House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
44th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • No. 207
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 6, 2023
House of Commons Debates
Volume 151
No. 207
1st SESSION
44th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, June 6, 2023
Speaker: The Honourable Anthony Rota
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
[Translation]
Interparliamentary Delegations
[English]
Committees of the House
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research. This report is entitled “Pursuing a Canadian Moonshot Program”.
I would like to thank the clerk, the analysts, the translators and the people who supported our work, as well as the members for their excellent questions to the wonderful group of witnesses we had. I also thank the witnesses.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Textile Waste Reduction Strategy Act
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-337, An Act to establish a national strategy on the reduction of textile waste.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to introduce the textile waste reduction strategy act, with thanks to the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for seconding this bill.
Consumers are currently buying more clothes and wearing them for less time than ever before. This has caused a sharp increase in the pollution, waste and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the fashion industry in Canada. We send nearly 500 million kilograms of textile waste to landfills every year.
This legislation would help address the impacts of fast fashion by requiring the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to develop a national strategy to reduce, reuse and recycle textile waste.
This bill is the result of the vision of a bright highschool student from Vancouver Kingsway, Kaylee Chou, who attends Windermere Secondary School. Kaylee is this year's winner of my Create Your Canada contest, which invites highschool students to participate in our democracy and offer their ideas for a better country. I hope all parliamentarians will support her thoughtful and creative initiative.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
National Indigenous Teachers Day Act
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-338, National Indigenous Teachers Day Act.
She said: Mr. Speaker, today, during Indigenous History Month, it is my great privilege to table this very important piece of legislation, the national indigenous teachers day act, which would designate February 22 of each year as national indigenous teachers day.
I want to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for seconding this bill, but perhaps more importantly, I want to thank and acknowledge Theodore Anton, a grade 11 student from Old Scona Academic high school in Edmonton Strathcona, for the idea to recognize and celebrate the vital contributions and perspectives in education that indigenous educators bring to our schools. Theodore is the winner of my Create Your Canada contest, and he is in Ottawa with his parents to help me present this bill.
I thank Theodore and all the amazing young people who submitted ideas to make Canada a better place for everyone. I urge my fellow parliamentarians to support this bill, as it would mark an important step on the path toward reconciliation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Canadian Women's Contributions to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Day Act
moved for leave to introduce an Act to establish a national day to honour Canadian women’s contributions to science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak about this bill recognizing that Canadian women have made remarkable contributions to and achievements in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. This bill would establish a national day to honour Canadian women's contributions to STEM.
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 349)
YEAS
Members
AldagAlghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Battiste
Beech
Bendayan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Cannings
Casey
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Garrison
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Miller
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
O'Connell
O'Regan
Petitpas Taylor
Qualtrough
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Singh
Sousa
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thompson
Trudeau
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Virani
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi
Total: -- 172
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Berthold
Bérubé
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chabot
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
Desbiens
Desilets
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lemire
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Maguire
Martel
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Michaud
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
O'Toole
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Perkins
Perron
Plamondon
Poilievre
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thériault
Therrien
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudel
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 144
PAIRED
NilGovernment Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1
Bill C-47—Time Allocation Motion
That in relation to Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill; and
That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair can have some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.
The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.
Mr. Speaker, it is again a shame that we are moving to closure. We are undermining the parliamentary democracy we have, and the most shameful thing is that the government is being supported by the NDP, which is supposed to be an opposition party but is acting like it is a bunch of Liberals.
Throughout history, normally a government that moves closure can count on only maybe once or twice during a parliamentary session getting the support of any of the opposition parties to support a closure motion like we have right now, stymying debate. In fact, if we look back, since the time of Tommy Douglas under the NDP until Thomas Mulcair, the NDP supported closure only 14 times in the 17 Parliaments during that time span. However, here we are today, under the leadership of the NDP leader, the member for Burnaby South, and the NDP is going to support closure for the 35th time. What has happened to the NDP that it has squandered its principles under Tommy Douglas, of being an effective opposition, and is instead supporting the Liberals and undermining our constitutional right to debate all the bills they bring before the House?
Mr. Speaker, obviously I cannot speak for the NDP, but I do want to speak in response to the question from the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. What I want to say is that I know he and I, and his party and mine, disagree about many things, but there are some things we agree on.
I notice he is wearing today a blue and yellow ribbon; I am wearing a blue and yellow bracelet, and I am glad we have cross-party support for Ukraine. Right now, that is particularly important and is relevant to this bill, because this bill includes measures that would help Canada support Ukraine. I do hope, and in fact am confident, that the member opposite knows and understands that. That is one reason everyone in the House should be supportive of this measure going through.
There is another element in this BIA that I would hazard a guess the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman should support, and that is doubling the deduction for tradespersons' tools. He represents working people, and I do too. It is a great measure in the bill that everyone in the House should be able to support.
Mr. Speaker, as I ask this question, my community is thick with smoke from the fires. I know the smoke from the fires is in Toronto and I know it is in Ottawa. Our country is on fire, and I have been watching the shenanigans in the House go on. We have work to do as parliamentarians.
My Conservative colleagues are talking about their rights. I support the rights of opposition, but we need to get legislation passed. I am very concerned about the ongoing efforts to obstruct the money needed to get support for critical minerals for clean energy. We know that the leader of the Conservative Party has ridiculed the investments in EV technology. He has been in my region ridiculing EV technology even though our communities are dependent on base metal mining and critical mineral mining.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister not only about the willingness of the government to put money on the table to know we can get a clean energy economy moving as quickly as it needs to be in the face of the climate crisis, but also whether the government is willing to put the legislative tools in place so we can tell Canadian workers, and particularly energy workers in western Canada, that we have their backs, that there is a plan and that this Parliament actually can get something done that is beyond the circus antics we have witnessed.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay and I have, on many occasions, publicly disagreed, but he points to what is surely the heart of this bill and something all Canadians should support. As he rightly says, Canada is burning right now. Alberta has been burning. Right now Quebec and Atlantic Canada are burning. Here in Ottawa, it is hard to breathe. There can be no more powerful clarion call to action.
The good news is that this bill would put into action our clean economy plan. Not only would that help to reduce emissions but, as the member for Timmins—James Bay pointed out, but it would also create great jobs. I want to personally thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for the contribution he made to the labour conditions we have included in our clean economy tax credits. It is so important to us that these credits build a clean economy but that they do it by creating great-paying jobs with pensions and with benefits, at the union average wage.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the intervention from the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman saying that this is an affront on democracy. It is almost as though he did not even listen to his own leader yesterday saying in the media that Conservatives will pull out every procedural trick to prevent the budget from moving forward. Clearly there is a calculated effort, which we witnessed yesterday and Friday, to do whatever they feel necessary procedurally to prevent moving forward on these important initiatives for Canadians. Perhaps it is time for Conservatives to think about having a less partisan approach and a more collaborative one when it comes to this, in order to deliver for Canadians. I am wondering whether the minister would like to comment on that.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his really hard work in the House, getting the people's work done. It is absolutely essential. Speaking to his point, what I would like to say to us all is that the House is, by nature, partisan; that is how our Canadian parliamentary democracy works. I think all of us understand that and should embrace it.
I think it is also important for us to be responsible in getting the people's work done, in getting support to Canadians and also in showing Canadians that we take seriously the spirit of how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work. That is something that all of us have an interest in because all of us are MPs. All of us are parliamentarians.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to quickly tally up all the attacks on democracy that have happened since I was first elected in 2015.
I remember that, from 2015 to 2019, even with a majority, the government moved one closure motion after another. I cannot list every single one, but there was an awful lot. I also remember a back-to-work bill to end the postal strike during my first term.
During my second term, certain motions got majority support here in the House of Commons, including a Bloc Québécois motion to increase the disability benefit period to 50 weeks. It was adopted by the majority, but the government has done nothing.
Then there is Chinese interference. Three motions got majority support, but the government has done nothing. I do not agree with the Conservatives' strategy to block debate, but I also disagree with the government's string of closure motions. I would actually like the Liberals to tell me their definition of democracy.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I do not completely agree with my hon. colleague, and she does not fully agree with me.
However, I think that this bill contains important measures that she and her colleagues in the Bloc Québécois can support. For example, there is a measure aimed at cracking down on predatory lending by lowering the criminal rate of interest. I think that is a measure that everyone here, including my colleague across the aisle, must support.
The extension of the employment insurance program for seasonal workers is another important measure for Quebeckers. I hope that she will support that one as well. The measure doubling the tradespeople’s tool deduction is another one that everyone should support.
Lastly, there is the extremely important measure I just mentioned in response to the question from my NDP colleague: our clean tech tax credits to promote economic growth. This is a series of measures that are essential for the green transition, measures that the Premier of Quebec has strongly supported.
Once again, we need the bill we are discussing today to implement these measures that are so important to our green transition.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
I listened to the member for Timmins—James Bay ask the Deputy Prime Minister about the need to pass this legislation urgently because of wildfires. I will remind the member, and I will also remind the Deputy Prime Minister, who referenced that question, that when I was knocking on doors during the 2021 election, B.C. was on fire when the government called an election. I take issue with this notion now being trumped up, when B.C. was, in fact, on fire.
The minister refused to appear at committee for two hours, when we are facing what are, quite possibly, the largest debt and deficit increases in Canadian history, yet here we hear that this is being obstructionist and anti-democratic on the Conservative side. Does the Deputy Prime Minister not see the hypocrisy in this position when she would not appear at committee for a simple two hours, and Canadians are being asked to fork over more and more when it comes to inflation, groceries, home heating and taxes?
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo has reminded us that the last election, the one that brought us all to this House, was fought while B.C. was on fire. That may be why the member, and all the Conservative MPs, actually campaigned on a commitment to bring in a price on pollution.
In fact, the Conservative platform says, “Our plan will ensure that all Canadians can do their part to fight climate change, in the way that works best for them, and at a carbon price that is...increasing to $50/tonne”. It also says, “We will assess progress...[so] carbon prices [can be] on a path to $170/tonne”.
I believe the people of B.C. understand that climate change is real and that climate action is essential. I think they understood that when B.C. was on fire, and that is why the member opposite made that promise to the people who elected him.
I would call on the Conservatives to remember that they made that promise as so much of Canada is burning. Let us work together to fight climate change.
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to my Conservative colleagues talk about how their ability to debate this bill is being severely curtailed. I would take that more seriously if it were not for yesterday's motion to adjourn the House of Commons. Thankfully, that motion from the Conservatives was soundly defeated, because the rest of us actually want to come here to work for our constituents, rather than call it an early day.
My question for the Minister of Finance concerns the dental care provisions in this bill, as well as the fact that we are going to move ahead with extending coverage to persons with disabilities, to seniors and to children under the age of 18. Could the minister tell us why this NDP initiative is so important and why we have to fight for this measure, including for constituents who live in Conservative ridings?
Mr. Speaker, I am happy, in this House, to thank the member and his NDP colleagues for championing this very important step.
Speaking personally, I was really moved by the reactions to the dental care measures that I heard as I toured the country following the tabling of the budget. Probably a dozen people came up to me with tears in their eyes, thanking me and saying that they were not able to afford dental care for themselves or that their parents could not do so when they were children. Some covered their mouths with their hands. They are very glad that they will now be able to access that dental care.
I have also had people, including young people, come up and ask me when this will come into force, so that they can go to the dentist. They know it is good for their health. I remember, as a kid on the school bus, we could tell how much everyone's parents made by their smiles. That is terrible, and I am very glad that, together, we are able to change that forever.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance answer my colleague from Repentigny earlier. She spoke about all the good things in her budget, things we could not in good conscience vote against.
It is nice to see what is in the budget, but it is even more important to see what is not in the budget. There is nothing for the housing crisis and nothing for seniors between the ages of 65 and 74, who for years have been demanding that they also be eligible for the increase in old age security benefits.
The cultural industry has been sounding the alarm for years, especially during the pandemic. We even did a study in committee to recommend that the government maintain financial assistance to the cultural sector, because it will be more difficult for the cultural industries in Quebec and Canada to recover. We are seeing it now with our smaller festivals, which are having a hard time. There were clear and precise requests, but they were not addressed in this budget.
As a result, we will be voting against the budget. We will not vote against it because of the measures it contains, but because of the measures it does not contain, which are just as important as what the Deputy Prime Minister is boasting about today.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to seniors, I think that everyone can be proud and pleased that the number of seniors in Canada and Quebec living below the poverty line has decreased considerably in our eight years in power. This has always been one of our priority targets, and we managed to achieve it.
As for the cultural sector, I reiterate that we understand its value to the economy, as well as its social and political importance. That is why we have always supported this sector and why we will continue to do so.
It is true that we were unable to include in the budget all of the measures each member in the House would have liked to see, because we adopted a balanced approach. We took the measures that were necessary and adopted a compassionate approach. That being said, fiscal responsibility is also important to us, and that is why we could not do everything today.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, to the earlier exchange that the Minister of Finance had on the subject of Ukraine, I think it is significant that the budget implementation bill, for the first time, removes Russia and Belarus from most-favoured-nation status. We are not in this place debating the budget, which I voted against; we are debating Bill C-47, which I voted for and will continue to vote for. There are many measures in it that I support and none that I oppose, unlike the budget itself. I still cannot vote for time allocation.
Even after the amount of debate we have had in this place, I do not think anyone else has put on the record that Russia still has most-favoured-nation status for trade reasons until we pass this legislation. That is lamentable.
I wish we did not have tactics being used that amount to an obstruction to moving forward and that stand in the way of sensible debate on what we are actually talking about here. Therefore, I find myself in the awkward position of being in favour of this legislation, opposed to the government moving to push it through quickly, and very much opposed to meaningless partisan obstruction tactics that do not deal with the substance of the legislation, which I fear most people in this place still have not read.
Mr. Speaker, one view I hope I can safely say is shared by all members of the House is an appreciation for the professionalism and seriousness with which the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has always approached her work, the thoughtfulness and care she takes, and how she carefully parses out every aspect of her position. I appreciate that very much. I always learn from her, even if we do not always agree. I am grateful to her for pointing out the most-favoured-nation status for Russia and Belarus.
In my answer to the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, one thing I pointed to that I hope we can all come together on in this bill is support for Ukraine and steadfast opposition to Russia. I think the measure that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands cited is indeed one aspect of this position that all Canadians support and that we should all taking.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-47 includes several measures. The Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister did an extraordinary job listening to Canadians. As I often say, Canadians told us three things. Obviously, they brought up the cost of living, health care and dental care, but they also spoke to us about the need to build the economy of the future, a greener economy aligned with the 21st century.
Bill C-47 includes a huge number of measures to help our small and medium-size businesses and entrepreneurs in order to position Canada for success. These measures will help seize generational opportunities and create the jobs of the future, well-paid green jobs.
I would therefore ask the Minister of Finance to remind the Canadians listening this morning, because there are Canadians listening, why it is important to pass Bill C-47. How will the bill help position Canada for the 21st-century economy?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the Minister of Industry, for his question and for the close collaboration between our two departments. Today we are building Canada’s 21st-century economy, and we are doing so by working as a team.
I completely agree that we have the opportunity today to seize the economic moment. We can also fail to do so and miss this opportunity. That is why we do not have much time and must act immediately.
I was in Montreal a few days ago, speaking to a group of Canadian investors. They told me that the measures we outlined in the budget last March were the necessary ones.
