Debates of June 9th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Food Inflation and Budgetary Policy

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the member has already been admonished once, in a joking spirit, but perhaps we should start taking these rules a little more seriously.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will remind the hon. secretary of state, who is an experienced member, not to use the proper names of members.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we have a wonderful finance minister. The budget is going to be delivered by our finance minister and our Prime Minister.

We will also remove the goods and services tax for first-time homebuyers on new homes valued up to $1 million, saving them up to $50,000, and lower the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes valued between $1 million and $1.5 million. That is another point of action. This would provide a significant increase to the already substantial federal tax support available to first-time homebuyers through programs such as the first home savings account, the RRSP homebuyers' plan and first-time homebuyers' tax credit. By doing this, we would be helping more young people and young families achieve their dream of owning a home of their own. We are absolutely focused and committed to doing that.

We are also removing the consumer carbon price from law, following its cancellation, effective April 1. Yes, I know the party opposite said that we would never do it, that we were going to put it back on. We did it. We removed the GST from new homes and made the tax cut.

These moves are substantial for Canadians. We want to deliver change with measures that cut taxes, bring down costs and put money back into the pockets of Canadians. We are absolutely focused and committed to doing that. These are some of the ways the government is acting now to make life more affordable.

The government will also continue to protect the programs that are already saving families thousands of dollars every year. Those include child care, pharmacare, dental care and the Canada child benefit, which are saving families thousands, and which the Conservatives voted against. Child care was not supported. They voted against dental care.

Let us be clear. All of us on this side, as Liberals, believe that government has a role to play in Canadians' lives. We believe that government can come forth with transformational programs that help Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The other party members apparently do not, because they did not support the programs. We hear a lot about the price of housing, yet they voted against the rapid housing initiative. They voted against the coinvestment fund. For the housing accelerator fund, which is helping communities, villages and towns from coast to coast to coast, they voted against. Then their leader tells the members not to advocate for that program in their ridings.

We are committed to delivering for Canadians. We are focused on delivering for Canadians. Straight-up, my constituency office has not had five calls about the budget. I have had many calls about the tax cut, many calls about the GST removal on new homes and many calls about the consumer carbon price being eliminated. Do members think Canadians are calling my office in Saint John—Kennebecasis wondering why there is no budget right now when, as I would argue, one of the leading economists in the world has their hands on the wheel?

His Majesty said, during the Speech from the Throne, “In all of [our] actions, the Government will be guided by a new fiscal discipline: spend less so Canadians can invest more.” We will balance the government's operating budget over the next three years by cutting waste, capping the public service, ending duplication and deploying technology to improve public sector productivity.

To this end, the Liberals have committed to delivering the details of our plan in the fall. It is not as though it would be three years in the future or 10 years in the future, as the party opposite makes it seem. This fall, we will deliver the budget. Today we are debating the merits of releasing a budget this spring. Simply put, there is not much value in rushing to a budget within a narrow window of just a few weeks. There are other considerations that must be weighed in order to deliver a comprehensive and detailed budget.

Substantially advancing our discussions with the Americans would provide greater clarity. We all know those discussions are happening. The upcoming NATO summit is crucial for Canada's security and has significant budgetary implications. I think every member of this House will be pleased with the Prime Minister's announcement about the 2% commitment on spending with NATO. These are the kinds of things happening on a day in, day out basis. Yes, it is difficult to table a budget right this minute.

One of the key priorities we have emphasized and have been working on since the start of our mandate is improving government spending efficiency. We are looking for areas to reduce costs and enhance the productivity of the public service. Day-to-day government spending, the government's operating budget, has been growing by 9% every year. The government will introduce measures to bring it to below 2%.

The Liberals are launching these priorities while preparing the budget. Defence spending, economic outcomes and efficiency are all factors that will be captured. By taking these steps, we will have a much stronger, ambitious, effective budget this fall. In parallel, the government will take a series of measures to catalyze new investment to create better jobs and higher incomes for Canadians.

As we have stated before, our government's overreaching goal, its core mission, is to build the strongest economy in the G7. We are committed to building a strong economy. The stronger our economy is, the more we can help Canadians with transformational programs.

