Debates of June 18th, 2024

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, Canada is undeniably a bilingual country. I am proud to represent francophone and Franco-Métis communities in Saint-Boniface and Saint-Vital.

That said, it is hard to make sure that the French language progresses in Manitoba. We need schools and early childhood education. We need more investments to ensure that the francophone community can continue to grow and contribute to our society.

I am not very familiar with the reality in Quebec, but I do know that the French language is under threat across Canada and that we need to make a concerted effort to expand the francophone space.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on an important issue. The Prime Minister came to Winnipeg on three different occasions. He came to visit a north end school; we talked about the national nutritional food program for children. We had the Prime Minister come and work on the issue of housing in the Transcona area. We also had the Prime Minister come to talk at the Grace Hospital about the investment in generations of health care.

Could the member just provide his thoughts in terms of how the different levels of government came together, working in co-operation, to deal with those types of issues?

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is absolutely right. The Prime Minister has been to Winnipeg several times over the last few months to make incredible announcements about investments in Canadians, such as a new health care agreement with the Province of Manitoba, as well as investments in nurses, doctors and the many hospitals that serve Manitobans and Winnipeggers. Fortunately, we have a provincial government in Manitoba that was at the table, that was not fighting us. It was contributing its own dollars to keep Winnipeggers and Manitobans healthy. The school food program is an incredibly positive program that was launched, at least in Manitoba, in Winnipeg, in a school with hundreds of kids who were energetic and enjoyed the nourishment.

We know that Canadians are feeling the struggle. Inflation is affecting Canadians. That is why we are investing in Canadians on so many fronts. For the life of me, I do not understand why the other side, the Conservative opposition, continues to vote against everything we are doing.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, to start, I will mention that I am sharing my time with my colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

I am pleased to rise to talk to budget 2024, which the government has labelled “Fairness for Every Generation”. We can quite easily say the government is inflicting its Liberal version of fairness on every generation. I am sure Liberals are sitting there on the other side saying, “Why let just boomers suffer through high rent, high food inflation and high crime?” Under the Liberals, the idea is to be fair and make gen X and millennials suffer as well.

Churchill commented, “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” That is what Canadians are suffering under the Liberal government: the equal sharing of miseries.

Now, I want to look at some of the sharing of miseries under the Liberal-NDP government. We will start with rent. We have a crisis across the country of skyrocketing rent. Rentals.ca reported, “Average asking rents for all residential property types in Canada hit an all-time high of $2,202 in May, surpassing the $2,200 level for the first time.”

That is up 9% from last year. In 2015, when the Liberal government took over, the average rent in Canada was $966. That is a 128% increase in rent. I do not think any Canadians have been receiving a 128% increase in their family income since 2015. Now, even adjusting for the out-of-control Liberal inflation, that is still 28% higher than the inflation-adjusted total compared with 2015.

I want to talk about a couple of examples across the country: In Burnaby, B.C., the average is $2,500, up 8%. In North York, it is $2,300, up 4%; that is the average rent for a one bedroom, by the way. In Ottawa, it is $1,884 for a one bedroom, up 7%; and in Kingston, it is $1,800, up 8.4% from last year for a one bedroom.

Now, luckily for the people in the prairie provinces, those provinces had been spared the high rent increases. However, this is the case no more, thanks to the Liberal government.

In Calgary, a one bedroom is up 6% from last year; Winnipeg is up 9%. Edmonton, my own hometown, is up 16% from last year; Regina is up 16.7% from last year. Saskatoon is up 13% from last year for a one bedroom. Finally, Fort McMurray is up 13%.

That is the reality and the so-called fairness under the Liberal government. Fairness of access to misery is basically what the government has delivered. Mortgage payments have doubled since the government took over. Housing prices have doubled.