However, they also told me that it was necessary to implement them right now because, otherwise, capital will migrate to the United States and will not be invested here in Canada, where we need it.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are quite concerned about the Liberals closing down debate.
They are stymying the scrutiny of government expenditures and management, which are out of control. I will give a small example of what is happening throughout Canada, which is big in my riding. We have an underpass that was supposed to be in Pitt Meadows, and it has more than tripled in cost in just the past four years, from $63 million to $200 million. The whole project is on the verge of collapsing. Most of the cost is not even for construction; it is for enabling, management and bureaucracy. This is happening across Canada.
This affects all Canadians and hard-working taxpayers. Do the Liberal minister and the government not appreciate the need for more scrutiny and accountability?
Mr. Speaker, we absolutely appreciate the importance and value of parliamentary debate. That is why I appeared before the committee of the whole for more than four hours last Monday.
We appreciate the hard, important work committees do, although committees can work more effectively when they are not being filibustered. Having said that, we also know that part of the job we are all charged with doing here is to move from words and debate to action. What I have been hearing as I travel around the country is not that our constituents, our voters, want us to talk more. In fact, what I hear is that they would like us to talk a little less and get a little more done.
That is what our government is absolutely committed to. There are so many measures in this legislation that I believe every single member of the House could support. Who is opposed to cracking down on predatory lending? Let us join hands and get important work done for the people.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for joining us. I should not say that, but I thank her anyway.
I would like to ask a question on a topic of great concern to me. In our role as members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, we expect a certain degree of accountability, particularly from the departments, but also from Crown corporations.
In this budget, I see that a huge number of funds, like the Canada growth fund, are going to be managed by Crown corporations from now on. For the public we represent, this will mean less accountability and, more importantly, less transparency.
I wonder if the minister would agree that Crown corporations should be held to the same standard of transparency as the departments?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and her kind words, which I am pleased to accept.
The member opposite is raising a very specific question concerning the Canada growth fund. This is an important fund, so the question is also important. Right now, the green transition needs public investments. Quebec and Quebeckers understand that. It is also understood that these investments require a level of business expertise that public servants just do not have. That is why we will be calling on the services of professionals to invest this money, our money, our constituents' money.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, first, I just want to comment on how disheartening it is to see the Conservatives' many tactics and games to stall the work that is necessary for us to move forward in representing our constituents. I do not understand the desire to ensure that Canadians do not have access to dental care. That is necessary. Constituents are reaching out to me in my riding, talking about how much they need this dental care, and I know many constituents in the Conservatives' ridings are saying the same.
I will turn to my question, however. In the budget there was a commitment to advance the red dress initiative for missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people, and we are not seeing that funding commitment attached to it. Could the Minister of Finance please clarify when we will see the advancement of this vital life-saving tool?
Mr. Speaker, I very much agree with the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith that all of us have to really be thoughtful when it comes to discrediting the institution that we have the privilege to be a part of, and Conservative games risk doing that. They also are delaying the provision of very, very important support to Canadians.
I am glad to hear a second reference to dental care. It would literally transform people's smiles, their health and their lives. It is one of the reasons we have to get this legislation passed.
With respect to the red dress initiative, it is another very important measure we are committed to working with all members of the House to make it happen.
[Translation]
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.
[English]
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 350)
YEAS
Members
AldagAlghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Battiste
Beech
Bendayan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Cannings
Casey
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Garrison
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
O'Connell
O'Regan
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Singh
Sousa
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thompson
Trudeau
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi
Total: -- 175
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Berthold
Bérubé
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chabot
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
Desbiens
Desilets
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lemire
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Martel
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Michaud
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
O'Toole
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Perkins
Perron
Plamondon
Poilievre
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Small
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thériault
Therrien
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudel
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Zimmer
Total: -- 145
PAIRED
Nil The House resumed from June 5 consideration of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting when time constraints require us to split our speaking time between two different days, but I was okay with stopping my intervention halfway through last evening in order to accommodate the emergency debate on the wildfire situation.
I would like to express my hopes that everyone remains safe as the fires rage. I helped friends back home in Salmon Arm evacuate in 1998 just before the flames took their home, and I have seen how bad the devastation can be.
I also want to recognize the expertise and courage of the firefighters and emergency response teams for all they are doing to save lives, properties and assist those displaced.
I will go back to my intervention on Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. I was speaking last night about what $20 billion looked like to everyday Canadians, but I am now going to have to change my question it appears because the Liberal-NDP coalition has set new standards.
The forecast deficit for 2023-24 is now $43 billion. How do those record deficits affect Canadians? It will affect lower-income Canadians disproportionately more.
In 2015, the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment was $973; it is now $1,760. A two-bedroom was $1,172; it is now $2,135.
When the Liberals took office, it only took 39% of an average paycheque to make monthly home payments. Under the Liberal-NDP fiscal management, or lack thereof, it now takes 62% of average income to make payments on an average home, an increase from what was in 2015, which was $1,400, to $3,100 today. Average minimum down payments have increased from $22,000 for a home to $45,000 for across Canada numbers. Add to this the sharp increases in interest rates and we have a situation where renters and first-time homebuyers need some relief.
The Conservatives had asked for some common-sense steps in this 2023 budget, but the Liberal-NDP coalition was blind to the problems it continued to create for Canadians aspiring to purchase a first home or upsize to have room for their growing families.
The Liberals inflationary spending has also caused the cost of food to rise and skyrocket. Food prices have risen so dramatically that one in five Canadians are now skipping meals.
When I am out meeting with the good people in North Okanagan—Shuswap, a place where we can grow so much good food, people have been sharing their grocery store experiences, and this is one of the common topics that comes up now. They have been shocked at rising prices in the grocery aisles and have been forced into making choices and not purchasing items they used to purchase.
There were warnings that these issues were coming, rising inflation, higher interest rates, skyrocketing housing costs and higher food costs, but the finance minister ignored those early warning signs. In fact, the minister ignored further warnings, and continues to plan on spending like there is no tomorrow.
In the tomorrows to come, I and my Conservative colleagues will be fighting for and providing common-sense policies and budgets that will give those everyday Canadians hope for their futures, beyond the current government’s disastrous tenure.
We will work to have Canadians keep more of their paycheques so they can decide how to spend them instead of sending more to the Liberal government for it to distribute as government sees best.
Time allocation is now shutting down debate on Bill C-47, and I believe it is because the Liberal-NDP coalition does not want people to hear how bad this year's budget is for them. It is a shame that Liberals are going to shut it down and not allow us to tell Canadians what to expect and give them more hope for the future.
Madam Speaker, my colleague gave a lot of facts and statistics. Could he expand a bit further on how the cost of living is affecting people, specifically with the carbon tax? We now know there will be a second carbon tax as well. Therefore, with all these extra expenses, an increase in inflation and carbon taxes that make the price of everything go up, could he speak to that?
Madam Speaker, we know that carbon tax 1 has done nothing to meet emissions targets. The Liberal government has failed to meet any of the targets it has set. Now it is going to impose carbon tax 2. By the time we combine both of these carbon taxes and then the GST, the tax on a tax, Canadians will be looking at spending 61¢ per litre just because of the Liberal-NDP coalition's taxes on carbon. It is again one of those things Canadians need to be made aware of, and I am happy that I can stand to speak about it.
Madam Speaker, in listening to my colleague's speech, I take it that he has a very different position on a number of different issues, but I am going to guess that he is for helping people, especially tradespeople and workers who are trying to improve their situation in this current economy. Therefore, I wonder why my colleague is against the automatic advance for the Canada workers benefit, which is very important to my constituents in Châteauguay—Lacolle, and the doubling of the deduction for tradespeople's tools.
Madam Speaker, there are so many pieces in this massive omnibus bill and there may be portions of it that we could support. However, when it comes to $43 billion in deficit this year, I cannot support that. My colleagues and I cannot support this out-of-control spending that is only going to end up taking more dollars out of the pockets of taxpayers. The government claims it is trying to put dollars in their pockets, but it is just taking more and more from them.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about hope for families. However, right now, hope for families is diminishing for another reason, and that is the climate crisis.
The climate crisis is escalating. Forest fires are growing in number and intensity, and the fire season has only just begun. This creates anxiety for everyone, young and old alike.
Considering what we see when we leave the House of Commons, I would have liked the Conservative Party to say more about the climate crisis. Basically, what I want to say is that I am disappointed to see that the Conservatives have not progressed despite what we are now seeing across Canada from coast to coast to coast.
[English]
Madam Speaker, the hon. member wants to see something different from the Conservatives. She will see something different from us if we form government next. We will see action on climate change through technology, not a tax plan like the current government has, a tax plan that takes more dollars out of the paycheques of Canadians, and it has accomplished nothing credible at this point in time.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I must rise today to talk about a crisis we are going to have to face in the medium term.
I am not talking about the fact that, right now, after eight years of this Prime Minister, nine out of 10 young people believe that they will never be able to buy a house. I am not talking about the fact that one out of every five Canadians are skipping meals because of the cost of food after eight years of this Prime Minister. I am also not talking about the fact that 1.5 million Canadians need to use food banks to be able to eat. I am not even talking about the fact that, after eight years of this Prime Minister, Canadians have to allocate 63% of their pre-tax income to pay their monthly housing costs. In Vancouver, they are using 98% of their pre-tax income.
That is not the crisis I am referring to. The crisis I am referring to is something no one is talking about, but that could explode if we do not change direction. The crisis is the following. When the government decided, in 2021 and 2022, to print $400 billion to finance excessive spending, one of the effects was to create inflation, which always happens when you print money. This also caused a huge bubble in our financial system, caused by the mortgage situation.
Huge numbers of Canadians took out mortgages because they were easily available and because of their artificially low cost. In fact, 38% of all current mortgages were taken out between January 2021 and June 2022. Almost 40% of all mortgage debt today dates from that 18-month period, because interest rates were extremely low. People decided to go to the bank, make changes to their mortgage and borrow huge amounts of money, because it cost almost nothing to borrow money from the bank.
The problem is that these mortgages have a five-year term. These high mortgages will all be renewed in 2026 and 2027, at a significantly higher interest rate. We are not talking about billions or tens of billions of dollars. We are talking about mortgages totalling hundreds of billions of dollars that will be renewed at a higher rate. Even the Bank of Canada acknowledged that it was a systemic risk, not only for people who took out mortgages, but also for the banks, which will probably have trouble getting their money back.
If families cannot pay the increased interest rates, what will they do? They will have to sell their homes. However, if everyone is selling their house at the same time and there are no families that can afford the increased interest rates, there will be sellers but no buyers. That could cause house prices to fall. We already have the largest housing bubble in the G7 and almost the largest in the world. What are we going to do about it?
We are stressing the importance of balancing the budget today precisely because that is a key element in avoiding this serious looming crisis. Even all the Liberal experts are saying it: deficits cause inflation. Inflation causes interest rates to rise. If we do not lower inflation rates over the next year, we will be unable to reduce interest rates in time to avoid a housing bubble in 2026 and 2027.
What we want is a government plan aimed at balancing the budget in order to reduce inflation and interest rates. I know that it is the Bank of Canada that sets interest rates, but the economic environment in which it makes these decisions is a determining factor.
If the government drives up inflation with inflationary deficits, the Bank of Canada will be forced to raise interest rates. Former minister of finance John Manley said that, when the Bank of Canada puts its foot on the brake, the government puts its foot on the inflation accelerator. We need to take our foot off the accelerator to reduce inflation and allow the Bank of Canada to reduce interest rates before the crisis hits. That is plain common sense. It is nothing new.
Deficits drive up inflation and interest rates. Balanced budgets reduce both. That is what we are going to do. We will put a ceiling on spending to eliminate deficits and waste in order to balance the budget, reduce inflation and allow all Canadians to continue paying their mortgage and keep their home.
We recommend that the government proceed with the utmost caution, and we are asking that it keep the promise it made six months ago to balance the budget in the medium term. As soon as the government does that, we will allow a vote and perhaps let this budget pass if the votes in the House permit it. It is just common sense. We will bring back common sense.
[English]
There is a crisis in this country, and the crisis is not just that 1.5 million people are eating at food banks or one in five are skipping meals because of the price of food. The crisis not just that a majority of Canadians now tell pollsters they are struggling to make ends meet or that even nine in 10 young people believe they will never afford a home. The crisis is not even that it takes 63% of average monthly income to make monthly payments on the average home, a record-smashing height. The crisis is not even that it now takes 98% of pre-tax income in Vancouver for the average family to pay a mortgage on the average house. Those things are all insane and unprecedented, but they are the reality after eight years.
The real crisis is that there is massive mortgage bubble that is ready to detonate in the years 2026 and 2027. Here is how this bubble occurred. Today, 38% of all mortgage debt was originated between January of 2021 and June of 2022, all when rates were at rock bottom because the government printed $400 billion of cash and pumped it into the financial system, causing it to be artificially abundant and artificially cheap. People took on mortgages they would otherwise not be able to afford. This inflated housing prices and mortgages together, but those mortgages come up for renewal five years later. That will be between January 1, 2026, and June of 2027. If interest rates are as high then as they are now, these people will run into a brick wall.
The Bank of Canada says that they will face a 40% increase in mortgage payments, so if their payment right now is $3,000, they will be paying an extra $1,300 a month, which equals almost $15,000 a year. If the average Canadian does not have more than $200 left at the end of each month, they will not be able to pay it. That will lead to mass selling and there will be no buyers because the buyers will not be able to pay the higher rates on those prices. That is a real crisis that we face if we do not change course immediately, so what must be done?
We need to reduce inflation so that the Bank of Canada can reduce interest rates. How do we do that? We do it by doing the opposite of what we are doing now. Even top Liberals, like former finance minister John Manley, have said that deficits are like putting the foot on the gas of inflation. What we need to do is take the foot off the gas to balance the budget, to reverse the $60 billion of inflationary spending that the government has put forward and to honour the promise the government made just six months ago to have a medium-term plan to balance the budget within a half decade.
If the government will do the common-sense thing, rise to its feet and present a plan to balance the budget, then Conservatives will allow a vote to occur. We know that the only way to rescue people from this crisis is through common sense: by balancing the budget to lower inflation and interest rates, bringing down the tax burden so that there are more powerful paycheques and allowing people to pay less and bring home more. This is just common sense. It is the common sense of the common people, united for our common home: their home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.
Madam Speaker, I do not particularly disagree with the member's concerns about the future and Canadians being able to properly take care of themselves. What I do have a concern with is the approach taken by the opposition party as we talk about deficits.
The one key part of the economic equation that the member is missing out on when he is discussing this is economic growth. The reality is that if we can grow our economy as quickly as it has been growing, it puts us in a position to be able to take on more debt.
It is not just me saying this. Every Conservative prime minister in the past has run countless deficits. As a matter of fact, if we look at Mulroney and Harper, out of the 16 budgets they introduced, only three did not run deficits.
Can the member comment on how economic growth plays into this equation?
Madam Speaker, it plays strongly into the equation. That is why the fact that the government has had the slowest real per capita economic growth since the Great Depression is such a big problem, and debt actually drives down growth because it weighs down the economy.
As for the deficits of previous Conservative governments, the Mulroney government did not have any operating deficits. Its deficits were simply interest on the previous Trudeau government's debt. Of course, I am going to inherit the same kind of mess from his son.