It starts with creating one Canadian economy out of 13. We must bring down the trade barriers. Internal barriers to trade and labour mobility cost Canada as much as $200 billion each year. That is why we have introduced legislation to remove all federal barriers to internal trade and labour mobility.

As many hon. members would have noticed last week, to build Canada strong, the government is also working closely with provinces, territories and indigenous peoples to identify and catalyze projects of national significance. What an exciting time for our country.

I talked to New Brunswick's premier about projects that the Liberals want to move forward with for New Brunswick, for Atlantic Canada. Maybe we can do something with Quebec and Ontario at the same time. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources say we will not be defined by delay. We will be defined by delivery. We will be judged by actions, not words. I am absolutely excited; I am absolutely convinced that our future is very bright.

The geopolitical landscape in our world has changed, most likely forever. Relationships that we used to have, we cannot count on. Trade relationships that we used to have are gone. No country, probably, is at greater risk than Canada. However, if we invest, grow, build and move forward with passion and aggression, and we are not afraid to break a few things along the way, then the future of our country will be very bright.

Our government will provide additional details on these efforts and a spending plan in due course as it prepares for a comprehensive federal budget in the fall. I thank members. I do have my tie on; I have three of them now. I want to say that I am very blessed to be here and to have the opportunity to speak to everyone this morning.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Cambridge, food bank visits have surged 32% in just one year. Over 1,000 of those visits were from full-time workers, not because they have failed, but because the Liberal government has failed them. While families are skipping meals, the Liberals still cannot produce a spring budget. The Justin Trudeau government spent $21 billion, and the new Prime Minister is proposing to spend $26 billion. That will take $1,400 per household to pay their high-priced consultants.

A colleague on the other side asked about the value of having a budget. It would help to rein in the overspending that would take money out of the pockets of Canadians. That is the value of a spring budget.

Why is the Prime Minister draining families' grocery budgets to bankroll Liberal-friendly consultants when those same families cannot afford a meal?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member across.

We are a government of action. The government is going to get things done with a tax break for 22 million people that will save families up to $840, as well as cut the consumer carbon tax and GST on new homes.

We are making the proper investments in our economy. Our economy will recover. Our economy will be one of the best economies in the G7. It will respond and be there for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech in the House. I have not seen him often in the past, so I assume that he is a newly elected member.

The member told us that he wants to get moving and that he is part of a government that is taking action. I find that interesting to hear. It is basically true, and we can see that. The government has introduced a few bills so far. These are fairly substantial bills. What is more, the Liberals would like to see these bills passed by July 1. They have tabled a notice of ways and means, Bill C‑4 and Bill C‑5, among other things. The Liberals are certainly proactive when it comes to asking the House for things.

The problem is that the committees are not even sitting. This means that we cannot even analyze the bills that the Liberals want us to pass by July 1. On top of that, they are asking us for new spending. They are asking us for a lot of things, but there is no budget. Does the member opposite not feel that the Liberals are being somewhat inconsistent? Their actions do not seem to match their words.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I am not able to answer the member in French, but I have undertaken to learn to become much more fluent in French.

We are in, I would argue, one of the most challenging times that our country has ever been in. How we used to do things, along with the time it took, is a thing of the past. Of course we have to study, consult and bring things to the House, but time is of the essence. We need to act now. We need to act aggressively to solidify our country against one of the greatest threats it has ever faced.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that we are a government of action. I would like to know how he sees the tax cut, the program to help children get food in their school and the reduction in the cost of child care. How is all of this going to help Canadians deal with the challenges they are facing today?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we can take child care as an example, which is the program we put in from coast to coast to coast, and we had to drag some provinces along, kicking and screaming. It is literally saving families thousands and thousands of dollars on an annual basis. The dental program and the Canada child benefit are programs that are giving back to Canadians and helping Canadians cope.

We know we need to do more. All of us in the House know that we need to be more responsive to Canadians, but we are committed to continuing to deliver for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have watched corporate taxes decrease from 28% under the Mulroney government to 15% today. We have seen record profits in big groceries, an 8% increase, which is double that from pre-COVID. In terms of big oil and gas, there has been a $192-billion profit over the last four years, more than in the 2010s altogether.

