. That means the payments will continue. That could fluctuate based on the interest rate at the time, depending on how that certain part of the debt is structured.

Future generations and the last generation we are looking at right now, the youth graduating high school who are going to college or university, are recognizing they might not ever be able to buy a house. They might not ever be able to have the dream many generations here in Canada had before them. Yes, there is a group of people, the very wealthy, who are not being hurt by this and are not affected by it. It is those everyday, normal, working-class people who are being punished with higher prices for food, rent, fuel and heat, all of the things making life more difficult for working Canadians.

When people have less money in their pockets, less money to spend on their priorities, cutbacks in family budgets occur. We have seen and heard the stories that grace the newspaper articles and the headlines about people skipping meals and watering down milk for their kids trying to stretch dollars and stretch the supply in the refrigerator a little longer just to get through the next day or so. It is absolutely crushing to hear and read these stories in a country like Canada, where the dream has always been absolutely real. It is absolutely crushing to see these young people.

The other side will always ask for patience, more time and more resources. There will always be the promise that utopia is just around the corner and that it will be worth it if we just keep spending. The other side will say that, but will it actually be what the Prime Minister is promising? I would argue no.

The Prime Minister and the Liberal Party inherited a balanced budget. The economy was on fire. Life was affordable and life was enjoyable. Now look at where we are. Was it worth it? The average Canadian's net worth, their nest egg, their savings account and their retirement package have suffered. The buying power of their dollars has suffered. The path the government is on is not worth it for the everyday person.

The policies need to change. We have to start focusing on what used to make us extraordinary. Ontario, especially, used to be the manufacturing wheel of this country. We used to build a lot more things in this country. It is unfortunate that in Ontario, when Kathleen Wynne and Dalton McGuinty were in the premier's office, obviously separately, one after the other, they started to mess around in the energy market.

That is when hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs left Ontario. We are watching the numbers continue under the Liberal government, because when the Liberal Party of Ontario lost the election, a lot of staffers made the trip up the 401 or Highway 7 to Ottawa and started working for the current government. We can see it is a continuation of the mentality that if we just keep spending, just keep borrowing and just keep taxing, we will eventually get there, but life has only gotten worse for the majority of Canadians.

The reality is that the Liberal Party has gone too far. Its members do not know how to fix it, and their solution at this point is yet another government program. They will start the tape; they will look at the problem they created, and the solution will be a new program. The government can get money only by borrowing, taxing, printing or a combination thereof, and if it does too much in excess, it can debase the economy or the currency. We have seen a bit of both here.

Conservatives want to look to where the problem started and address it from its root, and that is where a lot of our common-sense plans come from. We are addressing the fact that we need to build and make things again in Canada. How do we do that? We need a regulatory environment that allows private enterprise to start up and flourish.

The bureaucracy has gotten bigger under the current government. That, unfortunately, has been slowing a lot of the progress from the private sector, and we have seen money in the billions of dollars flee this country looking for other jurisdictions, because capital is like water; it takes the path of least resistance. When we allow the private sector to do what it does best, to innovate and to create opportunities and wealth in our communities, the economy grows. When the economy grows, jobs are created, spending happens, more jobs are created and overall happiness rises, because when people have options, when they have choice, they are happier.

When they do not have choice, people are more miserable, and in Canada there is very little competition in pretty much every single sector, such as airlines, groceries or telecommunications. The list goes on, and it is getting worse. We need some common-sense solutions here in this party. The Conservative Party is ready to take on that challenge.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, did we just hear a speech from the hon. member on the opposite side, whom I have a lot of respect for? The Province of Ontario has created hundreds of thousands of new manufacturing jobs since we came into power. The Province of Ontario lost the jobs that the hon. member was referring to during the Harper administration.

I want to know who is correct. Are Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservatives correct in saying they and we have created, collaboratively, hundreds of thousands of jobs in Ontario, or is Doug Ford wrong? I have one final question: What programs is the hon. member mentioning that the Conservatives will cut? Is it dental care, seniors' payments or child education? What is it? I want to know.

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

Madam Speaker, we do not need to go far to find the wasteful spending in the current government. The list goes on. It will not take much to figure it out.