Let me quote Stephen McNeil, former Liberal premier of Nova Scotia, “Happening on the inflation side, if governments both nationally continue to spend beyond their means, not spending for infrastructure, spending to pay the credit card of the government of today, they are going to continue to have inflation that continues to increase, which continues to put pressure on household budgets across country.... Number two, get your spending in order, we would all benefit from all governments being able to manage their own budget a lot....”
That is from a Liberal. Top, common-sense Liberals no longer recognize themselves in this radical, nonsense government. We need balanced budgets to lower inflation and interest rates so Canadians can keep their homes and build a life.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, in the initial Bill C‑47, a $2-billion transfer for health care was included twice. It did not take very long for the Liberals and the NDP—
I know that the Leader of the Opposition would like to hear the question, but it is difficult to hear it when other parliamentarians decide to talk to one another. I must repeat, as I often do, that if people wish to talk to one another, they should leave and then return if they want to hear what is happening in the House.
The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.
Madam Speaker, even my secondary school students understood that aspect of basic respect.
The initial Bill C-47 contained $2 billion in health transfers. It was a repeat of a previous bill. That was a mistake, except that it was a good mistake that could have helped all of the provinces and Quebec, in particular given the aging population, which entails more health care needs. However, this government and its allies decided to withdraw the $2 billion to Quebec and the provinces.
What does my colleague think, and what does he think the impact will be on health care systems across Canada?
Madam Speaker, we know that the Bloc Québécois wants to eliminate 100% of federal health transfers. With sovereignty, the Bloc wants Quebec to receive $0 for health care. I find it very strange and ironic that the Bloc would stand in the House of Commons to ask for more from Ottawa when its ultimate goal is to receive nothing. It makes no sense. We should not waste time talking about sovereignty.
Quebecers are struggling to pay their bills because of taxes and and the government’s inflationary deficits. What is the Bloc doing? They are asking for more debts, more spending, more taxes and inflation.
Only the Conservative Party has the plain common sense to control spending and balance the budget in order to reduce inflation, interest rates and taxes.
[English]
Madam Speaker, the other crisis in our country is the crisis with people not being able to afford to go see a dentist. I am very proud that the NDP was able to force the Liberal government to expand provisions in this bill to make sure that children under the age of 18, seniors and persons with disabilities can now have access to dental care. These people are in the margins of our society and they really need it.
How long has he been able to enjoy the benefits of taxpayer-funded dental care, while his constituents and Canadians across this country have gone without?
Madam Speaker, we see the NDP socialist paradise playing itself out on the streets of Vancouver, where we have had, up until recently, a socialist government at the federal level, a socialist government at the provincial level and a socialist mayor, a former member of that caucus, at the municipal level, and what has it given?
It has caused tent cities, massive, raging crime and a situation where it now costs in the city of Vancouver 98% of the average person's family income to make monthly payments on a home. That is the paradise they have been promising. Utopia means “no place” in Greek. Actually, it means “no place” in English too.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to the continuing debate on Bill C-47, the budget 2023 implementation act, which proposes measures that will help Canadians and build a stronger economy.
Budget 2023, “a Made-in-Canada Plan: Strong Middle Class, Affordable Economy, Healthy Future”, arrived at an important time for our country and the world.
It delivers targeted inflation relief for 11 million Canadians and families who need it most, strengthens Canada’s universal public health care system with an investment of $198.3 billion and introduces a new Canadian dental care plan to benefit up to nine million Canadians.
Budget 2023 also makes transformative investments to build Canada’s clean economy, fight climate change and create new opportunities for Canadian businesses and Canadian workers. This includes significant measures that will deliver cleaner and more affordable energy, support investment in our communities and create good-paying jobs as part of a responsible fiscal plan that will see Canada maintain the lowest deficit and the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.
One aspect of Bill C-47 I would like to address today is how it proposes to enact measures to help build Canada’s clean economy, and specifically, two important proposals that were first announced in budget 2022.
The first is the Canada growth fund, which would help attract private capital to build Canada's clean economy. The other is the establishment of the Canada innovation corporation as a new Crown corporation, with a mandate to increase Canadian business expenditures on research and development.
I will start with the Canada growth fund. It was incorporated in December 2022 as a subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation. As a significant part of Canada’s plan to decarbonize and build Canada’s clean economy, the Canada growth fund requires an experienced, professional and independent investment team ready to make important investments in support of Canada’s climate and economic goals.
Therefore, budget 2023 announced the intention to have the growth fund partner with the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, or PSP Investments, to deliver on the growth fund’s mandate of attracting private capital to invest in Canada’s clean economy. Bill C-47 contains the necessary legislative amendments to enable PSP Investments to manage the assets of the Canada growth fund as a $15-billion arm's-length public investment vehicle.
PSP Investments is one of Canada’s largest pension investment managers, with more than $225 billion in assets under management, and operates at arm’s length from the government. It will provide the Canada growth fund with an independent team that has extensive experience across the range of investment tools that the growth fund will use to deliver on its mandate and attract new private investment to Canada.
By partnering with PSP Investments, the Canada growth fund would be able to move quickly and begin making investments in the near term to support the growth of Canada’s clean economy. One of the investment tools the Canada growth fund will use to support clean growth projects is contracts for difference. These contracts can backstop the future price of, for example, carbon or hydrogen, providing predictability that helps to de-risk major projects that cut Canada’s emissions. Contracts for difference allow companies to plan ahead, supporting the growth of Canada’s clean economy by making clean projects more cost-effective than more polluting projects.
Relatedly, budget 2023 announced that the government will consult on the development of a broad-based approach to carbon contracts for difference that aims to make carbon pricing even more predictable, while supporting the investments needed to build a competitive, clean economy and help meet Canada’s climate goals. This would complement contracts for difference offered by the Canada growth fund. Notably, the Canada growth fund assets will be separate and managed independently of the pension assets of PSP Investments. However, it will maintain the market-leading reporting framework for public transparency and accountability that the government committed to in the 2022 fall economic statement.
I also mentioned earlier that Bill C-47 proposes to establish the Canada innovation corporation as a new Crown corporation with a mandate to increase Canadian business expenditure on research and development across all sectors and regions of Canada. Currently, Canada ranks last in the G7 in R and D spending by businesses. I think we can all agree that this has to change.
Solving Canada’s main innovation challenges, including a low rate of private business investment in research, development and the uptake of new technologies, is key to growing our economy and creating good jobs. Canadian companies need to take their new ideas and new technologies and turn them into new products, services and thriving businesses, and they need support to do that.
The mandate of the Canada innovation corporation will be to promote the improved productivity and growth of Canadian firms, which would contribute to a strong and innovative Canadian economy. It would work proactively with new and established Canadian industries and businesses to help them make the investments they need in order to innovate, grow, create jobs and be competitive in the changing global economy.
It would do this by offering needed support to transform new ideas into new and improved products and processes. It would also support them in developing and protecting intellectual property and in capturing important segments of global supply chains that will help drive Canada’s economic growth and create good jobs.
I would like to stress that the CIC will not be just another funding agency. It is intended to be a market-oriented innovation agency with private sector leadership and expertise. The CIC would operate with an initial budget of $2.6 billion over four years, and with the passage of Bill C-47, it is expected to begin its operations in 2023.
Overall, these measures from Bill C-47 are just part of the government’s plan to build a stronger, more sustainable 21st-century economy. They build on budget 2023's transformative investments to build Canada's clean economy, fight climate change and create new opportunities for Canadian businesses and Canadian workers.
With our made-in-Canada plan, our budget would ensure that Canadians have more money in their pockets and are meeting the challenges of today and tomorrow, while building a Canada that is more secure, more sustainable and more affordable for people from coast to coast to coast. Key measures in the budget implementation bill include, one, an automatic advance for the Canada workers benefit; two, the doubling of the deduction for tradespeople's tools; three, improved registered education savings plans; four, banning cosmetic testing on animals; five, strengthening Canada's supply chains and trade corridors; and six, continuing our efforts in supporting Ukraine by taking action against Russia.
I encourage all hon. members to support Bill C-47 and to contribute to this effort.
Madam Speaker, in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, we have seen rent prices continue to increase. In Nanaimo alone last year, we saw rental prices increase by 30%, and those prices have continued to increase from there. This, as we all know, is disproportionately impacting seniors on fixed incomes, families and people living with disabilities.
When will we see the Liberals put an end to renovictions and put into place a national acquisition fund so that non-profits, for example, will have a chance to keep rents low and people can afford a place to call home?
Madam Speaker, rent affordability is a major cause of concern for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Through our national housing strategy, we have committed billions of dollars to increase the construction of affordable homes. We have also provided funds for private sector companies to have affordable rental properties in their new projects. However, the fundamental thing that has to be addressed is the supply of new construction.
Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member a question relating to promises made by the finance minister.
Last year, in the budget debate, she made it very clear that her government had a plan to return to balanced budgets. In the more recent fall economic statement, the minister again said that she had a plan to return to balanced budgets, or, in other words, the government living within its means.
The most recent budget has no commitment anymore to returning to balanced budgets, so I would ask my good friend and colleague across the aisle this. Why is it that the government has now abandoned any commitment to returning to balanced budgets?
Madam Speaker, these are challenging times in the challenging world we live in. Considering all of the things happening around the world and considering inflation, which is affecting almost every other country in the world, we are taking very prudent steps in managing the fiscal aspects of our economy.
We continue to have the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We continue to have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio among G7 countries. That is due to the prudent approach we have adopted in the last eight years, which we continue to focus on.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, this budget allocates $80 billion over 10 years for a green transition fund. However, there will be no accountability to Parliament for that fund.
Moreover, the eligibility criteria involve being able to invest in the oil industry, even though reducing GHG emissions means reducing oil consumption.
How can my colleague find it logical to invest up to $80 billion over 10 years in the oil industry while pushing for the reduction of GHG emissions?
[English]
Madam Speaker, our budget has made it very clear that the investments we are going to make will be in companies that lead to the clean economy of the future. That has been made very clear and we will continue to stand by it.
I will point out, for those who are observing this debate, that the budget implementation act covers the variety of measures the hon. member for Nepean mentioned, changes the most favourable nation status for Russia and creates a vessel remediation act and a vessel remediation fund, which are going to be very important for areas in my constituency. Does he have any comments on that?
Madam Speaker, as members know, we have covered a lot of things in this budget, and there are many things there for everyone.
[Translation]
Madame Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to exchange and share my views as an elected member on Bill C‑47.
Before I begin my speech, I would like to offer my warmest thoughts to all residents who are currently facing unprecedented fires in Quebec, but also elsewhere in Canada. I do not know if there are still climate deniers, but I think we must all resolve once and for all to take action to counter and prevent these phenomena.
I would also like to acknowledge everyone on the front lines who is supporting Quebec and ensuring that our natural resources and our citizens are protected, now and in the future.
As a member who is called upon to play the important role of legislator in the House, I find it difficult to have to once again debate a 430-page omnibus bill that amends 59 acts, in addition to the income tax regulations. I find it difficult to have to take a position on such a bill.
The government had promised not to do that anymore, and yet here we are faced with an omnibus bill once again. I would like to acknowledge my colleague from Joliette, who sits on the Standing Committee on Finance and who has done an amazing job at trying to find the best and ensure the best. However, we know that this situation becomes almost impossible. I do not think it is worthy of the work we do here.
I will touch on another point. As elected members, we have a duty to properly represent the people in our ridings, particularly during budget periods. I am certain that I am not the only one to do so. We know that the budget tabled in Parliament will affect many aspects of their daily lives. It is sad to see that the main issues are not being addressed. In my riding, I did a prebudget tour to understand the priorities and realities, to hear ideas from our fellow residents about priorities to be considered to improve their daily lives.
Recently, I even went on a tour of seniors' residences. Health is always the first issue people raise. We hear about everything that is happening, at least in Quebec. We hear about the burnout and the conditions for workers who have been on the front lines for a long time. Unfortunately, this budget does not in any way address the reality of health and social services in Quebec.
As we know, Quebec and the other provinces were calling for a substantial increase in the Canada health transfers they receive. They did that for a reason. This increase would enable them to fulfill one of their main responsibilities. Once again, however, the government decided to use its spending power to slash these health transfers. In addition, it decided to put money into a dental care program that will be difficult to implement because dental care does not fall under federal jurisdiction at all. The federal government is interfering in the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces instead of investing its fair share to strengthen our universal public health care systems. That is one of the priorities, but there is nothing in the budget about that.
The same goes for seniors. There are no measures for them. I already know what the government will say in response. It will say that it is here for seniors and that it increased old age security by 10% for seniors aged 75 and over.
At the federal level, however, OAS is almost universal as of age 65. The government has decided to leave seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 out in the cold. When I meet with seniors in that age range, they say that they are concerned about their financial well-being. They are also concerned about housing.
In Quebec, a number of seniors' residences are closing down for budgetary reasons. There are seniors who say that if they had to move out by tomorrow, they would be unable to find safe, adequate housing they could afford. These are concerns that affect the entire population. In Canada, OAS is not a gold mine. Among OECD countries, we have one of the weakest systems.
However, the government has decided that seniors aged 65 to 74 must wait. We will see. Once they have emptied out their savings, the government may change its mind. That is so ridiculous.
A real vision to support the most vulnerable would require that this budget include robust measures for seniors and for affordable and social housing, not for housing at market prices. The government is investing over $80 billion in programs under the national housing strategy. That is public money, yet we are struggling to get answers about the role it will play in affordable and social housing.
Fortunately, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is currently conducting a study of the financialization of housing. I believe there are things that will need to be resolved once and for all. Investing in off-market properties is the best way we can help seniors and young people, to ensure that affordable housing becomes a priority. It is a shared responsibility. The federal government has a role to play in this respect. In this budget, it is doing nothing. That is astounding to me.
There is another issue that affects both businesses and workers, and that is the labour shortage. It is not imaginary, it is a reality. I do not know about my colleagues' ridings, but the labour shortage is apparent everywhere we look. For instance, I have seen employers offering to hire seniors.
I have met with retirees and self-employed workers who might actually be interested in returning to the labour market, putting their expertise to use and being part of the workforce. However, in the current context, they are totally penalized. They already have low retirement incomes. If, in addition, the tax rules are not revised to ensure that their retirement income is not reduced, why would they go back to work?
These are people who are very involved as volunteers. They are prepared to help out in the workforce but, again, they must not be penalized for that. There is nothing in the budget in this respect.
Workers are making almost historic demands. They are asking the government to reform the only social program that exists in Canada, the employment insurance system, once and for all. In 2015, the Liberals made a solemn promise to reform the system. In 2019, the Liberals made another solemn promise to reform the system. In 2021, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion and the Prime Minister committed to implementing reform. In the wake of the crisis that we have experienced, they said the system needed to be reformed and adapted to the current labour market.
Workplaces have changed. There are non-standard workers and seasonal workers. The government is turning its back on all of these people.
All that to say, this budget does not target—
I gave the hon. member a little extra time, but I cannot give her any more. We have to move on.
The hon. member for Châteauguay—Lacolle.
Madam Speaker, I am always very interested in what my colleague has to say, especially when it is about seniors' pensions. I have two questions.
First of all, I am wondering whether she is familiar with the D'Amours report that was released by the Quebec government about 10 years ago. According to that report, the real need for additional pension benefits begins at age 75.
Here is my other question. Could she comment on the Conservative Party's idea to raise the age of eligibility for OAS to 67?