Is the minister considering increasing corporate taxes or an excess profit tax on the corporate greed?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing members will not ever hear from me is that a lot of corporations in this world are bad. We have wonderful companies in our country that contribute, employ people and pay taxes.

We are a friend of business. We are a friend of big business and small business. We are going to continue to work with them because we need to work with them to grow our economy.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said something that tweaked my memory. He said that the government is going to spend less so Canadians can invest more. That sounds really familiar to the previous regime, which was using a word salad to try to convince Canadians of something that was not true, like when it said, “The budget will balance itself,” and “We are taking on this debt so Canadians do not have to.”

Does the member's definition of the estimates, where the government is increasing spending by 8%, meet his definition of the government spending less? It certainly does not meet mine.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that we have one of the leading economists in the world running our government right now.

The fundamentals of our economy are strong. Canadians had a decision to make on April 28, and they resoundingly picked the Prime Minister to lead our country, because they have confidence in him and they have faith in him. When he speaks, he thinks. It is not about slogans. Our economy will be the best in the G7, just give us a bit of time.

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

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague have any concerns, as I do, with respect to the issue of misinformation, especially the spreading of misinformation on social media. For example, for years, Pierre Poilievre was telling Canadians that Canada was broken, when Canadians knew full well that Canada was not broken.

This morning, we have the shadow minister of finance saying that we have the worst inflation in the world, when in fact that is just not the case. Canada has always been the best at dealing with inflation compared to G7 and G20 countries.

Does the member have concerns with respect to misinformation being espoused by the Conservative Party?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do have concerns. It is incumbent on everybody in the House to make sure that they speak truth and that their posts are accurate and thoughtful.

That is what we have with our Prime Minister. When he speaks, Canadians want to hear what he has to say, unlike the former leader of the opposition. Canadians did not want to hear what he had to say.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and the answers he gave, and I have a very simple question for him. Is transparency an important value for this government? I really do not get the impression that it is.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely a fundamental value of our government. It is a fundamental value of mine.

Transparency is always key, and we need to be honest. We need to be honest with Canadians. We need to be thoughtful and focused. Today, we have the 2% commitment to NATO. There is a lot of moving balls and a lot of moving targets right now. Hopefully some of that smoke will clear, so we will get something of value with the country to the south of us, and we can move forward with a focused budget in the fall. Transparency is key.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to give my first speech. Since I have a bit more time and this is my first chance to do so in your presence, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment. However, I cannot congratulate the government on its transparency.

I want to mention that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Laurentides—Labelle.

Today's motion is on the price of groceries with the intention of reiterating the request to table a budget. It is a way to ensure that the government has understood the request, or rather the order from Parliament. It is interesting to hear a government representative say that no one has called his riding office asking for a budget to be tabled. He is the parliamentary secretary after all, so he should know what he is talking about. Let us be serious. The elected members of this House, the representatives of the people, ordered the government to table a budget before the summer.

Parliament is the government's boss. The government derives its legitimacy from Parliament. It has to respect the will of Parliament and I get the impression that today's motion will also be adopted. There is no time for populism, saying that no one is complaining about this. Obviously people are worried about being able to afford their groceries. I want to take this opportunity to contribute to the conversation on this.

We need to realize the scope of the current situation. We have not sat since December 18. We just resumed. Parliament has not been able to sit for many months, review government actions, hold the government to account or protect the people in the ridings. That is what the opposition's job is. Not only have we not been able to do that for a very long time, but we are also being told that the government is going to spend money.

I want to be very clear: The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of lower taxes. No one is against apple pie. However, we would like to know what the plan is, where the money will be taken from and which spending items it will come from. Will the government announce in the fall, once the tax cut has been implemented, that it is actually going to cut health transfers to the provinces, thinking that the provinces will just have to make do because the government decided to pander to people by lowering taxes? Is that where we are headed? If that is the case, I am not sure the people at home want us to let the government do that. That is the issue.

In what other areas will budget cuts be made, if not there? Will infrastructure programs be cut? This is a critical time in terms of adapting to climate change. Our municipalities need significant funds to overhaul infrastructure and prepare for flooding and flash floods, like the ones that my riding of Berthier-Maskinongé experienced on August 9. It was a terrible situation. It is not enough to just be there to show compassion for people and help them pump out their basements. We did that, but, as responsible elected officials, we have an administrative job to do. To do that, we have to look at how much money we have left.