I want to read a quote from Bloomberg, the business magazine: “Canada [is] likely sitting on the largest housing bubble of all time”. It is not the largest housing bubble in Canadian history, but of all time. The article argues that “inflated home prices in Canada are a result of...easy money supplied under the [government's] monetary policy.... At the present moment, [there is] risk in mortgage rates climbing”, which we are seeing, “as Canadian bond yields are dragged up, particularly at a time when debt-to-income ratios are sky high.” Canadians, as we are aware, probably have the highest consumer debt-to-income ratio in the world.

The article goes on to say, “The worst part for a housing bubble is when you have [a] credit bubble underneath it”. Again, we have such a high debt-to-income ratio right now. It continues, “The amount of Canadian leverage into the system versus incomes is pretty astronomical — and we’ve seen debt servicing going up dramatically.”

In addition, “There is definitely a risk here that if mortgage rates go higher or unemployment were to rise or we hit the next recession, then this thing does end up in a deleveraging cycle.”

What does the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation have to say on this topic? It says that, this year and next, 2.2 million mortgages, worth over $675 billion, will be facing interest rate shock as they come due for renewal. That 2.2 million households is 45% of all households in Canada, and they have mortgage rates coming up for renewal shortly.

CMHC continues, “Most of these borrowers contracted their...mortgages at record-low interest rates and, most likely, at or near the peak of housing prices”. In this country, 45% of mortgages are probably at about the 1.5% to 2% mark, and they are going to have to renew at 5% or 6%. Mortgage “shock”, as CMHC calls it, is hopefully not leading up to what Bloomberg is forecasting, which is a collapse in the housing bubble.

If we remember back to July 2020, the Governor of the Bank of Canada said, “Our message to Canadians is that interest rates are very low and they're going to be there for a long time”. He then said, “If you've got a mortgage or if you're considering making a major purchase, or you're a business or you're considering making an investment, you can be confident rates will be low for a long time.” Maybe Webster's dictionary needs to update its definition of a “long time” to say that it is less than four years.

Of course, we all remember the Prime Minister trotting out in front of his cottage for an interview. When asked about the risks of this massive borrowing and perhaps rising costs to service it, he said, of course condescendingly, “Interest rates are at historic lows, Glen.” Guess what? They are not at historic lows.

If one wishes to have an example of how out of control things are, how fast things can change and how poor the government is at planning and how it hurts Canadians, the supplementary (A)s, which we debated just recently, showed an added $1.9 billion of needed taxpayers' dollars to pay for interest on the debt. This is $1.9 billion more than the calculations the government did just in February when it was doing the main estimates.

The main estimates are of course the cash authorizations required for the entire year. That was done in February. Between February and May, when the supplementary (A)s came out, interest rates were up, resulting in needing $1.9 billion more than the government thought it would have to ask for in February.

We often hear the government talk about the pharmacare plan. Of the 9,000 different available drugs in Canada, it would only cover birth control and diabetes medication. That plan is $1.9 billion for five years. If we think about that, just the government's mistake in February on what interest would cost Canadians on the national debt was off equal to the value of its so-called pharmacare plan for five years.

On taxes, in this budget there is $498 billion projected to be raised in taxes. That is up $166 billion from 2019, which the government is taking from Canadian taxpayers. That is $216 billion more in taxpayers' money being taken by the government since 2015, or 76%. That is up $50 billion from just two years ago, yet somehow we have the government telling doctors, small businesses and farmers that they need to cough up a little more, less Canada slips into some dystopian hell. Again, it is $216 billion more than when the government took over. That is 76%, yet if we do not not get a bit more, Canada will fall into dystopian hell.

The Deputy Prime Minister said, “What kind of Canada do you want to live in [without this extra few billion dollars]? Do you want to live in a country where a teenage girl gets pregnant just because she doesn't have the money to buy birth control?” Apparently, over the last nine years they did have money to buy birth control, but somehow, after $216 billion more in tax hikes against Canadians, now teenage girls are facing this.