Madam Speaker, with regard to the member's second question, the government has restored the age of eligibility for the old age security pension to 65, and that was the right thing to do.
However, even though they restored the age of eligibility for the pension to 65, they are abandoning seniors. The elderly are no longer taken into consideration.
The D'Amours report is from another era; it is 10 years old. Yes, I am aware of it, as I was working with the unions at the time. Now it is 2023, and we are in an inflationary economic climate in which seniors have two concerns: housing and their safety. Overall, 60% of seniors live on a fixed pension as their sole source of income.
In my view, it is a disgrace that the Liberal government has decided to abandon seniors and discriminate against them in this way.
[English]
Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned many things I think we agree on. She mentioned the need to reform employment insurance. She mentioned the need to increase old age security for seniors who are struggling. I want to ask her a question about another group that is struggling to make ends meet, and that is people with disabilities. I met with a group on Friday in my riding that told me that half of the clients it works with, adults with developmental disabilities, are having the CERB benefits they received clawed back by CRA.
Does my colleague agree with me that the government should put a stop to the clawback of CERB benefits for people living with disabilities in this country?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, although some people had their meagre CERB supplements cut, I think some compassion is in order.
Concerning people with disabilities, I am proud to say that support is still available in Quebec. People with disabilities are not different, they are unique and should be treated as such. In other words, they are fully entitled to social inclusion. Every effort must be made by and for them.
We have one major concern in this regard. I think that CERB clawbacks, such as those that have affected some of our seniors, should involve at least some degree of amnesty.
Madam Speaker, I was listening earlier when my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle asked her questions.
I have often wondered how the Liberal leaders managed to pull a fast one on their MPs when it comes to increasing the old age security pension only for seniors aged 75 and up. Now I understand. They led their MPs to believe that a report from 2013 is still relevant today. That explains a lot of things and is very disappointing.
I congratulate my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville on her speech. She touched on all the issues. The main issue is seniors, and she spoke about them at length.
I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks about the government's inaction when it comes to relief measures or incentives for seniors who are returning to the labour market after just retiring around the age of 65 to 70. I would like my colleague to talk about that.
Madam Speaker, in my opinion, the government does not address the important issues in this budget. It is unbelievable. We need to support these people. They are already contributing to society. They are prepared to lend a hand, but the government is penalizing them. Basically, not only is the government not supporting them, but it is telling them to stay home. I find that unacceptable. I am sure that my colleague hears a lot about that in his riding.
The Government of Quebec made changes to the Quebec pension plan to address these issues. We would have expected the federal government to do the same. The Bloc Québécois very clearly requested tax measures to support this contribution in the current demographic context.
[English]
Madam Speaker, it is a great joy for me to rise today in support of Bill C-47 for a couple of reasons. One reason is that this is a budget that is focused on Canadians. It is a budget that is focused on increasing affordability and improving the quality of life for Canadians. However, it is also important for us to use this occasion to understand and articulate to Canadians what the opposition is standing against and what the Conservatives are choosing to stop Canadians from accessing.
This is a budget about making life more affordable. It is about making investments in health care and making sure that Canadians receive the care they expect and deserve. In budget 2023, we outlined how our government is going to provide targeted inflation relief to Canadians.
This includes a one-time grocery rebate. Conservatives are standing against a grocery rebate, which would be provided for the many individuals and families who are struggling to put food on the table due to the rising cost of groceries. By targeting this grocery rebate to the Canadians who need it most, we would be providing important relief to 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families, all without fuelling inflation. That is what the opposition is voting against. This is supposed to be delivered to eligible Canadians on July 5 by direct deposit or cheques through the CRA. This is what the Conservatives have said they are going to stall.
Bill C-47 would implement additional key measures to make life more affordable for lower-income Canadians who are working hard to get ahead and join the middle class. That includes taking action to crack down on predatory lending, so now the Conservatives are standing up against taking on predatory lenders, which I cannot understand. Predatory lenders take advantage of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, including low-income Canadians, newcomers and seniors, often by offering very high interest rate loans. Bill C-47 would allow the government to make changes to the Criminal Code to lower the criminal rate of interest from the equivalent of 47% to 35%, in line with the lowest cap among provinces, which is in Quebec. Bill C-47 would also adjust the Criminal Code's payday lending exemption to impose a cap on the cost of borrowing charged by payday lenders. This is something that affects Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I cannot understand why Conservatives would stand to oppose that.
We have also chosen to work hard to eliminate interest on Canada student loans and apprentice loans, which is support that would help students and new graduates finish their studies, keep more money in their pockets and successfully transition to the workforce. Over 750,000 post-secondary students rely on federal assistance each year to help them afford the cost of tuition, housing and everyday essentials. Our government chooses to invest in the future by investing in our children. That is again what the opposition has opposed. That is what the opposition is standing against.
We are supporting Canada's skilled tradespeople, who are essential to building our clean economy and who are the people who are going to help double the number of new homes that were built in Canada by 2032. That is, again, something the Conservatives seem to think is not in the interest of Canadians.
With Bill C-47, we would help tradespeople invest in the equipment they need by doubling the maximum employment deduction for tradespeople's tool expenses from $500 to $1,000. Conservatives are choosing to oppose that.
This bill would implement automatic advance payments for the Canada workers benefit. This benefit has already helped thousands of Canadians out of poverty, and these improvements would ensure that low-wage workers have timely access to the funds they need to support themselves and their families. Apparently that is not important to the Conservatives either. Starting in July, this would provide $714 for single workers, and $1,231 for a family, in three advance payments.
The Conservatives are also standing against stronger public health care. We all know that health care in this country and the workers who support that system are under tremendous strain. To ensure that Canadians receive the care that they need, budget 2023 would deliver an urgent and needed investment to strengthen our public health care system. Whether it is helping Canadians find a family doctor or combatting the opioid crisis that has devastated too many families and communities, we are committed to ensuring that every Canadian can rely on a world-class, publicly funded health care system. The Conservatives do not support that either.
First, our government is committed to supporting provinces and territories in delivering better health care results for Canadians, no matter where they live, so the budget would deliver on our plan to provide an additional $198.3 billion over 10 years to support better health care, including $46.2 billion in new funding to provinces and territories. This would include additional Canada health transfer measures, tailored bilateral agreements to meet the needs of each province and territory, personal support worker wage support and the renewal of the territorial health investment fund. In return for all of this new funding, for the first time, provinces and territories would have to commit to not diverting away health care funding of their own and to improve how health care information is collected, shared, used and reported to Canadians to help manage public health emergencies and deliver better health outcomes. Conservatives, incomprehensibly, oppose this as well. This is supposed to be about working together to improve health care for all Canadians, and somehow it has turned into a partisan issue.
In recognition of the pressures on our health care system, especially in pediatric hospitals and emergency rooms, and to reduce wait times, we are providing an additional $2 billion CHT, or Canada health transfer, top-up for all provinces and territories to address this immediate pressure. The funding is supposed to be used to improve and enhance the health care Canadians receive. It is not to be used by provinces and territories in place of their planned health care spending.
In addition, the federal government is going to work with indigenous partners to improve and provide additional support for indigenous health priorities by providing $2 billion over the next 10 years, which would be distributed on a distinctions basis through the indigenous health equity fund. Inexplicably, Conservatives seem to oppose this as well.
As we all know, dental care is an important component of our health, but seeing a dentist is expensive. The Canada dental benefit, which is providing eligible parents or guardians with direct, upfront and tax-free benefits to cover the cost of dental care for children under 12, has supported more than 290,000 children to date, many of whom are in Conservative ridings. In my own riding, we have seen this benefit, and I know many Canadians from across the country, from coast to coast to coast, continue to benefit from this. However, it is not just children; it is also seniors. The government is committed to fully implementing a permanent Canadian dental care plan for uninsured Canadians with annual family incomes of less than $90,000, with no co-pays for those with family incomes under $70,000, by 2025. The Conservatives seem to think that making sure those Canadians who need dental care most should not get it is perfectly reasonable. In the House, we must stand against this type of nonsense, because those Canadians deserve and need it, and it should be up to us to ensure that they get it.
By amending several tax statutes, beginning this year, Bill C-47 would be an important step in rolling out this plan. It would facilitate information sharing between departments as part of the implementation of the dental plan, and it would streamline the application and enrolment process to allow Canadians to access dental care sooner. My constituents have been asking for this; they write about this and they call about this. This should be something we make a priority and we get done. The House has a responsibility, to all those Canadians who need dental care, to make sure we deliver it.
Budget 2023 makes targeted and responsible investments that would help to build a stronger future for all Canadians. Our government is moving forward with these measures to address the cost of living in a way that sets Canadians up for greater success without having an impact on inflation. We are making fiscally responsible investments for the future, and we are going to ensure that Canadians receive the health care they deserve. Every member of the House has an obligation to make sure we are doing right by Canadians. We hear a lot of talk about gatekeepers, but what we are doing right now is that the Conservatives are gate keeping Canadians from the benefits they need, the benefits they deserve and the benefits the House has an obligation to provide for them.
Madam Speaker, in an earlier intervention, I asked the Leader of the Opposition how many years he has been enjoying taxpayer-funded dental care. He refused to answer, but the answer is 19 years.
While Conservatives are actively fighting against this measure, which is going to provide dental care for the most marginalized people in Canadian society, more than a million Canadians who cannot afford to see the dentist, I would just like to ask for my hon. colleague's thoughts on why the Conservatives seem so hell-bent on “dental care for me but not for thee”? Why are they not going to fight for their constituents who obviously need this? Dental care is a part of health care.
Madam Speaker, I have been plagued by this question for quite some time.
All of us have an obligation to protect the interests of our constituents, to make sure that we improve their quality of life. If those of us in the Chamber can benefit from publicly funded dental care, we have an obligation to protect the interests of our constituents from coast to coast to coast who need it and should have that same benefit. The Leader of the Opposition has been benefiting from this for his entire adult life. I cannot understand why anyone in the House who has taken that benefit would stand here and say that Canadians who need it most, seniors and kids, should not get that dental care.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate hearing from some of the Liberals.
I would like to dig down into one specific part of this bill, which has to do with some of the aspects of the clean fuel standard and some of the regulations associated with that. I have great concern that we are at a point where, as a society, we would be diverting possibly millions of tonnes of food from the food supply chain into the energy supply chain. The results of that, at a time when there is so much global instability and food insecurity, the policies which are being promoted by the Liberal government, could actually have a dramatic, negative effect on global food security.
I am wondering whether the member could comment specifically on that, and whether or not he is aware whether his government has done a full accounting of how many people would be food insecure because of policies that are diverting from food into energy.
Madam Speaker, I think we are all seized with the challenge of food security. We all need to be taking it seriously. There is also a bit of a false dichotomy in saying that we simply cannot be thinking about food insecurity if we are thinking about fuel standards and about how we deal with energy in this country.
It is important for us to be able to make the right investments in promoting food security and in making sure we are building long-term sustainable food supply in this country, but we also have to be taking up the fight with respect to how we think about the future of energy use in this country, how we think about climate change and how we make sure we are making the right investments for the future to ensure that what we are seeing today, fires across this country from coast to coast to coast, does not become the norm.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, the majority of what we are voting on today under ways and means will go into the economy, but through tax credits for questionable environmental projects.
How does my colleague explain that this government says one thing and makes itself out to be a champion of the environment, but then funds fossil fuels, with no means to ensure accountability, to boot?
[English]
Madam Speaker, I share with the hon. member a desire to deal with climate change in a meaningful and thoughtful way. With respect to the direction of the decisions the government has taken, we have put in some of the most substantial measures ever in this country to combat climate change. Different and changing circumstances require us to be adaptive in the way in which we respond, but our commitment to dealing with climate change in a thoughtful way is predicated on science and seeks to improve the quality of Canadian lives along the way. It is unmatched.
I believe very strongly that staying the course and ensuring that we do the hard work that is required will get us to the future we deserve.
Madam Speaker, I am speaking today from northern Ontario, where the air is thick with the smoke from out-of-control fires. I know that people in Ottawa are dealing with the heavy smoke from out-of-control fires. I just spoke with a senior citizen in Toronto who ended up in hospital because of his lungs, and he was told it is because of the smoke from the fires.
Halifax burns. Abitibi burns. Sept-Îles burns. Alberta has burned for over a month, with 30,000 people evacuated. What we are dealing with is an unprecedented crisis as the climate catastrophe descends upon us, yet in the House, we see shenanigans, game playing, chest-thumping and climate denial.
I am speaking today about the need to get the budget implementation legislation passed so that we can address serious issues facing our country and our planet. Certainly, the people I represent want to know that the dental care plan for seniors is not going to be obstructed by the man who lives in the 19-room mansion at Stornoway with his own personal chef. They have a right to dental care, and they want that dental care passed. I will stay night after night until we get that passed. It is the same for the people who are calling us about food insecurity and inflation; they want us to act.
However, more than ever, I am hearing from people who are deeply concerned about the climate catastrophe that is unfolding. From Lucretius, the Roman poet, we have what is called the “Lucretius problem”, which is that a human being cannot imagine a river bigger than any river they have ever seen. Perhaps, for the longest time, we could not imagine the catastrophe of a planet unbalanced, and then Lytton burned. Then Fort McMurray burned, with nine billion dollars' worth of damages. Then there was the Paradise fire in California. Then Australia burned. Then, last year, the Arctic Circle was burning. This year, in Canada, more land will burn than in the entire history of our country. This is not a one-off; this is the accelerating impacts of the global temperature rise. Parliament does need to show Canadians that we are going to do something about it. Part of this is the work that we have been doing as New Democrats to push the government on embracing a sustainable energy future. The time is now. In this budget, we have seen some significant promises, and we need to make those promises happen.
There is another urgency in terms of the climate crisis, which is the urgency of not being left behind. In the nine months since Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, 31 battery manufacturing plants have come on stream. This will amount to 1,000 gigawatt hours of energy by 2030, enough to support the manufacture of 10 million to 13 million electric vehicles a year. We cannot be left behind while America shoots ahead. In energy production, in the nine months since the IRA, companies in the United States have announced 96 gigawatts of new clean power within an eight-month period. That is enough to power 20 million homes.
This is the work we have been doing as New Democrats, yet we see the Conservatives, who are long-standing climate deniers, make fun of and interfere with this funding, and they are now doing everything they can to block the funding from getting out to kick-start clean energy projects.
When the leader of the Conservative Party, the member from Stornoway, came to my riding, he was making all kinds of jokes about electric vehicles. I checked his work resume, and I know he has never worked in manufacturing or the mines, but my region is going to be dependent on the critical mineral supply chain for jobs and for long-term sustainability. We know that the Conservatives have attacked and undermined the investments at the EV plant in St. Thomas. They have also had nothing to say about the need to get the battery plant in Windsor off the ground, even though that represents thousands of jobs.
Just recently, at the committee on natural resources, the member for Calgary Centre claimed that the critical mineral strategy was a minor contribution to energy. He said that EV plants in the supply chain will have little or nothing to offer for 20 years. That is just false, and I want to get down to that right now, because we have been dealing with disinformation from the Conservatives consistently.
Peak oil is when oil reaches a historic high. This was supposed to be in 2030, but the massive changes in renewable energy have reduced that to 2025 or possibly 2024. This year, the investment in renewable energy was almost twice that of oil and gas. The urgent point is that Canada does not leave its energy workers behind. Just this past week, I held a press conference with the Alberta Federation of Labour, with which I have worked closely on this, and the energy workers there who are ready to embrace the clean energy opportunities in hydrogen and in geothermal. They have the skills and the ideas, but what we all know is that the clock is ticking. We have to address this.
