Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing her time with me.
Canadians have now had time to absorb this budget. A common theme heard from everyday Albertans in my riding of Edmonton Northwest is that the budget fails to address the number one concern of Canadians today: affordability. The government touts this budget as a generational budget, but the future generations of Canada, the young people of this country, only see ever-increasing challenges ahead in living their lives.
For the first time in a long time, Canadian young people are saying that they expect life to be worse than it was for their parents' generation. Housing is out of reach. I hear directly from young people in my riding who want to start a family and own a home but do not see a path to achieving those dreams.
Food costs, caused by inflationary spending and government taxes, are making getting basic meals a challenge. There are record lineups at food banks. Canadians are not imagining these things, as the government likes to say. Education is increasingly expensive and spots are less available. Wages are stagnant and the cost of living is rising faster than any of the paycheques people receive.
The urgency of this reality is not reflected in the priorities of the budget. On top of this, the Prime Minister has directly asked young Canadians to sacrifice even more. The budget talks about long-term housing supply but fails to address the crushing affordability crisis of youth today.
Youth, like all Canadians, are looking for leadership. The leadership they are looking for is systematic, not the same, old strategy of the last decade, when the government attempted to be the economic driver of Canada while systematically undermining the economy. It is the same failed approach the government takes with our resource sector.
We see in the budget a focus on major projects, which is good, but we do not see the systematic leadership to unleash the true potential of our resource sector. A vague line exists in the budget about the oil and gas cap, but this is only if carbon capture is a part of the equation, which would cost Canadians billions of dollars. The industrial carbon price, the tanker ban and Bill C-69 are still in place, and they are all things that tell investors that Alberta, in particular, is not a priority to Canada.
The government still very much controls the system, effectively saying to the market, “We know very much our own rules are ineffective and prohibitive, but if you lobby us for government subsidies, we will determine if you are a winner or a loser.”
There are indications out there that the federal government intends to sign an MOU with the Province of Alberta. While we were told things would be getting done at record speeds, MOUs do not get shovels into the ground. MOUs are non-binding; legislative systematic changes are binding.
Alberta is the natural resource engine of Canada, and this budget only vaguely strings Albertans continuously along the path of more federal government control over our potential as a province to help our whole country. Albertans have proven for decades that their entrepreneurship, particularly in the oil and gas industry, has been a catalyst for helping the whole country. From Newfoundland to B.C. and the north, people are heating their homes with diesel from our oil and gas fields.
I reflect upon my great-grandfather, Chief William Morin, who, in the 1950s, embraced oil and gas development, and said this would be the catalyst to increasing the living standards of his people and having us stand on our own two feet in the face of Indian Act paternalism. This brings me to the consequences of this budget on indigenous peoples.
It has now been just over six months since I arrived in Ottawa as a first-time member of the House. In my previous life as chief of my nation, I sought to lead in the example set by my great-grandfathers and the chiefs who came before me. They were entrepreneurial, first-time farmers in the late 1800s. They embraced oil and gas as a resource to eradicate poverty in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and started gaming in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, so as to show our people and Canada that we were responsible net contributors to treaty.
This coincides with the notion of self-determination and the fact that Ottawa does not know what is best for our people. Since 1867, Indian Affairs, now Indigenous Services Canada, underpinned by the Indian Act, has failed indigenous peoples across Canada. I came to Ottawa knowing that major structural changes were needed in how Indigenous Services Canada manages the relationship with indigenous peoples. Now more than ever, I know it to be true that significant structural changes are needed.
I was fortunate to lead my community on this new journey in the era of reconciliation, even doing some good things with the government along the way. I was only able to do so by the foundation of self-determination set by my chiefs who came before me, who sought effective win-win partnerships with Canada and Canadians by coming to the table with our own source revenue. For too many first nations, Métis and Inuit, this is not the case.
Now I am afraid the Liberal government has reduced reconciliation to performative slogans, ministerial addresses and press releases. The budget offers none of the structural improvements to take reconciliation to the next necessary level, a level defined by individual entrepreneurship, less government, and more chief and council oversight. The government uses softer, patronizing language such as “reallocation” and “re-evaluation” and says that it is spreading reconciliation around to other ministries. All of this is performative and is part of the paternalistic saviour strategy that has created more uncertainty, fear, disappointment and division among indigenous peoples and Canadians.
What does it say about priorities when the federal government increases spending in the administrative aspects of Indigenous Services, such as the new bureaucratic commissioner's office, whose titles sound nice, but they have no real power to make tangible change in the community on the ground? The budget is good news for new federal offices and jobs. It is also good news for major project advisory boards, consultants and fraudulent companies posing as indigenous contractors, but it is not good news for indigenous peoples in community.
To quote the national chief, “When the best we can say is that Indigenous Services is only being cut 2%, we know that there's a problem”. The rephrasing of how this budget deals with indigenous communities is a distraction from ISC cutting $2.3 billion in services while doing basically nothing to lower the administrative costs of government.
Thus far, the only legislation submitted in the House during this session has been for more bureaucracy for the indigenous files. Since 2018, ISC has doubled its staff from 4,000 to roughly 8,000 full-time equivalents. This is billions more in administration. It has been reported that 42¢ of every ISC budget dollar goes to administrative aspects. That would be more than $10 billion. Imagine what that money could do if it actually reached communities and entrepreneurs directly.
The budget does nothing to change that and only exasperates more government control and dependency. There are zeros in this budget in the table entitled “Indigenous Reconciliation” after this year. There is no dedicated chapter to indigenous spending like there was in years past. This will only make navigating bureaucracy even worse, leaving behind vulnerable first nations, Métis and Inuit communities that lack capacity. Is this all by design?
The finance minister said in his speech, when referring to indigenous peoples of this country, “we build not just for ourselves; we build also for those who will follow us.” Are indigenous nations to interpret that as it being the government's way or the highway when it comes to critical infrastructure and housing? When it comes to this tactic and this philosophy, is the government using it in Bill C-5 as well?
In his next sentence, the finance minister had the audacity to say, “I am often reminded of the seven-generation principle. Rooted in indigenous teachings, it is a reminder that every decision we take must consider its impact on future generations.” With zeros on the chart for reconciliation beyond this year, along with cuts, more dependency on government and an $80-billion deficit, the finance minister shows again that he is all about virtue signalling indigenous people and Canadians and only cares about adding seven generations' worth of debt to all of Canada.
As Conservatives, we recognize the importance of self-determination and not dependency. We believe indigenous communities are fully capable of managing their own services, driving their own economies and protecting their own lands. We needed more promotion of healing and recovery in the face of addiction for indigenous communities. That is a federal jurisdiction for the Liberals, not a provincial one.
We needed Liberals to keep their commitment to making policing essential and to not walk it back, as was indicated by the public safety minister two weeks ago. How are indigenous people able to meaningfully participate in the economy when they are in constant crisis when it comes to safety, crime, addiction and poverty?
The Prime Minister says that we are in a trade crisis as a country. Indigenous communities have been in crises for decades. This budget does nothing to change that. We needed to set the table for entrepreneurship in this budget. Instead, there is no timeline for changing the broken federal indigenous procurement program, which highlights fraud and is ripping off indigenous peoples and Canadians alike. What we needed was not for more federal government, but for the federal government to commit to structural change and get out of the way.