I have a lot of respect for my friend as well. Yes, those jobs did leave in the 2000s. Guess who was in charge in the province of Ontario. It was the Liberal Party of Ontario. The Liberals cannot say the jobs left under Harper but forget who was in charge of the energy policy in the province of Ontario that drove up electricity rates to the highest among most jurisdictions in North America and then wonder why manufacturing left the province. If they are driving up the cost of energy, which manufacturing needs in order to produce, and then are just shocked when the manufacturers leave, there is their answer. When we talk about Conservatives getting to the root, that is the root.

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

Madam Speaker, I like the member, but, gosh, talk about inventing alternative facts. I lived through the Harper regime. We lived through the terrible financial mismanagement of the Harper regime. We saw $116 billion given to Canada's big banks in liquidity supports because the Harper government just wanted to splurge on the banking sector. That resulted in dividend payments and corporate bonuses.

However, the worst part of the Harper financial mismanagement was the infamous Harper tax haven treaties, which the PBO tells us cost us over $30 billion each and every year. That is why the Harper government was always in deficit, It was massive financial mismanagement. In fact, Conservative financial management is an oxymoron. When the Conservatives have such a lamentable financial management record, how could they possibly give lessons to anybody else?

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

Madam Speaker, likewise, I do respect the member, but he also forgets we were in a global economic crisis, and countries all around the world agreed that they would deficit spend on infrastructure. It was agreed that the taps would open but eventually would close, and that is where the Liberals forget that the story continues. One has to turn off the taps in order to maintain financial strength.

The NDP was the party asking for more spending. By the time 2015 came along, the budget was balanced, the economy was back on track and we were growing as a country economically and politically across the world.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes, there is alternate news here all right. Inflation in 2011 was 2.91%. It is now 2.7%. I wanted to also mention that in the summer of 2015, Canada was still technically in recession from the downturn in 2009, and it is simply because the Harper government turned off the taps way too soon. It took until we came along, recovering from the pandemic, when we added over a million jobs and cut the poverty rate and the unemployment rate significantly. Therefore I wonder whether the hon. member could go back and kind of revise his perspective on things.

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

Madam Speaker, the Harper government started the mechanism that allowed the jobs to be created. The government of the day, when it came in, just benefited from them. What did the government do at the time? It raised taxes. It slowed down the economy. Now what do we have? We have misery. We have tent cities. We have food bank usage that is the highest it has ever been. How can that be a mark for success—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Kitchener South—Hespeler.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand before this House in support of the budget implementation act, 2024, no. 1, which will implement many of our government's key priorities in budget 2024 and fairness for every generation.

All children deserve a fair start in life, yet nearly one in four kids in Canada live in a household with too little income to buy enough to eat, which is impacting their health and their opportunities to learn and grow. That is just not right, so in budget 2024, we proposed a new national school food program that will help ensure children across Canada get the food they need to thrive, regardless of their family circumstances. 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 and which are often under strain due to low resources and high food prices. 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 just 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, 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, but also that they do not have to buy unhealthier foods in order to pay rent and other bills on time. Even with inflation easing significantly over the last year, affordability pressures are still causing more Canadian families to face food insecurity, which, frankly, should worry us all. 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 whom 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, but 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. It is smart economic policy too.

When it comes to helping kids and youth, especially vulnerable kids and youth, we are going to keep going. That is why we have made generational investments like the Canada child benefit, which has helped lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty since its launch in 2016, and provides families with up to nearly $8,000 per child per year to provide the essentials their kids need. It 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 Canada 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 supports when and where they need it most, we are also launching a new $500-million youth mental health fund. This new fund would help community mental health organizations across the country provide more access to mental health care for younger Canadians in their communities. This is so we can help more kids and youth live happy, healthy, supported and fulfilled lives. Canada's success depends on the success of its youngest generations.

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

I hope my hon. 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, so they can focus in school and reach their full potential.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's support for the school food program. It is something the NDP has been fighting for and I am really happy to see that, with our pressure, we were able to finally see it in the budget.

Returning to this issue of people living with disabilities and the reality of the deep level of poverty that community is in, the benefit that the Liberals are putting forward is only $200 a month, which absolutely will not bring people out of poverty.

Is the member willing to advocate for persons living with disabilities and push the government to do better?

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know that people living with disabilities are facing financial challenges. However, the $200 a month is a start. It is a place maker. Liberals wanted to get money committed to this in the budget, so that we can build on it going forward.