Whether the Conservatives want to admit it or not, the transition is happening. This is what I hear from energy workers in Alberta. They know this. The day after Danielle Smith won the election, 1,500 Suncor employees, 10% of its workforce, were fired. Suncor is getting rid of its workers and shifting to automation. That is where the big money is. Over the last nine years, we have seen Texas lose 110,000 jobs for oil workers. Alberta lost 45,000 jobs over the last nine years in the oil sector. Those jobs are not coming back.
We need to retool. We need to build an economy that is actually focused on creating sustainable energy from our immense resources. There is no other country in the world that has the resources we have or the skilled workers. However, this country is being blocked by an immature opposition, in terms of the Conservatives, who continue to deny the climate catastrophe. I encourage them to step out and go take a big, deep breath of that smoke-filled air, to realize that the fire is here. It is coming. It is not going away. We have to address it.
There are many shortfalls in the present government, which I will continue to call out. There are many shortfalls in this budget, but there are key areas we have to move on with a sense of urgency and a sense of responsibility for the Canadian people. We have to get this passed so that the national dental care strategy is actually able to help seniors this year, as was promised.
We have to get the funding and support out there to start the clean energy strategy so that we are not left behind in terms of our American, European or Chinese competition. We actually need to move quickly on legislation that will enable the protections in place to make sure that communities are part of the sustainable jobs transition and that energy workers are at the table; energy workers are the ones with the expertise, and we need to be hearing from them at this time.
I encourage my colleagues to put the June game playing away for a little bit. People sent us to get a job done. They sent us to work. I am here to work. I am here to make sure that energy workers, natural resources workers, miners in the communities I represent and young people who are watching the planet burn around them are not going to look at a Parliament that ignores that and plays games.
We have a job to do in the midst of a worsening climate crisis, and we have the potential to do it, but the window for action is narrowing. I urge my colleagues to step up. Let us get this thing voted on and then let us get on to other really important matters that are facing our country at this insecure time.
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague gave a very important speech. As I listened to what he was saying, I was reflecting on the things that are in this budget, such as dental care, support for improving our health care across the country, dealing with climate change and supporting our most vulnerable.
My question for the hon. member is this: Why are the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition so interested in acting against the interest of Canadians?
Madam Speaker, certainly, the Leader of the Opposition has always acted in his own interest. The guy owns a house in Ottawa, but he gets to move into Stornoway, a 19-room mansion, with its chefs and groundskeepers. He has had public dental care for nearly 20 years, paid for, for him and his family, yet he expects us to disrupt Parliament to the point that senior citizens do not get dental care.
That is not leadership; that is grandstanding. We need to be able to reassure Canadians, at a time when they have good reason not to trust politicians, that we are actually here to do a job. We are not just here to pull stunts and light our hair on fire, but to deliver something.
I do not know what the problem with the member in Stornoway is, but senior citizens on my watch are going to get access to dental care. They deserve it. They have a right to it.
Madam Speaker, when the member ran to be the leader of the NDP, did he say he would never occupy Stornoway? I was here in 2011 with the Harper majority, and the member did not say boo about Tom Mulcair occupying Stornoway.
New Democrats talk a big game, but it is always about them. There is a lack of leadership. The fact that the member makes it so personal against the member for Carleton just shows that he must be feeling the heat from the leader of the Conservative Party. I look forward to the Conservative Party being in his riding and talking about real ideas that matter to that member's riding.
Ouch, Madam Speaker, I am hurt.
I looked up Mr. Stornoway's job record, because I thought maybe I would understand him better. I cannot find that he has ever actually had a job other than professional politician. I was a carpenter and a house builder; I had—
Madam Speaker, instead of using names here, we use members' titles and ridings. The member is not following the Standing Orders. I would ask you to bring him into compliance.
Madam Speaker, I do not remember the Conservative outrage when they were saying “minister of inflation”.
The hon. parliamentary secretary's point is a point of debate.
I want to remind members that just because one member is doing it does not mean that it is okay for another member to do it. However, when it comes to respect in the House, yes, we should be recognizing each other by either the riding name or position in Parliament. That applies to all sides.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
Madam Speaker, that is a double ouch. The Conservatives certainly have a raw wound there. I was talking only about the member who moved out of his home in Ottawa and moved into Stornoway, which is a fact. That is a 19-room mansion funded by taxpayers.
I was just saying that I had a job; I had many jobs. When I ran my own business, I had to go to dentists to try to get a deal on dental care for my children. The member who lives in Stornoway has never had to do that. He has lived pretty damn well off the taxpayer. He is telling senior citizens in 2023 that they have no right to dental care; he said he will do anything, including jumping up and down all night long in Parliament, to stop this from happening.
He should tell his chef in the morning to give him some eggs, some yogourt, some granola and some green tea to calm him, so he is not just a rage bucket. That way, he can actually show up in Parliament to do some work.
[Translation]
The NDP joined forces with the Liberals to remove that $2 billion even though the needs are growing not only because of the current fires, but also because of the growing and aging population.
Does my colleague regret having removed that $2 billion from Bill C‑47?
[English]
Madam Speaker, I certainly think the New Democrats would be more than willing to do a workshop for the Bloc on the years that we have spent, time and time again, fighting for senior citizens and fighting for health care, because it is the right thing to do. We will continue to do that.
As for the member's comments on the fires, yes, we are very concerned about the fires in Abitibi. They are having a huge impact in my region. We are very concerned about Sept-Îles. This is why we need to be seen to be delivering for the Canadian people, and I look forward to working with the Bloc and maybe helping them understand how much work we have done on health care as a party. In fact, we are the party that brought in national health care, and we will continue to defend it.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, allow me to begin my comments by talking a little about the situation in Quebec and Canada. My thoughts are with everyone affected by the fires, whether in Halifax, northern Ontario, or in Quebec in Abitibi, Témiscamingue or the north shore, where I have family and friends who are either out of their homes as a preventive measure, or unable to leave their village because the road is blocked by the fire. I send my love to my sister, my cousin and my niece.
We are here today to discuss Bill C‑47. It includes some interesting elements, including the creation of a real EI board of appeal. People who feel cheated will be able to assert their rights. That is a good thing. The air passenger protection system is also being improved. I attended a meeting on the topic in January, and most of the proposals we put forward were accepted, which better protects users. That is also a good thing.
However, several elements are missing. There is no increase for seniors aged 65 to 74. An increase of the tax credit from $5,000 to $6,500 is good. However, people who paid taxes for their entire lives still find themselves with rates that are similar to people who are single, without being able to put money into RRSPs or other forms of tax credits. Seniors' pensions are essentially a social program and, constitutionally, are the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The way things are going, seniors have a better chance of seeing Quebec repatriate all its pension powers for seniors than seeing Canada improve their situation based on current economic realities.
There is little in this budget related to housing. The supplementary estimates (A) include $973 million, but this one includes almost nothing. In terms of health, the population of Quebec and the Canadian provinces is aging, but is also growing across all age groups. That means that health care costs are higher. The government, with its wires crossed somewhat, had left $2 billion in health transfers in Bill C‑47, which were already voted in Bill C‑46. We thought the government had reconsidered its position, that it was acknowledging that the needs are actually greater, that it would increase health transfers and that that would help everyone. In the end, in a dramatic twist, the Liberals joined with the NDP to remove that $2 billion in health transfers, although the needs are still there.
Now let us now talk about employment insurance. This government has been promising EI reform since 2015. The only thing that has been done so far is a pilot project for seasonal workers, which is a good thing. Their benefits are being extended. Apart from extending the pilot projects, though, nothing else in this budget is new, as I said. The pandemic left a huge hole in the employment insurance fund. The act states that the fund may not run either a deficit or a surplus over an average period of seven years. This means that workers and employers will have to make up for the pandemic-related deficit through their EI contributions. It is important to note that the government does not contribute a penny to the EI fund. Only workers and employers contribute to it.
Over the next few years, there will be surpluses in the EI fund, as was the case before the pandemic, and those surpluses will be used to get rid of the debt brought about by the pandemic. The government could have solved the problem by using the consolidated revenue fund to keep a surplus in the EI fund. It chose not to do so and to make workers and employers pay down the deficit.
The surpluses generated over the next seven years will be used to cover the deficit created by the pandemic. That means that the government has no real intention of reforming the program for the next seven years, in other words, as long as the pandemic deficit is not eliminated.
Employment insurance is also a social program. Just like seniors' pensions, constitutionally, it is a program that should belong to the Canadian provinces and Quebec. At this time, Quebec repatriating its powers and putting in place a modern program is more likely than Canada even beginning to think about maybe continuing to reflect.
There are also surprises in this budget. Among other things, we learn that $80 billion will be allocated over 10 years to a fund for the green transition. That is good news, except that the fund will be distributed to organizations that are not required to report to Parliament. The eligibility criteria for obtaining funds include investments in the oil industry to create green energy, so oil and gas will be burned to create green energy.
By the way, the energy transition does not mean shifting from fossil fuels that produce a lot of greenhouse gases to fossil fuels that produce just a bit less greenhouse gases. The energy transition means shifting to renewable energy. The last I heard, there was no shortage of wind in Quebec and Canada. That is just one renewable energy that can be used. The technology is increasingly reliable.
There is another little surprise in the budget. While 56% of Canadians and 70% of Quebeckers say they are opposed to the monarchy, something was included at the very end of the bill, in clause 510, which is under division 31 of part 4, on page 325. It is recognition of the appointment of Charles III as Canada's monarch, the official head of state of Canada. It is an attempt to slip this by the 56% of Canadians and 70% of Quebeckers who are opposed to the monarchy. Some would say that Bloc members are sovereigntists who no longer want the monarchy. That would mean that 56% of Canadians and 70% of Quebeckers are also sovereigntists. The will of the people—a majority of them in this case, as I said—ought to be respected.
I will quickly end my speech. To answer the Leader of the Opposition's question, a sovereign and independent Quebec will not need health transfers, equalization payments, housing transfers or infrastructure transfers. That is because Quebec will get to keep all the taxes it collects. It will also keep the revenues from customs duties. It will be the sole manager of monies paid by workers and employers into the employment insurance fund and the pension fund for seniors. It will be the sole manager of monies generated by this new country that Quebec could and must become. Quebec's independence will allow us to manage our own future so we can fully represent Quebeckers' aspirations for future generations, unlike this budget, which does not do so.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with one part of the member's speech, and that is her plea to electrify our grid through the use of more renewable energies. She spoke specifically about wind, indicating there was a lot of opportunity for that, but one critical part to that energy infrastructure change and revolution is our capacity on storage and our ability to store energy in the future.
Could the member speak to other opportunities for us to continue to build upon the transition we are going through?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, technology is advancing rapidly.
Solar, wind and hydro are types of energy that can be considered renewable. We need them. Increasing GHGs in various ways will not help minimize environmental damage.
By the way, the best energy is always the energy we do not use. Reducing our own consumption across the board will also change people's habits and make a difference.
[English]
Madam Speaker, as we are all experiencing it today, there is smoke in the skies. We are clearly in a climate crisis. Instead of us moving forward in a direction to begin implementing sound solutions to address this climate crisis and the horrendous impacts we are all experiencing as a result, the Conservatives are playing games with stalling tactics, ensuring these are not being implemented.
Could my colleague share her thoughts on the importance of us putting into place sound solutions to address the climate crisis and to not see hold-ups and unnecessary parliamentary games to keep us from moving forward in a positive direction?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, in response to my colleague, I would like to remind her of the opposition's role in democracy.
When I arrived in the House, someone told me that my role as a member of the opposition was not to enable the government to function, but to obstruct it at all costs. Personally, I see the opposition's role as being much more constructive.
No single party or individual can see all sides of an issue. It is just not possible for a government to introduce a perfect bill. It is important to consult all the parties and come to an agreement, to have a consensus.
The expression “political games” is wrong; we are not playing games here. This is about every aspect of people's future. This is serious. We have to work together, find consensus and represent the entire population, the people we all represent.
[English]
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
Before I get going, I want to give a quick shout-out to my nephew, who had his 21st birthday yesterday, Noah Bradley.
My colleague from the Bloc spoke about finding consensus. I would like to hear her opinion on whether the way to finding consensus is through cutting debate, as the Liberals have done so often in this Parliament.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I wish my colleague's nephew a happy birthday.
I know the Remparts beat the Kamloops team and really enjoyed their stay in Kamloops.
With respect to consensus, time allocation is not the best way to reach it. We have to find other approaches, maybe different ways of talking to each other, to make that happen.
Madam Speaker, first allow me to spare a thought for the people affected by forest fires across Canada. I am thinking of them and channelling my energy toward helping them get through this extremely difficult and tragic situation. I thank the firefighters, members of the military and all volunteers contributing to their well-being.
Today, I am rising in the House to speak to Bill C-47. On March 28, the Liberal government tabled an irresponsible budget that increases both the debt and inflation. The government chose to throw money at everything. It is an obvious ploy. The government is making self-serving decisions to stay in power by using public money to buy the support of the New Democratic Party.
In the highlights of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report of April 13, Yves Giroux stated:
Budget 2023 does not provide an assessment of program effectiveness that the Government launched in last year's budget under its comprehensive Strategic Policy Review, nor in my view does it identify opportunities to save and reallocate resources to adapt government programs and operations to a new post-pandemic reality.
Take the Canada dental benefit, for example. I support this benefit. It is a very exciting social program, but it has to be considered within the current context. The truth is that this government is throwing so much money around that it is going to trigger a recession. Before offering people the chance to invest in their teeth, how about ensuring that they have food to eat first?
The government is free to rebut this comment with the grocery rebate proposed in its budget, but let us be realistic. A one-time payment will only help some people, and not for long.
In a column entitled “A doubled-edged rebate”, published on March 30 in La Presse, Sylvain Charlebois reminded us that this budget, like last year's, contained no section on agriculture or food. I would point out that Dr. Charlebois is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University. He has credibility. I encourage the Liberals to consult him for ideas. Dr. Charlebois says this:
For Canadians, the grocery rebate will be limited in scope and duration, an offshoot of the politicization of food inflation. The PR spin is real, whereas tax changes that could have a substantial impact are not. However, the prospect of injecting $2.5 billion more into the economy is causing a lot of concern. Such an action could worsen the food inflation problem.
Yes, it is a double-edged rebate indeed.
The government gives with one hand, but it claws back double or more from the pockets of honest Canadian citizens through the excise tax, the carbon tax and the carbon tax 2.0. It is injecting money into the economy, which is causing inflation. In our capitalist system, businesses aim to make a profit. That aim is perfectly legitimate. It is a matter of survival for them. If they cannot turn a profit, they will close their doors and thousands of Canadians will lose their jobs.
In that context, the responsible thing for the government to do would have been to reduce federal spending and collaborate with the Bank of Canada.
That is the way to stop inflation and give some breathing room to Canadians who are increasingly struggling.