Interest on the debt is $291 billion for the next five years. That is equal to an entire tax haul when the Liberals came to power. If one thinks about that, just the interest for five years will be equal to our entire tax haul in the year 2015.

I will end with another quote from Churchill: “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.” I think we can very easily substitute the word “socialism” with “Liberal government” when we look at this budget.

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

Madam Speaker, my question is on the capital gains tax. I am wondering if my colleague from across the way could explain to Canadians why, when the Liberal government makes the decision to have a fairer sense of taxation, the Conservative-Reform party say no, it is a bad idea, yet Brian Mulroney, the former Progressive Conservative prime minister, not only raised it but raised it to a higher level than we are raising it. If the Conservative Party today is arguing that it is going to cause so many problems, what does it think happened when Brian Mulroney, the then Progressive Conservative prime minister, raised it? There seems to be a double standard, and maybe there is not a double standard. Maybe it is because it is really and truly a Conservative-Reform party being given direction from the far right.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague for Winnipeg North has, as usual, a nonsensical question. I was disappointed last week when we were debating the estimates that I was not able to take a question from him.

However, now he is talking about something that happened 40 years ago. I suggest that he perhaps get into his probably government-subsidized DeLorean to go back to the future to today's date.

The member talks about the capital gains tax. This government has increased taxes on Canadians by over $200 billion per year since it took over, yet somehow that $200 billion will not pay for this added little bit it is calling for. It is ridiculous to think that somehow, after raising taxes by $200 billion, now the real secret to success would be to get an extra couple billion from the capital gains. It is clearly not needed if the Liberals were able to raise taxes $200 billion just since they came to power.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, in the Harper days, there was a recession in 2008, but $150 billion was put into the economy, and the budget was balanced in seven years. The Liberal government has had nine years.

I wonder if the member could elaborate on the fiscal failure of the doubling of the debt and the tripling of the carbon tax, as well as what the carbon tax has done to initiate the cost of inflation that Canadians are seeing in their rents, mortgages and grocery bills today.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a valid question.

Something that we do not often talk about in the House is how the government has increased the tax load on Canadians so much, with a 76% increase since 2015, which is 76% more taxes being taken in by the government, yet somehow the Liberals still missed balancing the budget by $50 billion last year. The money is coming in, and it is amazing that the money is going out at a faster rate. However, all we have from the government is failures to serve Canadians, failures to get passports done, failures to provide to the military, failures to provide housing and failures to work on the inflation front. The government is clearly a failure, which is why I will not be supporting this budget.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have appreciated the member's work on the mighty OGGO committee and his chairing of that esteemed committee.

My question is about housing, and the member did run through some of the really startling increases in rent across the country, but the communities I represent are rural communities. I read his party's proposed housing legislation with interest, and I found that it was silent on the needs of rural communities when it comes to getting housing built. A lot of the strategies in there do not speak to communities of 10,000 people or 5,000 people.

I wonder what the Conservatives have to offer when it comes to building housing in rural communities where the problem is not the municipality, and it is not density near transit stops. The need is core infrastructure funding from the federal government.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, probably the best thing this country can do for all housing, or all homeowners and those seeking housing, would be to get inflation down so that we can bring interest rates down to make housing more affordable.

I would suggest that the member vote with this party, the opposition, to get rid of the Liberals so that we can actually attack inflation, get spending down and, therefore, get interest rates and mortgage rates down.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the health-conscious constituents in the riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

For anyone tuning in tonight, one may be wondering why we are talking about health products, even though the bottom of one's screen says this is a debate on Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget.

The short answer is that the Prime Minister broke his promise to end the use of omnibus bills. Like a living, breathing “hold my beer” meme, these Liberals clearly thought the last government was not omnibusing hard enough. This bill is so obese, it is even cornering the market in Ozempic.