On the weekend, I was chatting with my wife and I asked her if she wanted to get a pool. We can get one put in, no problem. Then I asked her if she wanted to go on a trip to Italy. Perfect, we will take a trip to Italy. Then I told her we could also get a new car, since ours is so old. I asked her opinion and we came to an agreement, but does anyone think that a typical family is going to spend that kind of money without budgeting? I am not saying that these kinds of expenses are not justified, important or worthwhile, but do we really think that ordinary people, a popular term many people here use indiscriminately, are going to do that without budgeting for it? It all starts there.

What is more, the government is saying that this is an urgent situation, that it wants to lower taxes now. However, one of the features of the parliamentary system is that when a notice of ways and means motion is tabled, the measure is implemented. We saw it last year with the capital gains tax. The House did not vote on that measure, but it was implemented, and now we are stuck with it. In this case, the Canada Revenue Agency and other other agencies have already made the tax adjustments. Employers have already begun to reduce income tax deductions. There is nothing urgent about this situation. That is just an excuse.

The important thing is doing the job right. There is plenty of time to do that. That is especially important because we are dealing with a government that made all sorts of magical promises during the election campaign. The Liberals told people not to worry because they were going to balance the budget while cutting taxes. They said that they would find a way to do that. It is going to take a hat, a magic wand and a rabbit or I do not know what. Let us be serious. All of this needs to be based on something.

We recently obtained the spending report and learned that spending has increased by 8%, even though this government was elected on a promise to limit spending increases to 2%. It is incapable of that. This government is completely out of control, especially when it comes to awarding contracts to friends, which is expensive. I think the increase there is 26%. The only area where this government is capable of restricting spending is in giving money to individuals, like the pension plan for seniors aged 65 and over, for example. They talk a good game, yet the Liberals have refused, without a hint of embarrassment, to increase pensions for seniors aged 65 and over and eliminate age discrimination. Today, they have the nerve to tell us that this is no big deal, that they are not tabling a budget. Then they are asking us to vote in favour of what they want.

The Bloc Québécois takes things seriously. We always try to behave like adults, and today, the members who are behaving like adults are saying that it is true, food prices have gone up. There are several reasons for this.

This is probably going to disappoint the Conservative Party a little, but I want to tell them something. Since April 1, when the consumer carbon tax was scrapped, food prices have not dropped, despite what the Conservatives have been claiming for months and years. That means there is something else going on.

We commissioned the Institut de recherche en économie contemporaine, or IREC, to do a study, and the findings were very clear. A great deal of the increase is attributable to climate change, and a great deal of it is due to global instability and conflict. How great is it that, during a global conflict, Canada opted to tax fertilizer for farmers. Canada was the only G7 country to do that, even though it is an extremely ineffective measure. The government knew it then, and it knows it now. The government tried to reimburse farmers, but it could not figure out how to do so because it did not know who had paid what, so now that money is paying for programs for farmers. Farmers are paying for their own programs, yet the government will tell them how lucky they are to have received so much government money. That money is the farmers' money. Business risk management programs do not work at all.

There are some simple things the government can do. I am not just complaining. I would like to congratulate MPs on making a significant and unanimous decision last Thursday to send the bill to protect supply management directly to the Senate. That is a very important measure that protects not only the people who get out of bed every morning to feed us, but also the price of groceries. Anyone who doubts that that is what supply management does should go check the price of a dozen eggs in the United States. Then they will understand what I am talking about.

In an earlier question, I raised the idea of implementing a code of conduct in the grocery industry to create better conditions for small suppliers. My NDP colleague will be pleased to hear me talk about that. We could look at the price-setting mechanism in this industry and create a monitoring organization to identify opportunities for action. We could help protect our follow citizens by safeguarding competition and putting an end to the over-concentration of the industry. We could also promote local distribution channels and regional processing, and invest in infrastructure like regional slaughterhouses, which will form a basic infrastructure around which an ecosystem of producers can set up operations. All of these measures will bring stability, and with it, lower prices. We need to support our farmers in better ways than through absolutely ridiculous programs like AgriRecovery, which took two years to help just half of the people who needed it. A two-year response time for an emergency program is a total joke.