Right now, we have so many pressing issues to deal with, like housing and food insecurity. It is impossible to help everyone to the extent we would like to all at once. We are focusing on housing and the food program, but we are also focusing on disabilities for now. I know that the $200 is inadequate, but it is a start and we will build on it going forward.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the government likes to say a lot of pretty words about housing and how housing is so important.

I am curious if the member can let the House know whose idea it was to come up with the catalogue for housing. They put millions of dollars into a catalogue and thought somehow it was going to be a solution to the housing crisis.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member brings up the topic of a catalogue, because I remember a certain Conservative leader who, at one point, thought a catalogue would be an interesting environmental solution.

I have often thought back to the time of World War II housing when we had all the veterans coming back home. They needed to start new families and needed quick, affordable housing. There were ready-made plans.

We still see them in St. Marys in my area. There is a heritage site that has wartime houses. They were very cost effective. They were modest, reasonable starter homes, which is what we need. We do not need big, palatial houses that nobody can afford. We need quick, affordable starter homes and that is what the catalogue, or suggested plans, would accomplish.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. In fact, when I left the forces myself, I lived in one of those wartime houses on Logan Avenue in the north end of Winnipeg.

What we have before us today is a government that is genuinely committed to working with other levels of government to address the housing issue that we face today. The federal government needs to play a leading role, which it is doing.

Would the member agree that co-operating with the different levels of government is far more effective in terms of dealing with the issue of housing than when today's leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for housing? He, in one year, completed six houses.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly do agree. Obviously, a problem of this magnitude requires all levels of government working co-operatively, all hands on deck, on creative solutions. There is excellent potential with modular housing. It can be built off-site year round and be moved into place very quickly. We have many examples of that in my area and it is phenomenal to see how quickly they are built. Even big, amazing hotels can be built in a modular fashion.

We have to think outside the box, get creative and come up with a number of different solutions. We cannot continue to do things with the same methods and processes that have failed us over the last few decades. We have to pick up the pace, and it is going to require all three levels of government working together: municipalities, provinces and the federal government.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to talk about the budget, but specifically firearms. Some might wonder why. There are really some simple points. The NDP-Liberals are spending billions of dollars that will not fix the problem, the NDP-Liberals are making us more unsafe by spending that money and, lastly, something we have all heard before, the NDP-Liberals simply are not worth the cost. Let us get into it.

How are the NDP-Liberals wasting billions of taxpayer dollars? We have what has been spent recently, which I will take right from the estimates. In the supplementary estimates 2024-25, funding for the firearms compensation program to advance a collection of banned firearms is $18,591,385. That is a lot of money. Funding for the collection, validation and destruction of firearms from businesses is another $15,270,047. I was just up in Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk. People are living in squalor there. Their houses are mouldy. They cannot afford to buy things like milk, sugar or coffee. Meanwhile, the government throws millions around like it was chump change. That is what Liberals are spending now.

What are they going to be spending in the near future? Budget 2024 proposes to spend $30.4 million over two years, starting in 2024-25, to Public Safety Canada for the buyback of firearms sourced from existing departmental sources, another $7.4 million over five years starting in 2024-25, with $1.7 million in remaining amortization to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to modernize the Canadian firearms program telephone and case management systems. Recent estimates have been close to $42 million that have been spent or budgeted. Can anyone guess how many firearms have been collected so far? It is zero. Even if some had been collected, buying firearms from law-abiding firearms owners, who are not the problem in the first place, is not going to make the country more safe.

That $42 million is going to pale in comparison to the number that I am going to speak about next. This is what Gary Mauser proposes the Trudeau government's buyback firearms program plan may cost. This is where it gets into the billions—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member knows that he should not be using members' names, but their riding or title.

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

I am sorry, I missed that.

The hon. member does know that, so I would ask him to refrain from doing so.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will rephrase that. The current government buyback firearms program plan may cost up to $6.7 billion. This is what it is estimated to be. We all know that the long gun registry was supposed to cost $2 million, but it ended up costing $2 billion. That $6.7 million, I am sure, will easily double, triple or quadruple by the time the government is all said and done with it.