Ironically, this budget implementation bill would give the Minister of Health, and of anti-tourism, brand new powers to make Ozempic illegal for weight loss for everyone else. Since the Liberals started bragging about taking away people's drug plans and forcing everyone into a one-size-fits-all, Ottawa-knows-best, Soviet-style drug plan, I have had one question.

When Canada finds itself in the next drug shortage, how will the Liberals decide who lives and who dies? Not a single member from the socialist coalition has been willing to address the question, but the budget implementation bill's division 31 provides a sinister answer. The government will do whatever it wants.

Here is what the weighty omnibus bill says:

the Governor in Council may make any regulations that the Governor in Council considers necessary for the purpose of preventing shortages of therapeutic products or foods for a special dietary purpose in Canada or alleviating those shortages or their effects, in order to protect human health.

If one takes the word of the officials from Health Canada, all they are seeking is the power to import baby formula without bilingual labelling. If that were true, if the government's real intent was for a temporary emergency measure, the amendment would have been limited in scope and time. Instead, the government went with the kind of language, which maximizes power and minimizes oversight.

Here is the language the government originally sought for the therapeutic products:

if the Minister believes that the use of a therapeutic product, other than the intended use, may present a risk of injury to health, the Minister may, by order, establish rules in respect of the importation, sale, conditions of sale, advertising, manufacture, preparation, preservation, packaging, labelling, storage or testing of the therapeutic product for the purpose of preventing, managing or controlling the risk of injury to health.

Credit goes to the members of the finance committee for adding an amendment to insert the words “on reasonable grounds” into that section, but it does not matter.

The bill also says, “The Minister may make the order despite any uncertainty respecting the risk of injury to health that the use of the therapeutic product, other than the intended use, may present.”

That is quite a power grab. The NDP-Liberal government is literally saying that it does not need evidence to support its radical policy. In fact, the Liberals are saying that any evidence that contradicts their policy can be ignored. This is not the Liberal government gagging scientists. This is the Liberal government gagging science, handcuffing science, taking science out back and executing it gangland-style.

If we take the word of the bureaucrats from Health Canada, the minister needs these extraordinary powers to prevent teenagers from consuming nicotine pods. If that were true, if this were only about preventing nicotine addiction amongst youth, what explains the very next section? It reads, “An order made under subsection 30.‍01(1) or 30.‍02(1) that applies to only one person is not a statutory instrument within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act.”

The “minister of unhealthy road trips” will have the power to pass a regulation to prevent a single person from promoting a health product, and not just promoting. The minister could regulate a single person with respect to “importation, sale, conditions of sale, advertising, manufacture, preparation, preservation, packaging, labelling, storage or testing” of the drug.

Even more concerning is that these regulations targeting a single individual would not be considered regulations under the Statutory Instruments Act. Between this section and the section on uncertainty, the government has essentially neutralized the rights of Canadians to appeal these regulations to the federal court. This is an unprecedented power grab by the technocrats at Health Canada.

Given the arrogance on regular display by the car-phobic Minister of Health, it would not take much to convince me that he is the one seeking the radical, non-reviewable powers. Whether his lust for power is rooted in the repeated childhood traumas of station wagon vacations with his parents is not for me to say, but if this language were included in a Conservative bill, the minister would be among the first to accuse us of having a hidden agenda.

With just the flick of a wrist, the current Minister of Health or the next one could ban any drug based on some vague concern about health. As a parliamentarian, I oppose giving any government, Liberal or Conservative, that level of unchecked power. Health Canada's technocrats will claim that this is the same as the regulations limiting alcohol and tobacco advertisements. It is not. This law would give the Minister of Health the power to shut down a single podcaster or TikToker who advertises health products. It could shut down an Instagram influencer who talks about Chinese herbal remedies.