There is a major lack of vision here. Maybe the government's vision is restricted by its blinders, leading it to focus exclusively on what is really important to it: the Liberal-NDP coalition keeping it in power.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown that the carbon tax will cost the average family between $400 and $847 in 2023, even after the rebate. I urge everyone to take a look at the Canadian Debt Clock created by the MEI, the Montreal Economic Institute. It shows that the federal debt in Canada now exceeds $1.299 trillion and will soon reach $1.3 trillion. That is huge. It breaks down to $44,000 of debt per taxpayer. Based on data provided by the Department of Finance in its March 28, 2023, budget, the MEI estimates that, by March 31, 2024, the Canadian debt will have increased by $42.6 billion, the equivalent of $116 million per day, $81,000 per minute or $1,350 per second.
I have heard members of the government, I think including the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, when he was minister of foreign affairs, say that now is the time to borrow, that interest rates are low and will stay low. What a peculiar basis for managing a government's public funds.
To illustrate the government's incompetence, just last fall, in the economic statement, it forecast a deficit of $36.4 billion for 2022-23, and deficits of $30 billion in 2023-24 and $25 billion in 2024-25. The fact is that, in this budget, the government now forecasts a deficit of $40.1 billion for 2023-24. That is almost $10 billion more but, for the Liberals, $1 billion, $10 billion or $100 billion is nothing because they can just print more money.
As I noted earlier, the national debt will soon reach $1.3 trillion. Do my colleagues know that the debt ceiling is set at $1.8 trillion? Is the government racing to reach that target? I hope not.
The Conservative Party, to which I am proud to belong, had some very specific asks for the government concerning budget 2023: end the war on work by reducing taxes for workers; end the inflationary deficits that are driving up the cost of goods; and eliminate barriers to building housing for Canadians. The simple truth is that none of the Conservative Party's three demands have been met. None of them have been included in the bill.
That is why the Conservatives will not be supporting this anti-worker, pro-inflation budget that raises taxes. At least, we will not supporting it unless and until our demands are met. This way of doing things is unacceptable. It is irresponsible, and I hope that, thanks to the actions of the opposition, the government will listen to reason and change course.
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Whitby Fire and Emergency Services
Mr. Speaker, last week in my riding of Whitby our fire and emergency services held their recruit graduation ceremony. It was an incredible event. It recognized the nine new Whitby firefighters who took the oath of service affirming their commitment to protecting our community.
Firefighters are essential to our country, and without their service, Canada could not be the safe place it is today. These national heroes who risk their lives every single day deserve our support, which is why our government has invested over $900 million to train firefighters, for disaster financial assistance and to support the work of Indigenous Services Canada.
I would like to take this opportunity to also recognize the dedication and service of Captain Bob Brandon, who has trained many recruits and is retiring this August. From the newly graduated firefighters to the many who have served in our community, we thank Captain Bob for his many years of service and his countless contributions to our community.
Isobel Cup
Mr. Speaker, the Isobel Cup is the championship trophy of the Premier Hockey Federation. It takes its name from Lord Stanley's daughter Isobel, who shared his love of the game and is known as one of the first female hockey players in Canada. Isobel encouraged her father to purchase a silver cup to be awarded to the best amateur hockey team in Canada. This cup later became the Stanley Cup.
Another terrific and talented Canadian hockey player is my niece Brittany Howard, who has brought the Isobel Cup here to Ottawa to share with us all.
Britt was a standout player at Robert Morris University, a Division 1 program in Pittsburgh, where she received all-American honours. This past hockey season, Brittany led the Toronto Six in the Premier Hockey Federation as the top scorer with 18 goals in 24 games. This past March, the Toronto Six participated in the Isobel Cup championship in Tempe, Arizona after defeating the Connecticut Whale in the semifinals. In overtime, the team defeated the Minnesota White Caps with a score of 3 to 2 to win the Isobel Cup playoff championship.
This is the first time a Canadian team has won the Premier Hockey Federation. Please help me congratulate Brittany and her teammate Rachel Seeley on winning the Isobel Cup.
Foreign Representatives in Canada
Mr. Speaker, diplomats play a key role in strengthening the socio-economic, political and trade relationships between their countries and Canada.
I would like to recognize and thank the high commissioner of Brunei to Canada, His Excellency PG Kamal Bashah Ahmad, who is leaving Canada after nine years of excellent service in Canada. He is currently the longest-serving diplomat in Canada and the only one still here as a diplomat since I got elected in 2015.
I also would like to recognize and thank the ambassador of Vietnam to Canada, His Excellency Pham Cao Phong, who is retiring soon. Vietnam is Canada's biggest trading partner among ASEAN countries.
I would like to once again thank both these diplomats and wish them all the very best in their future endeavours.
[Translation]
Portneuf-sur-Mer Tragedy
Mr. Speaker, as the member for Manicouagan and on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, it is with great sadness that I rise to extend my sincere condolences to all those who were touched by the tragedy in Portneuf-sur-Mer.
On June 3, a few adults and children were fishing on the edge of the St. Lawrence River when they were surprised by the rising tide that surrounded and trapped them. Six of them were saved from the waters, but over the next few hours, the sea returned the bodies of the five it had taken. Today, we mourn four children and the father of two of them and, today, we pay tribute to them.
The people from the north shore send their warmest sympathies and their love to the people of the Haute-Côte-Nord, Bergeronnes, Tadoussac and Portneuf-sur-Mer, to the parents, friends, families and loved ones. In the darkness, love continues to grow and shine like the sun.
[English]
National Indigenous History Month
Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in celebrating National Indigenous History Month.
Fifty years ago, a delegation of Yukon first nation leaders journeyed to Ottawa to bring their plan for their future, Together Today for Our Children Tomorrow, to present to then prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Yukon first nations have since signed self-governing agreements, marking the beginning of modern treaties and the pathway to modern nationhood.
Today, Yukon first nations are leading a cultural renaissance. Last week I attended the annual Yukon first nations graduation ceremony where 129 proud and joyful graduates marched across the stage to the singing and drumming of the Dakhká Khwáan Dancers. Later this month, the Adäka Cultural Festival in Whitehorse will feature the rich and vibrant cultures of Yukon first nations and northern Dene nations through art, music, storytelling and more.
As we work together to heal from the wrongs of Canada's colonial past, I encourage all my colleagues to learn about and embrace indigenous traditions and culture as critical steps in our reconciliation journey. Let us honour indigenous history across Canada, not just this month, but throughout the year.
Gunalchéesh.
[Translation]
Quebec Remparts
Mr. Speaker, here is some very good news for Canada: The Memorial Cup is staying in the country because the Remparts de Québec won and captured the trophy of junior hockey supremacy. What a dream season. Out of 90 games, the Remparts won 76. They are the Quebec league champions, the playoffs champions and the Memorial Cup champions.
[English]
We want to thank the people of Kamloops for their great organization and salute the Peterborough Petes, the only team who have beaten the Quebec Remparts.
[Translation]
From goalie William Rousseau to forward James “Melatesta”, as “Ray the sports” says, the Remparts triumphed as a team. The players were skilfully led by the exceptional Patrick Roy. It is worth noting that he could have taken it easy for 13 years. Instead, he chose to share his knowledge with the junior players.
This is our third Memorial Cup. We won it in 2006, we won it in 1971 with the Remparts en or, and, half a century later, we can say that the flame of victory burns brighter than ever. As the song goes, “they are golden, they are golden...there is no one in Canada [or even the States] to take our championship from us, they are golden, they are golden”.
Congratulations to the Remparts.
[English]
Portuguese Heritage Month
Mr. Speaker, on May 13, 1953, a group of Portuguese immigrants arrived on a boat named Saturnia, docking at Pier 21 in Halifax. These new immigrants started the first of many waves of Portuguese to start a new life in Canada. Now, 70 years later, Portuguese Canadians are almost half a million strong. Living in communities right across Canada, they are builders, musicians, athletes, business leaders, chefs, teachers and politicians, among so many other professions. Their contributions and stories have enriched Canadian society and have transformed Canada into not only a better country, but also into one of the best countries in the world to live in.
As the member of Parliament for Davenport, the riding with the largest number of Portuguese Canadians, I am proud to rise in the House today to mark the beginning of Portuguese Heritage Month in Canada.
Whether it is by listening to fado, drinking vinho verde, or eating a bifana or pastéis de nata, I invite all Canadians to join me in celebrating all things Portuguese this month.
Feliz mês de Portugal.
Obrigado, Senhor Presidente.
Housing
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the actions our government is taking to meet the housing needs of Canadians. Since the release of our national housing strategy in 2017, we have leveraged over $80 billion of investment, creating thousands of new units across the country and utilizing those same investments to renovate and repair decades-old, affordable housing units in every corner of the country. As an extension of this work, the minister recently announced the Canada greener affordable housing program that will provide $1.2 billion in funding over four years for much needed renovations to existing affordable housing units. The funding will allow affordable housing providers to make improvements to aging buildings that will improve energy efficiency and extend their lifespan, improving the living conditions and quality of life for tenants across the country.
While the leader of the official opposition villainizes our municipal partners, our government continues to work with municipalities and non-profit housing providers, ensuring our housing investments improve our affordable housing stock while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combatting climate change.
Anniversary of D-Day
Mr. Speaker, 79 years ago today, on June 6, 1944, the world witnessed an event that would shape the course of history.
[Translation]
This day marked the beginning of the end of the Second World War and was a very proud moment in Canada's military history.
[English]
Early that morning, Canadians stormed the beaches of Normandy. By sunset, more than 1,000 Canadians had made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of our freedoms. Though the price was high, the valour of that day laid the foundation for an eventual Nazi surrender and made a proclamation to the world that Canada would give no quarter to tyranny.
[Translation]
Our history shows, and our presence confirms, that brave Canadians will always answer the call to defend our country and our values.
[English]
On the anniversary of D-Day, I ask every Canadian to reflect on the selfless sacrifice of the Normandy landings that was pivotal in securing the free and prosperous nation we cherish still today.
[Translation]
We will remember them.
[English]
Women's Rights in Afghanistan
Mr. Speaker, Simin Barakzai is a former member of Parliament for Afghanistan, but when the Taliban took over, she was removed from office and came to Canada for safety. Her voice will not be silenced, and I would like to share a message that Simin would like us to hear.
She writes:
“Today, I write with a heavy heart, burdened by the unimaginable suffering endured by the women and girls of Afghanistan.
“Where dreams once blossomed and aspirations soared, the shadows of tyranny have cast a suffocating veil upon its courageous women and innocent girls. Their voices, once vibrant and filled with hope, have been silenced by a regime that seeks to strip them of their rights, dreams, and very essence.
“We are witnessing significant changes in Afghanistan, and it is our duty to pay attention and take appropriate actions. With Canada being a prominent leader in advocating for women's rights, I hope we continue to pursue these powerful goals and raise our voices for Afghanistan. The Afghan people need our support, and we cannot leave them alone in this struggle.”
Simin's bravery and determination to never stop fighting for the rights of Afghan women and girls is truly inspiring.
[Translation]
Normandy Landing
Mr. Speaker, Canadians landed on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day, June 6, 1944, and helped liberate Europe. The 3rd Canadian Infantry Division that was training in England was called upon to face Hitler's German divisions.
After France surrendered in June 1940, Canada, whose military forces were entirely composed of volunteers, became Great Britain's best ally. Risking their health, their personal ambitions and too often their lives, Canadian volunteers committed themselves body and soul. Worse than the tragedy of war, it would be a tragedy to forget their sacrifice, to forget their names and to forget to teach their values to our children. We will not forget our heroes from the Canadian units that landed on the beaches of Normandy 79 years ago.
I am especially thinking of the soldiers from my unit, the Régiment de la Chaudière, who fought proudly. On June 6, 1944, the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division lost 340 men, while 577 were injured and 47 were taken prisoner. If Canada is a free country that is able to defend human rights internationally, it is largely because of their sacrifice.
Aere perennius; let us remember.
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal-NDP costly coalition's out-of-control spending and sky-high taxes have made life unaffordable for Canadians. More Canadians are visiting the food bank than we have ever seen before, more seniors are choosing to delay their retirement just to make ends meet and more families are finding themselves on the brink of insolvency. By every objective measure, the Liberals' war on work is making life more expensive, with inflation and higher taxes resulting in expensive gas, heat and groceries, which leaves hard-working Canadians with less in their pockets every month.
With budget 2023, the Liberal government doubled down on these failed policies, adding over $40 billion to the national debt. Next year, Canadians will spend over $43 billion in interest payments alone.
Canada's Conservatives are demanding a plan to balance the budget and bring an end to inflationary deficits, and for the Liberals to axe the carbon tax. Only Conservatives will bring home powerful paycheques, lower prices and make Canada work for the people who work.
[Translation]
Club FADOQ de Saint-Rémi
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour today to mark the 50th anniversary of the Club FADOQ de Saint‑Rémi.
I would like to take this opportunity to give a shout-out to its president, Jacques Lavigueur, and all the members of the current board of directors.
I am blown away when I think about all the dedicated volunteers who have led this organization over the years to make it into the success we celebrate today. Throughout my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle, FADOQ clubs like the one in Saint‑Rémi, but also in Châteauguay and in Napierville, work actively for the benefit of their members. Let us think about these volunteers who step up year after year to enable thousands of members to participate in a wide range of fun activities.
I wish the Club FADOQ de Saint‑Rémi a happy 50th anniversary and many happy returns.
[English]
Anniversary of D-Day
Mr. Speaker, on June 6, we celebrate the courage of Canadians who took part in the Normandy landings with the goal to free Europe from the grips of an extremist right-wing regime. It has been 79 years since Canadian soldiers took part in the landing, where many soldiers gave their lives to build a more peaceful, just world. We must honour their fight and their sacrifice. They put everything on the line at Juno Beach so we could stand here today, freely, with all the privileges we have.
More than 20 years ago, I too stood on that beach and visited the cemetery at Beny-Sur-Mer. I walked among the graves of those who never came home, and it was something that I will never forget.
On behalf of the New Democrats, on the anniversary of D-Day, we commemorate the courage shown against such destructive forces, we thank the veterans and their families for their sacrifice and we vow to hold true to the values for which they fought: justice, equality and democracy. We will remember them.
[Translation]
Geoff Regan
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois and as dean of the House of Commons, I am pleased to recognize Geoff Regan, who served as the Speaker of the House from 2015 to 2019.
His portrait will now hang in the halls of Parliament as is the custom. He was the 36th Speaker of the House, but the first Speaker from Atlantic Canada in nearly a century.
Mr. Regan proudly represented the people of Halifax West from the time he was first elected in 1993 until he was elected for the eighth time in 2019. He served on both the opposition and government benches, and even served as the fisheries and oceans minister. However, it is for his role as Speaker that we are paying tribute to him today.
I had the honour to preside over the election where he was elected Speaker by his peers in 2015.
The Bloc Québécois will remember Mr. Regan as a Speaker who was fair and tough when dealing with the occasional, and sometimes not so occasional, turmoil in the House. He had the integrity, patience and expertise required to occupy that chair. That is how we will remember Speaker Geoff Regan.
[English]
The Budget
Mr. Speaker, Liberal inflation is crushing Canadians. One in five Canadians is skipping meals, and food bank usage is skyrocketing. What is the Liberal government's response? It is a massive $60-billion inflationary budget deficit and carbon tax 2.
We all know the sequel is way worse than the original. Carbon tax 2 will add 61¢ a litre in tax to gas, making everything more expensive. Even Liberals are shaking their heads, and not just random former Liberals this time. Former finance minister John Manley has said that Liberal spending is making it harder to control inflation, and things are getting worse. The Bank of Canada is now signalling another interest rate hike.