All the while, the government is spending toward a $40-billion deficit this current fiscal year, not to accomplish one thing, and is going after the wrong people. It is going after Grandpa Joe and his hunting rifle and sport shooting shotgun instead of going after criminals and tackling real crime on city streets in our urban centres. I will also add, which I have said before, that what the government is doing by buying back firearms from law-abiding firearms owners is not making us any safer.

The OIC that was recently announced by the government, dated May 9, 2024, is called “Order Amending the Order Declaring an Amnesty Period”. This is how the government recently enabled Canada Post to be a place that would receive firearms as part of the gun confiscation regime. I will read out what it does specifically. It allows for a person to “deliver the specified firearm or specified device”, it allows an entity to “transport the specified firearm or specified device” and it allows an entity to “possess the specified firearm or specified device”. It is referring to Canada Post, but it is also referring to other carrier companies that can receive firearms and transport them.

One group that is very concerned about what the government is doing with this process is Canada Post. One of our colleagues, the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, recently asked the president and CEO of Canada Post if he was comfortable with the new OIC, just a month ago. In an article that I wrote recently for a firearms magazine, I noted:

Despite Canada Post's objections to serving as a collection point for the NDP/Liberal gun confiscation program and their risk assessment highlighting substantial safety concerns, the Minister of Public Safety recently proposed an amendment...to formalize the process.

Despite the concerns of Canada Post, Canada Post workers and the security of the building, the government is proceeding unsafely forward anyway.

Doug Ettinger, president and chief executive officer of the Canada Post Corporation, was recently asked at committee about potential safety concerns. My colleague from Saskatchewan asked:

Mr. Ettinger, we have seen recent reports in the media that Canada Post is going to have a role in the gun buyback program through the shipping of guns. It's my understanding that Canada Post had previously done a risk assessment of being involved in [the gun buyback] program and found that there were too many risks for Canada Post to be involved in it.

Is Canada Post being pressured to participate in this program, or was there another risk assessment conducted that found there were not as many risks as previously thought?

This was from Mr. Ettinger:

We did an internal safety assessment. We were not comfortable with the process that was being proposed in ongoing discussions over the last few months. Our position is that we're just not comfortable with elevated risk.

We're not set up for it. Our buildings are not set up with security or proper storage. The buildings aren't that secure overall in the way I'd like them to be. This is not in our expertise. This should be best left to those who know how to handle guns, how to dismantle them and how to manage them so that no one gets hurt. It is not something that we're comfortable with at all.

Mr. Ettinger finishes with this:

...our position is clear, based on the approach that was being considered. We're just not comfortable from the elevated risk assessment of that. I would not live with myself if somebody got hurt—it's almost that simple.

We see a government spending Canadians out of house and home, with a $40-billion deficit, while people are struggling to afford their mortgages. I have been through the northern territories many times. People there are struggling to afford heat, to afford food and to put fuel in their vehicles. I was just up in Inuvik. It is $2.73 per litre for diesel up there currently. They bring groceries up to Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk in a big truck that uses diesel. That is not covered and does not get any rebate from the government through the carbon tax.

The whole point of what I am trying to say tonight is that we have a government wasting billions on a program that is not going to make Canadians any safer and actually makes them less safe. All the while, it will be overspending by $40 billion, which we do not have, just this year alone. I did a video once, in 2016, highlighting our level of debt. Overall, in Canada, it was $600 billion. Since that time, the debt has doubled to over $1.2 trillion. In the short amount of time the government has been in power, it has doubled the national debt, and it is because of doing things like this while not solving problems in the first place.

I started off by saying some simple things, and I will finish with this. The NDP-Liberals are spending billions that will not fix the problem. The NDP-Liberals are making us more unsafe while Canadians are going without food, heat or houses. I have said it before and members have heard me say it a lot: The NDP-Liberals are not worth the cost.

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

Madam Speaker, as I have indicated before, when I listen to Conservative speakers, the first thing that comes to my mind is the contrast between the Liberals and the Conservatives. The Liberals, on the one hand, truly care. The Conservatives cut. The Liberals care; the Conservatives do not care.

At the end of the day, why does the Conservative Party, or the Conservative-Reform party, across the way continue to not support our programs, whether it is pharmacare, dental care, the disability program or the child care program; the investments in generational health care supports, with $200 billion over 10 years; and so much more? The Conservatives are preoccupied with cuts. The question is, why?