The government has not gone so far as to give itself the power to issue secret orders. Instead, it just gave itself the power to issue an order against a single person, not disclose the person's identity, not disclose the actual health risk and not have to publish it in the Gazette. Health Canada could destroy a person's livelihood by publishing a single sentence in an obscure web page buried deep in some government website. If anyone doubts that the socialist coalition is capable of that, let us remember that these amendments to the Food and Drugs Act are buried deep in the budget implementation bill.

The changes were not even given a mention in the budget. Instead, the government promised it would spend $3.2 million to update Health Canada's supply management capacity over the next three years. It takes a special kind of Liberal arrogance to believe the government can manage a supply of drugs for over 40 million people. The Liberals cannot manage passports. They cannot manage to recruit anyone into the military. They cannot manage an app for collecting travellers' information. They cannot manage the graft at Sustainable Development Technology Canada. They cannot manage the self-dealing within the local journalism initiative. The Prime Minister cannot even manage a cabinet. As a former Liberal cabinet minister said last week, the government has been drinking from a fountain of “socialist bafflegab”.

The technocrats who have been advising the finance minister believe Canadians would be happier if Canadians were taxed at over 50%. The only thing socialists can manage are breadlines. With the median age around 40, that means nearly half of Canadians were born after the collapse of the last socialist empire. They do not know about breadlines. They do not know that Soviet-style socialist drug plans mean Canadians would have to line up for life-saving medicines. The well connected and the wealthy could pay people in line to wait for them. The poor and the marginalized would have to take a day or two off work and wait in line at the government pharmacy.

Just as in the Soviet Union, when reality fails to conform to Communist ideology, the government will ratchet up repression. If rebellious reporters speak up about the drug shortages, the government can accuse them of putting the health of Canadians at risk and issue an order silencing them. The reporters could take the minister to court, but when the judge asks the government lawyers how certain they are that the censorship will protect public health, the government can reply, “Not certain at all, Your Honour”, and the judge will have no choice but to rule in the government's favour.

If members think this sounds unconstitutional, they would be right, but it would not matter. The Liberals would use their favourite notwithstanding clause, called section 1. We saw it time and time again during the pandemic. Governments issued unconstitutional orders, citizens took the government to court and judges ruled that they were not health experts and would defer to the government's experts.

With the precedent set, the technocrats at Health Canada saw it as a green light to seek more power. The Department of Health already has the power to ban a drug, recall it or place any number of conditions on its sale. It already has that power, but it was not enough. Like our Prime Minister, who admires the Communists who control China, the technocrats want the kind of power that only Communism can grant them.

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

Madam Speaker, there is no tin hat over there.

My question for the member is in regard to misinformation. I am very interested in her thoughts on it. The far right, in particular the leader of the Conservative-Reform party, is very good at disinformation through social media on issues such as cutting the carbon tax and missing out on rebates. It is misleading Canadians and feeding into the extreme right.

I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on that. Does she think her leader is doing a good job by representing the extreme right?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. Before I give the floor to the hon. member, I just want to remind members that if they want to contribute to the discussion, they should wait until the appropriate time.

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, maybe you can grant me more time for questions and answers so that everyone can ask a question.

As far as the member opposite goes, my greatest fan in the chamber, the Liberals have gone so far left, together with the other radically left parties, that anything in the centre seems far right to them.

As for our effective leader, I believe all Canadians are served well by him. He is interested in them, and he will do a good job for Canada in controlling spending, bringing down debt and making Canada the kind of country everyone is proud to live in and can prosper in.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I have the pleasure of serving with her on the Standing Committee on National Defence.

She began her speech by talking about the fact that we are having to debate an omnibus bill. By definition, an omnibus bill contains anything and everything. This one includes 23 tax measures and 44 non-tax measures.

We are going to vote against it because some of it is completely unacceptable. However, we can still see our way clear to agree that some other measures are acceptable and even good. One example is having the Canada child benefit continue for six months after a child's death.