Canadians, do not lose hope. The Conservatives are going to fight this budget until the Liberals agree to a plan to balance the budget. If they do not, maybe it is time to give them the boot.
36th Speaker of the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the achievement of my predecessor and yours, the Hon. Geoff Regan. I first met Geoff in 1990 when I was articling and he was a practising lawyer. We stayed in touch and our paths have crossed often.
For 27 years, Geoff was an honest and dedicated representative for the people of Halifax West. He served in a number of parliamentary capacities, including as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and most recently as the 36th Speaker of the House of Commons. He gave so many years of his life to public service, which was made possible by the support of his wife Kelly, his kids Caitlin, Nicole and Harrison, and his extended personal and political family.
Today, Speaker Regan's official portrait will be unveiled during a ceremony on Parliament Hill, a wonderful testament to his legacy and contributions to our democracy. I am grateful for Geoff's years of hard work in serving the people of Halifax West, parliamentarians and all Canadians.
[Translation]
Congratulations, my friend.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[Translation]
Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, we learned today that David Johnston's report was not written by him alone, in other words, by a former family friend and member of the Trudeau Foundation. We learned that the assistant who wrote the report is a Liberal donor. On top of that, Mr. Johnston also hired Liberal and NDP consultants to help him with PR matters.
When will the Prime Minister finally put an end to this farce and launch a real public inquiry?
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party is continuing with his baseless attacks on the former governor general and his team. He says he wants real answers. All he has to do is accept the confidential, top secret briefing being offered to him by our security agencies so he can find out exactly what is happening with foreign interference.
He refuses to accept the briefing, however, because he prefers to remain in the dark so he can continue his baseless personal and partisan attacks.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Johnston was forced to remain behind a veil of ignorance. By his own admission today, he said that he was not aware of information that the former Conservative leader already knew about the government in Beijing spreading disinformation using state organs. This is on top of learning today that Mr. Johnston hired a lifelong Liberal donor who was at a fundraiser with the leader of the Liberal Party just two years ago.
In addition to other Liberal consultants and NDP strategists to do damage control, will we put an end to the act, fire this rapporteur and call a public inquiry now?
Mr. Speaker, let me read a quote on the former governor general:
I think we're dealing with a very credible individual, and I think that that distant history bears little relevance to the fact that he has a very distinguished career. If we're suggesting just because at some point in history he was appointed by a former Conservative prime minister that he should be disqualified from participating in public life, I think that is a little bit extreme. This is a very qualified individual, and frankly, I haven't heard anybody question his integrity, and I have no reason to do so.
That was the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, that is another reason it is so tragic that the Prime Minister has destroyed the reputation of this man. By putting a former member of the Trudeau Foundation in this terrible position and surrounding him with Liberal staffers, Liberal donors and Liberal lawyers, he has ruined perceived objectivity and caused a conflict of interest, one that he could reverse at any time.
Why will the Prime Minister not put an end to the charade and launch a full public inquiry now?
Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition formerly said, David Johnston is a man of integrity, and when I chose to appoint him to be an independent expert, I did not hold against him the fact that he had been appointed by Conservatives in the past. I knew that his judgment was top-notch, and that is what he has demonstrated every step of the way.
The judgment in question is the judgment of the Leader of the Opposition, who continues to refuse to get briefed on top secret matters that would allow him to understand what is actually going on with foreign interference, instead of making baseless personal attacks.
Housing
Mr. Speaker, it is no longer just me who is pointing out that deficits cause inflation. It is the former Liberal finance minister John Manley, who said the government is putting its foot on the inflationary gas while the Bank of Canada is slamming its foot on the brakes by raising interest rates on Canadians. There are literally hundreds of thousands of families that took on big mortgages when interest rates were artificially low that will face massive increases in their monthly payments when they come up for renewal if the rates do not go back down.
Will the Prime Minister balance the budget to bring down inflation and interest rates so that Canadians can keep their homes?
Mr. Speaker, in the name of austerity, the Conservative Party continues to filibuster and block our measures. They—
I am going to interrupt. We are starting to build up again. Yesterday was such a nice day, and I would like a repeat of it. Everyone can take a deep breath.
The right hon. Prime Minister can begin from the top, please.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party continues to focus on austerity and cuts rather than being there to help Canadians. It is blocking and using parliamentary games to hurt Canadians who need help right now.
He is busy blocking an anti-flipping tax for residential properties to help out homeowners. He is blocking the doubling of the tradespeople's tools deduction at a time when we know that we need our tradespeople to continue delivering new housing across the country. He is even blocking the enhanced Canada workers benefit.
His partisan games are hurting Canadians. When will he let the BIA pass?
[Translation]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, families are already dealing with austerity.
Speaking of cuts, parents are being forced to cut back on how much food they eat and on other needs for their family. What we are blocking is the $60‑billion inflationary deficit that is driving up the cost of living and the interest rates. Even the Minister of Finance admitted that deficits add fuel to the fire of inflation.
Will the Prime Minister finally listen to his own Minister of Finance and stop throwing that fuel on the fire of inflation for Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, that is more nonsense from the opposition leader.
He accuses us of imposing austerity and in the same breath accuses us of investing too much to help Canadians. Come on. The opposition leader is making no sense.
What he is doing is blocking measures that will help Canadians, such as the anti-flipping tax and the doubling of the tradespeople's tools deduction, and he is against the enhanced Canada workers benefit.
Just as he voted against dental care for children and blocked it, he also blocked help for low-income renters—
Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, the not very independent rapporteur has tabled a preliminary report that the Prime Minister is quite happy with.
In writing that report, he did not talk to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, he did not talk to Canada's election commissioner, he did not talk to anyone from the Chinese diaspora who has been targeted for intimidation, yet he decided, in his great wisdom, that an independent public inquiry was not necessary.
Who did David Johnston talk to?
Mr. Speaker, I know full well that the leader of the Bloc Québécois is eager for Mr. Johnston to go on a tour this summer to talk to communities, such as the Chinese communities that have been affected by foreign interference, and for him to continue his work.
Let us talk about wilful ignorance. That is exactly what the Bloc Québécois leader is choosing by refusing to accept top secret briefings on the content of the reports and the concerns of our intelligence agencies.
For him to choose to continue his baseless partisan attacks by refusing to accept the facts is not—
Mr. Speaker, when I refer to the Prime Minister's ignorance, I get chastised, but he gets away with it.
I believe the rapporteur, the Prime Minister's friend, spoke to the Trudeau Foundation. Things are easier among friends. I believe the rapporteur spoke to the Prime Minister. The question is whether he was in fact reporting to him.
As he explained this morning, his belief is that a commission of inquiry takes too long and costs too much. Keeping secrets is better; it is faster and cheaper.
Is Mr. Johnston's true mandate actually to sweep this Chinese interference business under the rug?
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois might need a little more credibility before he talks about keeping secrets.
He refuses to accept information that would enable him to get to the bottom of things regarding foreign interference. He refuses to allow our security and intelligence agencies to give him the information he needs to understand what is going on when it comes to foreign interference.
For him to choose ignorance over facts on an issue as serious as foreign interference shows that the members on that side of the House just do not get it.
[English]
Housing
Mr. Speaker, the cost of a house has exploded under the Prime Minister. If we look at the rising interest rates, they are making things even worse. Here is the situation in the city of Toronto: Someone earning $236,000 a year has to save for 25 years before they would have enough money for a down payment, according a CTV article. That is absurd. That is something very serious.
When will the Prime Minister take this seriously and start taking steps to deal with the housing problem?
Mr. Speaker, we know Canadians are struggling with the rising cost of housing, whether it is a young family looking to buy its first home or a student trying to rent an apartment near campus. That is why we are taking action on so many fronts.
We are helping Canadians save up for their first home. We are investing in building and repairing more homes, including supporting local governments to fast-track the creation of 100,000 new homes. We are providing support for low-income renters, and we are assuring housing is used as homes by curbing unfair practices that drive up prices, which includes bringing forward an anti-flipping tax. Unfortunately, Conservatives are choosing to block this for political games instead of delivering for Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition wants us to believe that he understands people, while he lives in a residence paid for by the state, and has a cook and a gardener. He is only here to protect the rich who are profiting from this crisis.
Rising interest rates are hurting ordinary Canadians. There is even a rumour that the Bank of Canada is going to raise interest rates again—
I am sorry to interrupt the member. I will ask him to repeat his question because there is a bit of noise in the chamber. I do not know where it is coming from. Folks are talking a bit loudly.
[English]
I am asking people to whisper if they are going to speak to each other. The noise is starting to creep up again, and I do not want it to get out of hand.
The hon. member for Burnaby South can begin from the top, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition wants us to believe that he understands Canadians, while he lives in a residence paid for by the state, and has a cook and a gardener. He is only here to protect the rich who are profiting from this crisis.
Rising interest rates are hurting ordinary Canadians. There is even a rumour that the Bank of Canada is going to raise interest rates again.
Does the government have a plan to limit the disastrous impact these rates will have on the majority of Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadians are having a hard time paying for their housing. That is why we are taking action on multiple levels. Our plan involves co-operating with the municipalities, particularly by investing $4 billion to speed up residential construction approvals, and by creating 100,000 new homes. It creates a link between infrastructure investment and housing. Our plan helps Canadians save up to buy their first home, offers assistance to low-income renters, a measure the Conservatives are voting against, and converts surplus federal lands to affordable housing.
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister admitted that deficits fuel inflation. It is hard to believe she even understands this concept, as her government piled on more debt on to Canadians than every government before it combined. This led to the highest bank interest rate hikes seen in a decade, and now 63% of Canadians' paycheques go toward monthly mortgage payments alone. After knowing all this, she still threw a $63-billion jerry can of fuel onto the inflationary fire she started with her failed budget, and now a mortgage crisis looms.
Can she tell us on what date she will stop her inflationary spending and balance the budget so interest rates can finally come down?
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite represents an Alberta constituency, and I am sure he and his constituents, like me, are proud of Alberta's Ukrainian-Canadian heritage.
I wonder if his constituents know that the Conservatives' blocking tactics are stopping measures in the BIA that would support Ukraine. They are preventing us from withdrawing most favoured nation trading status from Russia and Belarus. That is the practical consequence of the blocking, filibustering and partisan jockeying of the Conservatives.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents, like all Albertans, rejected the Liberal-NDP government and elected a strong Conservative government just last week. She can spare us her Disney+, Mickey Mouse lectures because not all Liberals are as incompetent as the government is. Former Liberal finance minister John Manley said that Liberal spending fuelled inflation. The former Liberal premier of Nova Scotia Stephen McNeil said that governments continuing to spend beyond its means would only increase inflation.
How come random Liberals understand the importance of balancing a budget and the incompetent Liberal government does not?
Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth ensuring that Canadians know the other vital measures that this partisan, posturing Conservative opposition is denying them. The Conservative filibuster is preventing Canadians from getting advance payments of the Canada workers benefit. They are blocking a crackdown on predatory lending. Who would oppose that? They are blocking the extension of seasonal EI.
Again, I would like to know if their MPs from Atlantic Canada are aware of that and support that outrageous, appalling action.
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister recently said, “What Canadians want right now is for inflation to come down and for interest rates to fall. And that is one of our primary goals in this year’s budget: not pour fuel on the fire of inflation”, but that is exactly what the Liberals did. Budget 2023 adds $60 billion of new spending. That is $4,200 for each Canadian family. That is higher cost, higher inflation, higher taxes.
When will they get their budget under control and control their out-of-control spending?
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about some facts. When COVID hit, Canada suffered the deepest recession since the Great Depression, but today unemployment is at 5%. Under Stephen Harper, the lowest unemployment got was 6%, a full percentage point higher than it is today. What else? Today, for women in their prime working years, the employment rate is more than 85%. Under Stephen Harper, the highest that ever got was 83%.
Our policies are getting Canadians back to work. That is what they need.
Mr. Speaker, after eight years, what their policies have done is doubled rent payments and mortgage payments for Canadians. Most young Canadians have even given up the hope of ever owning a home in Canada, and now Canadians are concerned that the Bank of Canada will have to raise interest rates again just to keep up with their inflationary spending.
Once again, when will they balance the budget and solve this inflation crisis?
Mr. Speaker, I understand why the Conservatives prefer rhetoric over facts, and the reason is that their policies led to such a lacklustre recovery from the 2008 recession, which was much more mild than the COVID recession. It took Canada, after 2008, 110 months to recover to the prerecessionary unemployment rate. After the COVID recession, it took just 24 months.
Things have been hard for Canadians, but thanks to our government's support, people are back at work. That is what matters the most.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, members will perhaps recall one of the most ridiculous statements made in the history of Canadian politics when the Prime Minister said that budgets balance themselves.
No one repeated it because it makes no sense. The problem is that, after eight years of Liberal governance, budgets have never balanced themselves. We have had deficit upon deficit.
I will share something. Last November, we thought we saw the light at the end of the tunnel when the Minister of Finance said that we should not throw fuel on the inflationary fire, meaning that spending must be controlled.
Why did she change her mind, with the disastrous results we are seeing today?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Louis‑Saint‑Laurent for his question.
I hope that the Canadians watching today will realize that the Conservative Party is delaying the adoption of a tax credit for clean electricity, a tax credit for the manufacture of clean technologies and a tax credit for clean hydrogen.
Do the Conservatives actually listen to Canadians once in a while?
We are building the economy of tomorrow and seizing generational opportunities, while the Conservative Party is preventing Canada from advancing the economy of the 21st century. That is shameful.
Mr. Speaker, what I find shameful and embarrassing for the Liberal Party is to watch the Minister of Industry prevent the Minister of Finance from answering a question that is 100% under her responsibility.
We can understand that there may be some bickering at play here, because both of them want to become Prime Minister. That is not going to happen any time soon. Maybe the Deputy Prime Minister has also realized that there is many a slip twixt cup and lip, especially when the cup is full of champagne these days. Champagne is expensive.
I have a clear question and I think the Minister of Finance wants to answer it. Things are looking up, she has a smile on her face.
Can the Minister of Finance explain with a straight face why she said that it was fuel on the inflationary fire—
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the economy, it is important to talk about the facts and not use partisan rhetoric. I want to remind Canadians that after the budget was tabled, S&P reaffirmed Canada's AAA credit rating. I also want to remind Canadians that Canada has the lowest deficit of all the G7 countries. Canada also has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of all the G7 countries. That is the—
Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, during this morning's committee meeting investigating Chinese interference, David Johnston explained why he believes a public inquiry had to be avoided. His reason? In his opinion, an inquiry would be expensive and time-consuming.
Does anyone know what else is expensive and time-consuming? That would be the three months of work in progress since February that we have spent calling for an independent public inquiry, which is supported by everyone except the Liberals and their special rapporteur. The Liberals' resistance to shedding light on this matter is the expensive waste of time. It is damaging public confidence. When can we expect an independent public inquiry?
Mr. Speaker, how unsurprising to hear that another of my ideas has been branded a waste of time. The Bloc Québécois leader refuses to receive reliable top secret information from our intelligence agencies. Furthermore, Mr. Johnston was invited to appear before a parliamentary committee, which he did, for more than three hours, during which he was asked no questions of substance on foreign interference, but simply grilled on his integrity. In our opinion, that is the real waste of time.