I have a message for the government. It needs to get serious and table a budget so that we can begin working seriously, on a solid foundation.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague across the way. My colleague said a lot of things, and I will come back to that in a few moments, but he left some things out.

I did not hear him talk much about the tax cut, nor did he talk about the expansion of the Canadian dental care plan to cover adults aged 18 to 64, or the school food program, which will benefit 100,000 children in Quebec alone. However, we did hear him say some things that make sense to me, such as the importance of doing things seriously and taking the time to write documents properly and rigorously.

Why does my colleague think that taking the time to draft a credible and rigorous budget over the next few weeks is a bad thing?

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

Mr. Speaker, I actually feel like I have been misunderstood. I never said that taking the time to draft the budget and doing it conscientiously was not important.

However, the new Minister of Finance and National Revenue has been in the position for three months. His mandate was very clear. It was to create a budget that would allow for measures to help businesses affected by U.S. tariffs and the trade war, for example. The Liberals talked about that throughout the election campaign. Now that the Liberals no longer need people to be afraid, they do not want to talk about it anymore. What a joke. Tariffs on steel and aluminum are currently set at 50%. No business will be able to survive this without government support.

What is the government going to do? That would normally be answered in a budget. As for tax cuts, as I said at the beginning of my speech, we are never against them. We do not oppose them in principle, but we have to be serious. We need to know what the outcome will be and where the money is going to come from.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the grocery bill for Canadian families is $16,834, which is an $800 increase since last year, about 5%. The government is claiming that inflation is at 1.7%. Economically speaking, can the hon. member explain that if inflation is at 1.7% and groceries are going up by 5%, how that can happen?

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

Mr. Speaker, a number of factors came into play. I spoke earlier about the fact that climate change has caused a lot of problems not only in Quebec and Canada, but also in the United States. We have to remember that we import a lot of goods. Geopolitical factors have also had an impact on grain prices, for example. Consider Ukraine, which is still, sadly, occupied by a foreign invasion force. That also has consequences. There are a lot of things we cannot control.

However, my colleague will be happy to hear that I have ideas about things we can control. I talked about the grocery code of conduct, regional processing and business risk management. Those are things we can take action on. We can also take action on supply management, and we are doing so. Furthermore, we can streamline the temporary foreign worker program by reducing red tape for producers. As I just said, climate change is a major cause of rising prices. We should provide financial support to environmentally responsible producers. We should also encourage innovation and adaptation. We can put incentives in place for all that to get results in the short and medium terms, but we need to take action. We need to focus on what we can change.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the issue of a budget presentation. As I am sure the member is aware, when Stephen Harper became the prime minister of Canada, he was elected that February and presented a budget in May. Now, the Conservatives have adopted a double standard. I am wondering whether the member opposite from the Bloc would recognize that, given that the election was April 28 and given the very nature of what is taking place with the U.S., President Trump, trade and tariffs, it is better to make the budget accurate and to do it properly than to try to rush something through. Would the member not agree with that in principle?

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is talking about three months, correct? He talked about a time when an election was held in February and the budget was tabled in May. Well, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue has been in that position for three months with a clear mandate to prepare a budget to deal with the U.S. trade war. I think the minister would be able to do so.

Let us be serious. Let us do serious work. If the Liberals are unable to present a complete budget, then they could at least provide an economic update to tell us where the money is going to come from. Then we could sit down like adults, decide if we approve it or not, and make informed decisions for a positive future for everyone. That is our job.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I am speaking in this new Parliament, I will take the opportunity to say a few thank yous. I have had the privilege and honour of representing the people of Laurentides—Labelle since 2019. This is my third term.

First, I want to thank the 23,615 people who chose the Bloc Québécois. To all the others, as I said during the election campaign, I want them to know that I am there for and with them. I also want to thank my campaign team. I will take the time to mention them by name because their contribution was so valuable. They gave a great deal of their time. I want to thank Maryse, Samuel, Annie‑Claude, Annie, François, Michel and Lévis. I seriously would not be here without them. I covered 11,000 kilometres in 39 municipalities. Laurentides—Labelle is a very large but very beautiful riding. I want to thank all these volunteers.