I would simply like to hear her speak to any measure in the bill she considers worthwhile, or to know whether she thinks Bill C-69 is a total write-off.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that we sit on the defence committee together. Tomorrow, the Secretary General of NATO, who has served us well for a decade, will be coming to visit. What is truly an embarrassment for all of Canada is that we are not doing what we should to protect North America. The budget is devoid of funding for the protection of our nation. The Prime Minister has no pride or concern over the security of those living in Canada, cutting a billion dollars out of the budget of the military.

People across the ocean in Ukraine are fighting the fight that we might get drawn into. One witness even said that we are at war, so it is only a matter of time. We need to control spending for a day when we really need it. We should put more money into giving equipment to the women and men who serve us in the Canadian military.

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

Madam Speaker, I always like to hear from my comrade from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. That being said, she railed against the NDP's dental care program. It is important to note that 200,000 seniors have had dental care so far, including hundreds in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. In fact, as we speak, in Pembroke, dentists are advertising the NDP's dental care program. The reality is that many people in her riding are benefiting from the NDP's work.

Could my comrade and colleague please tell us why she is opposing a dental care program that her constituents—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke can give a brief answer.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not a comrade yet.

I know the dental community in Renfrew, Nipissing and especially Pembroke well, and I can tell members that I get nothing but complaints across the valley about this so-called dental program. The Liberals did not plan anything. It is not a plan. They just threw money out there and signed people up. There is not a single dentist in Pembroke signing up to this Soviet-style dental plan, and not 200 people have received service. If the member can show us otherwise, I would be pleased to speak to it further.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. If members want to contribute, want to try to answer or want to make comments, they need to wait until the appropriate time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today and speak to the budget implementation act, even though we are in the eleventh hour of this session. I am looking forward to the House rising at the end of this week for the summer recess.

It has been nine years of the costly Prime Minister, and each successive budget creates a bleaker outlook for Canadians' futures. The guise of fiscal restraint has been cast away, and the Prime Minister and his finance minister have put the pedal to the metal. They have decided to spend Canadians' money at an alarming rate, with no plan to balance the budget, to pay off the debt or to even rein in deficits to a modest level. They are literally going for broke. They believe they can tax their way out of the problems that their out-of-control spending has created. While inflation has reached record levels, the government continues to pour fuel on the inflationary fire with tens of billions of dollars in new spending.

I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

In fact, Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, stated that the Prime Minister's $61 billion in new spending was “not helpful” in bringing down inflation. It costs the average Canadian family an extra $3,867, but the Prime Minister refuses to learn from his mistakes and continues to double down on his failed policies, which means more inflationary deficits driving up inflation and interest rates, doubling our national debt and, thus, endangering our social programs and jobs across the country.

More to the point, doubling the national debt means that the federal government will now be spending more on interest on its debt than it will send to the provinces for health care. There will be $54.1 billion spent on servicing our national debt, half of which the Prime Minister is responsible for. The high-spending addiction of the government has endangered Canadians' livelihoods. It has led to a record high of two million visits to food banks in a single month, and now we have a report from Food Banks Canada that one in four Canadians is living in poverty.

After nine years of the Prime Minister's disastrous policies, 25% of Canadians are living in poverty. Every party in the House had the chance to vote on giving Canadians a break and to help them keep more of their money in their pockets when Conservatives proposed giving Canadians a break from the carbon tax for the summer. Instead of giving Canadians the relief they are looking for from the oppressive Liberal carbon tax regime just for the summer, Liberals have doubled down and have introduced a new capital gains tax increase.

Despite Canadians struggling paycheque to paycheque, the Liberals have decided to endanger their retirements, which have taken decades of prudent planning, saving and investing to build. According to the government, it is unfair for a plumber to sell their business they built over decades to fund their retirement. It is unfair for an electrician to sell the company they built to fund their retirement. It is unfair for a doctor to sell their shares in their practice to fund their retirement. It is unfair for the Liberals to take more of Canadians' hard-earned, self-made retirement funds so that they can continue to indulge in spending billions of dollars on their failed policies, yet the Prime Minister continues to squeeze Canadians for every last dollar with tax increases, while showing no signs of fiscal restraint.