All of this already makes me feel very constructive. I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion put forward by the Conservatives on their opposition day. I am going to break down the motion. I will begin by quickly explaining the essence of this motion. Then I will outline why the Bloc Québécois supports it.

Obviously, this motion raises important questions about accountability and governance. I will also provide details. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé has already set the stage, so I will try not to be too repetitive.

First of all, it is true that families will pay more for their food. In fact, this has already been the case for some time. It is perfectly reasonable to be concerned about this issue, given that families' grocery bills are expected to increase by $800 a year. I think that all parliamentarians have noticed the increase in the price of groceries. In addition, there has been a marked increase in demand at all food banks.

I want to bring my colleagues' attention to a particular point in the motion, the one that states that the House should call on the government to present a budget before the summer. Summer starts on June 21, although it could also happen after that date. This budget is supposed to reverse Liberal inflationary policies so Canadians can afford to put food on the table.

I have reread the motion several times. The first part is essential. It calls on the government to present a budget.

I worked in community organizations for over two decades, and I am also an entrepreneur. Spending money without first identifying our revenue sources is simply not an option. Come on. That part caught my attention, and I wondered whether no budget was being presented because there was not enough time or because this new role came as a surprise. However, the Prime Minister is supposedly a world-renowned expert. Parliamentarians thought they were coming back to the House quickly so that the government could present an economic statement or a budget for them to vote on, but that is not the case.

The government was trying to make itself look good. Parliamentarians returned quickly. However, the government was not ready. What should be done in such a situation? We should take our time. This might take a week or two. In any case, as of March 14, the first day the finance minister took office, he knew that he needed to immediately start thinking about what he would propose. There are 343 members in this minority House, and the government is accountable to them. The government is trying to make itself look good. It is talking to the media and announcing goodies like tax cuts, help for first-time homebuyers and all sorts of other things.

Parliamentarians agree that anyone who has to put a budget together should have a full breakdown of their cash flow, so that they know exactly how much money is coming in and how much is going out.

What we have here is the other extreme. I say this to everyone in Laurentides—Labelle. When I tell them that we are talking about tax measures and that we will agree with this motion because there is indeed an inflationary crisis, constituents ask me what we are working with. I tell them that we are working with nothing.

When I talk to colleagues who are economists and accountants and to business people, they tell me that they do not understand why a self-respecting government is not even able to do the basics. I would have expected us to come back a month later than we did and sit until the end of July so that we would be ready to start again. As my colleague said earlier, the committees are not even sitting and cannot conduct any studies. I am lost for words. I just do not get it.

Speaking of committees, I will be taking on new responsibilities in that area. I will be working on tourism and veterans' affairs. I will also be working on government operations as a member of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. This committee is responsible for analyzing costs. It is fortuitous that we have not started yet. Government spending on equipment purchases is rising from $3.7 billion to $10.8 billion, an increase of 190%. I find that very disconcerting. Governing with billions of dollars is nothing new. I therefore agree with my Conservative colleagues that a budget needs be presented, and quickly. That is the first thing I wanted to say.

Furthermore, it has been six months since the House last sat. As I said, as of March 14, we expected to have something tangible to work on when we returned to the House. Instead, we are being presented with a bill called Bill C‑4, which contains tax measures. However, we do not know how we can work on spending and approve it. The government is putting the screws on us, saying that surely we cannot oppose these measures, since they are intended to help people. To me, that is unacceptable.

I want to conclude by saying that Bloc Québécois members are really here to work for our people. We are not here to poll higher, get re-elected and keep our voters in line as of day one in office. We have already taken action. My colleague talked about this earlier. The Institut de recherche en économie contemporaine, or IREC, conducted a study. Everyone says that groceries are expensive, but we all know why. It is because of climate change.

Here is an example. I did some gardening this weekend. I can make plans based on the weather. If there is torrential rain, I will protect the garden. If there is a chance of frost in July, I will protect it. If the weather is too dry, I will water it. How well equipped are our producers to adapt to climate change? Basically, life is about supply and demand. If the supply is lacking, obviously things will cost more. The Conservatives care a lot about public safety, but I would suggest that food security is part of that as well, so let us tackle the root of the problem. We know that abolishing the carbon tax has done nothing to bring down the cost of groceries.