If the Prime Minister is worried about the richest in Canada, he should look in the mirror. While life has gotten worse for Canadians, the Prime Minister and his friends have never had it so good, with tens of billions of dollars going out the door each year to his high-priced consultants. Hundreds of millions of dollars in favourable contracts went to his friends at McKinsey, which was led by the Prime Minister's close friend, Dominic Barton. There was $222 million given to Rio Tinto just months after Dominic Barton became the chairman. The billion-dollar green slush fund funnels hundreds of millions of dollars to Liberal insiders with no oversight. Canadians suffer and Liberal insiders prosper.

After nine years of the Prime Minister, Canada is on track for its worst decline in living standards in 40 years, with more than nine in 10 middle-class families paying more in income taxes. Struggling families cannot afford the Prime Minister's higher taxes and out-of-control spending, which is driving up the cost of everything. The Liberal government has doubled rent, mortgage payments and down payments, and the number of tent cities is growing across this country. It is no wonder that Canadians are fed up with the NDP-Liberal coalition.

The Prime Minister is trying to trick Canadians into believing that he will fix what he broke by doubling down on his failed policies, issues that were created by nine years of methodically disastrous policies and that have made life more expensive for Canadians. They are policies that have stolen the dream of home ownership from young Canadians, policies that have forced Canadians to live paycheque to paycheque and policies that have endangered Canadians through a steep increase in violent crime.

Now that these policies have caused crises in housing, immigration, crime, inflation and other areas, the government feigns interest in fairness. It is not fair to Canadians to jeopardize their retirements with a punitive capital gains tax increase. It is not fair to double housing prices and rent. It is not fair to drive up inflation, drastically increasing the prices of everyday necessities, including basic food items. It is not fair to push 25% of Canadians into poverty and to force millions to visit food banks in a single month. The government does not care about fairness. It cares about spending as many taxpayer dollars as it can in its short-time left in government and setting the Liberal government members and their insider friends up for comfortable retirements.

In conclusion, it will come as no surprise that I cannot support this budget implementation act. It is more of the same failed policies from the NDP-Liberal coalition, which refuses to acknowledge its failures. If any member in this place truly believes in fairness, they cannot vote in favour of this bill. No member can look around Canada today, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal coalition, and truly believe that the government has served Canadians well.

It borders on the absurd that Liberal members can stand in this place, claim that this budget, which is more of the same policies that got us into this current mess, will somehow now get us out of it. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Unfortunately, Canadians are the ones paying the price for this madness. I will repeat what I said when speaking to the budget. Canadians are losing hope. They are hanging on by a thread, and this bill will be the scissors that severs it.

This bill should not be passed. Canadians are depending on all opposition members to stop the government's harmful policies and its out-of-control spending, and vote non-confidence.

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

Madam Speaker, allow me to pick up on the issue of caring. If the member opposite and members of the Conservative Party truly cared, they should do some self-reflection in terms of why they do not believe that fixed-income seniors who do not have a dental plan should not be allowed to have access to dental services and be supported by the Government of Canada. Even Pembroke has dental services, I think a half-dozen or more, being made available to their constituents.

I would ask the member this: Why will Conservative after Conservative-Reform member across the way, all those reformers and former Alliance members, not support fixed-income seniors in getting dental care in the ridings they represent? Is it that they do not care?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question because, at the end of the day, Conservatives have a simple plan, and I know that the member could probably repeat it verbatim: We will axe the tax. We will build the homes. We will fix the budget and stop the crime.

The government has a housing accelerator fund that is not building houses. It has a school lunch program that is not serving lunches. It has a national dental program with a handful of dentists who have signed up. We are going to cut the waste and mismanagement of the government, and we are going to restore common sense for Canadians.