Mr. Speaker, what does Mr. Johnston recommend in lieu of the independent public inquiry that everyone is calling for? Mr. Johnston recommends himself. That is what he is offering us. Mr. Johnston is substituting himself for an inquiry, despite the fact that the House is asking him to step aside. He wants to hold his own hearings that will in no way be independent. David Johnston is the man who dismissed the idea of a public inquiry on the basis of information that he refuses to disclose. David Johnston wants to control what might be discussed in public at his own hearings. It may be less expensive, it may take less time, but it will be less clear.
Is there anyone who would claim that this is not smoke and mirrors?
Mr. Speaker, as everyone in the House knows, information from national security agencies must remain secret. Those circumstances exist in every one of Canada's allied countries in this important area.
The good news is that we have offered the leaders of the opposition parties, including the Bloc, access to this information and the opportunity to judge Mr. Johnston's findings for themselves. They simply prefer to play partisan games and attack Mr. Johnston instead of looking at the facts and fully understanding the reality of foreign interference.
Mr. Speaker, David Johnston has yet to answer what is actually a simple question, and the same goes for the government. If the federal government was able to hold a public and independent inquiry in the Maher Arar affair, which implicated the secret services of foreign countries, if the federal government was able to hold a public and independent inquiry into the Air India bombing, which implicated terrorist entities and foreign governments, why is it suddenly too complicated to hold one on Chinese interference right here in Canada against our democracy—
Mr. Speaker, if the Bloc Québécois really cared about what is going on in Quebec, if the Bloc Québécois really cared about what is worrying Quebeckers right now, it would be asking questions about the wildfires, because that is what is worrying Quebeckers. If the Bloc really cared and had asked a question about the fires, I would have told them that my colleague is in constant contact with the Quebec government. We have received specific requests to which we have responded promptly. We will always be there for Quebec.
[English]
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, to quote former Liberal Premier McNeil, “we would all benefit from all governments being able to manage their own budget a lot better.” Go figure. After the budget was released, inflation went up. After the carbon tax increase, inflation went up.
The Liberals must give Canadians a plan to end their deficits and bring down spending so that we can stop inflation and interest rates. They must cancel their carbon taxes that are hurting struggling Canadians the hardest. When are they going to do this?
Mr. Speaker, it is really appalling that the Conservatives continue to talk down the Canadian economy, but the reality is that Canada's AAA credit rating was reiterated after we tabled the budget.
The reality is that our economy grew by 3.1% in the first quarter of this year. We have the strongest recovery in the G7. When it comes to inflation, it has gone down from 8.1% last June to 4.4%. It is lower than the inflation in Germany, the U.S., the U.K., the OECD average, the EU average—
Mr. Speaker, what is appalling is that the government has done absolutely nothing to help struggling Canadians.
We know the Liberals already have one carbon tax in place that will add 41¢ a litre to the price of gas. Now they have carbon tax 2, the terrible sequel that will add another 17¢. Of course, on top of that, they have added the GST. When we add that all up, we have an extra 61¢ a litre that will cost people in Ontario $2,300 more.
The Liberals' plan has failed to do anything but make life more expensive. Therefore, why do they not finally scrap this carbon tax?
Mr. Speaker, what is appalling for Canadians who are watching at home today is that they realize the Conservatives are blocking the clean technology manufacturing tax credit, a clean electricity tax credit and a clean hydrogen tax credit.
At a time when the world is looking to build the economy of the 21st century, at a time when we need to fight for workers around our country, at a time when we need to position ourselves for the 21st century, the Conservatives' answer is delay, delay, delay. We need to act in the interest of the country.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, in February 2022, the finance minister said that deficits must be reduced and that this was a line that could not be crossed. We all know now that this was a broken promise. When the budget was introduced, inflation went up. When the carbon tax increased, inflation went up.
When will the Prime Minister commit to eliminating inflationary deficits, eliminating inflationary spending and cutting the carbon tax so that Canadians will have lower interest and lower inflation?
Mr. Speaker, as I said, Canada has the lowest deficit in the G7. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Our AAA credit rating was reaffirmed after we tabled the budget.
What is truly astonishing is that at a time when Alberta has been burning, when Quebec is burning, when Atlantic Canada is burning, when we are struggling to breath here in Ottawa, that party continues to resist climate action. That is a huge disservice to every single Canadian.
Mr. Speaker, we have the lowest growth out of all developed countries.
When the budget was released, inflation went up. When the carbon tax increased, inflation went up. Former Liberal finance minister, John Manley, said that these fiscal situations had to be managed otherwise taxpayers would run out of money. Well, the time has come, Canadians are out of money.
When will the Prime Minister commit to eliminating inflationary deficits, eliminating inflationary spending and cutting the carbon tax so that Canadians can have lower inflation and lower interest rates?
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said it quite well.
It is shocking, but I guess it is not, because the Conservatives continue to deny climate change. They continue to deny the fact that we need to act when right now, here in Ottawa, we are feeling the impacts of the forest fires. The Conservatives continue to put their heads literally in the sand and typically say, “Let us do nothing”.
We do not do that on this side of the House. We say that we need to act for today but also for future generations.
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, as wildfires rage destruction across the country, we are haemorrhaging the volunteer firefighters we need. There are 15,000 firefighter vacancies across Canada, and understandably so. Our volunteers, who make up 70% of our firefighting efforts, are not getting the recognition from the government that they deserve.
I have a private member's bill to support our volunteer firefighters by increasing their tax credit from $3,000 to $10,000. Will the Liberals finally show our volunteer firefighters the respect they deserve by increasing their tax exemption?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for his advocacy. Those volunteer firefighters in virtually every community across the country provide an extraordinary service. They deserve our support and we are committed to finding the best ways to continue to support them through training, equipment and other supports.
Canada Revenue Agency
Mr. Speaker, last Friday, I met with a group in New Hazelton that works with adults with developmental disabilities. They told me that about half their clients were receiving letters from the CRA clawing back CERB benefits.
The Liberals know full well that people living with disabilities are struggling to make ends meet, that they are twice as likely to be living in poverty, yet instead of helping them, they are harassing them with these CERB clawback letters.
Will the minister do the right thing, stand today and commit to ending the CERB clawback for people with disabilities?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I too am grateful for all the work that was done during the pandemic to help people get through such tough times.
As we have indicated, the Canada Revenue Agency is proceeding on a case-by-case basis. We invite people to contact the CRA and take the necessary steps. We are here to help people.
Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development members hear that NATO plays a key role in peacekeeping and security on both sides of the Atlantic. Canada is currently in charge of setting up the NATO climate change and security centre of excellence in Montreal.
With the smoke blanketing Canada right now, this is top of mind. Our government is focused on climate. In contrast, the Conservatives are impeding the debate on budget implementation.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain to us why our climate leadership and our support for the alliance are so important?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked an excellent question. I want to thank him for his work.
I just came back from the NATO meeting in Norway. We know that climate change has an impact on our health, but it also has an impact on our security. The situation is just going to keep getting worse over time.
It goes without saying that we need to understand the impact of climate change on defence in the North Atlantic region. That is why Canada is going to lead this new climate change centre. We will help our allies. We are pushing the Conservative Party to—
[English]
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, the carbon tax is fuelling food inflation as grocery prices are up another 10%, costing Canadian families another $1,000 a year just to put food on the table. Canada's Food Price Report predicts that food prices will go up a stunning 34% over the next two years.
That is not even the bad news. That does not include the implications of the Liberals' second carbon tax, a carbon tax that would add 61¢ a litre to the price of gas, which will increase the cost of food production and transportation.
How much more will Canadians have to pay to feed their families when the Liberals implement a second carbon tax?
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has risen in the House on a number of occasions to speak on behalf of farmers. In front of me, I have a press release from the Canola Council of Canada congratulating our government on the clean fuel regulations. It states, “We’re pleased to see the CFR provides options that would minimize regulatory burden and allow canola to be used to reduce GHG emissions through biofuel production.” It talks about the $2 billion of expanded canola processing capacity that our clean fuel regulations will provide to Canadian canola grocers.
The member and that party are saying no to all of these investments.
Mr. Speaker, here is the reality of the carbon tax on Canadian farmers. An average 5,000-acre farm would pay $150,000 a year in carbon taxes. Alberta ranchers who use gas co-ops are paying 60% more in federal carbon taxes than they are for the actual natural gas. Forty-four per cent of fruit and vegetable producers are selling at a loss. Food bank use is up a stunning 60%, with more than eight million Canadians using them every single month. This is before the knock-out blow of a second carbon tax.
Again, how much more will Canadians have to pay to feed their families when the Liberals implement a second carbon tax?
Mr. Speaker, what my colleague calls a typical farm is actually the 3% biggest farms in Canada. The projection he is talking about is based on a scenario where farmers would take absolutely no action, would adopt no good practices and would not use any new technologies to improve the agriculture to make it more resilient. This is what my colleague is referring to.
I know that farmers are very committed to reducing emissions to have more sustainable agriculture and to be more resilient in the case of all these extreme weather events.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the government is so out of touch. Many Canadian families are struggling to put food on the table. One in five Canadians are skipping meals, and the use of food banks in my riding has gone up by 30%.
The carbon tax is driving up the costs of farm production and groceries. Canadians cannot afford to pay the extra $1,065 being imposed by the government.
When will the government do away with the carbon tax so that families can once again become food self-sufficient?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the agricultural industry and the measures that we are putting in place to help that industry, like all industries, reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
I am looking at a news release from the Canadian Canola Growers Association commending the government for its clean-fuel regulation that will make it possible to invest $2 billion in Canada's canola farmers to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural and transportation industries.
What the Conservatives are doing is saying no to those investments and yes to more climate change.
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that my colleague opposite is not telling me that Quebec is not affected by the carbon tax, as he tends to do. I would still reply that, yes, Quebec is affected by the carbon tax.
The first carbon tax affects us directly when fruit and vegetables are imported from Ontario, for example. Transportation costs and other inputs play a big part in setting prices.
The second carbon tax also affects us directly, at a cost of $436 per family, as noted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Once again, when is the government going to scrap the carbon tax?
Mr. Speaker, we see a lot of our Conservative colleagues from Quebec being forced to defend the Leader of the Opposition's cruel macro-economic theories.
How does the Leader of the Opposition explain the cruelty of his comments when he says that global inflation was caused by low-income Canadians needing help from the Canadian government? How does he explain the cruelty of his advice to invest in Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies as a hedge against inflation, which would have led to people losing half of their savings? Finally, how does he explain to the member for Beauce the 600 households that he claims are not entitled to dental care assistance from the Canadian government?
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, oil giant BP has complained that it is being accused of oil exploration in the middle of a marine refuge in Newfoundland. It is a little frustrating for BP because, while the company does unfortunately have the right to look for oil, it does not have the right to exploit it.
According to CBC, however, the Minister of Natural Resources has told BP that if it discovers enough oil, the boundaries of the marine refuge could be redrawn.
Will the minister retract that comment immediately and confirm that the boundaries of a marine refuge will never be modified to drill for oil?
Mr. Speaker, when we first took office, only 1% of our waters and lands were protected. Now our goal is to protect 30% by 2030, and we are already at 14%. We are doing some good work.
We could also talk about what we did last week with the Atlantic accords. We presented a framework for wind power projects in Newfoundland. This is going to be very important for the economy and for the environment.
Mr. Speaker, we would not believe it if it were not coming from a government beholden to the oil companies. When BP Oil complains about not being able to drill for oil in a marine refuge, the government's response should be that they look elsewhere.
However, the Minister of Natural Resources said the opposite to BP. He said that if they found oil in a marine refuge, then, poof, it is no longer a marine refuge and the problem is solved.
When will this government stop fuelling climate change?
Mr. Speaker, first I will say that these are exploration permits and not production permits. That is important. In the case of a production permit, there is an environmental assessment process that oil companies must go through.
Second, we continue to protect our waters and our land. When we formed government, 1% were protected; we are now at 14% and we are aiming for 30% by 2030.
[English]
Finance
Mr. Speaker, what should we call a Liberal finance minister with an NDP credit card? We should call them inflationary. However, it is no joke. The Liberal spending spree is fuelling inflation and putting pressure on households right across the country. With all of their deficit spending, they are even making former Liberal finance ministers, such as John Manley and Bill Morneau, blush fire-engine red.
Speaking of fire, do the Liberals and their speNDP backers understand that their reckless spending is torching the economy, or do they simply want to burn it all down?
Mr. Speaker, right now, the forests of our country are burning. This is a desperately serious moment when we have had forest fires burning in Alberta, in Quebec and across Atlantic Canada. We breathe the smoke when we walk outside this very building. This is a moment for utter seriousness and for climate action.
However, in blocking our BIA, the Conservatives are blocking our clean energy plan, which will help create jobs and—
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are on the ropes, trying to pay this Liberal carbon tax. It raises gas prices by 41¢ a litre every single time they fill up. However, like a one-two punch, the Prime Minister is now forcing a second carbon tax on Canadians, adding another 17¢ to the cost of fuel. Canadians are already down for the count, having to take on extra jobs and turn to food banks just to get by.
Instead of sucker-punching Canadians, will the Liberals axe the carbon tax?
Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to read a weather alert on Environment Canada's website. A “special air quality statement” says that “smoke plumes from forest fires in Quebec and northeastern Ontario have resulted in deteriorated air quality.” Moreover, “High levels of air pollution [have developed] due to smog from forest fires”.
The air quality in our nation's capital is worse than it is in Mexico City, in Jakarta and in Kolkata. We have all this because of the forest fires. What is the response from the Conservative Party? Let us make pollution free again. It will not happen from this side of the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this government has been in office for eight years now and the only thing that it has done for the environment is impose a carbon tax. Clearly the plan is working. Just look at the wildfires burning outside.
To make matters worse, the Liberals want to add a second tax through the GST. They promised to plant two billion trees, but they are taking the quicker route by imposing a second tax with no results.
When will this government wake up, stop taking money out of Canadians' pockets, give them some breathing room and cancel this tax?
Mr. Speaker, I am always astonished when the Conservatives try to convince us that they are the party of common sense.
Let me refresh their memories. They deny climate change, revoke women's rights, take help away from families, give ridiculous advice on Bitcoin and dine with extreme right-wing politicians. I could go on like this all afternoon.
Is that really how the Conservatives show common sense? It is high time they started using their judgment because Canadians do not want that kind of common sense.
[English]
The Budget
Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect the House to be a place of debate and for political parties to disagree on issues. What they do not expect is for party leaders to delay and avoid these debates with parliamentary tricks and obstructionist tactics. That is why Canadians were appalled when the leader of the Conservatives bragged that he is intentionally delaying the budget implementation act—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I am trying to hear what the hon. member is saying, but there is noise, and I really cannot make it out. I want to hear what she has to say. She can start over, and I can see whether it is offensive or not.
The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect this House to be a place of debate and for political parties to disagree on issues. What they do not expect is for party leaders to delay and avoid these debates with parliamentary tricks and obstructionist tactics. That is why Canadians were appalled when the leader of the Conservatives bragged that he is intentionally delaying the budget implementation act.
Can the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance remind this House of the significant measures that the Conservatives are blocking with their immature games?
Mr. Speaker, for the Conservative leader to appear in front of the press and brag that his party is going to delay the debate on the BIA is the height of irresponsibility. The Conservative delays are holding up tax deductions and benefits for working Canadians. They are holding up protections for air passengers and, shamefully, they are holding up the codification of sanctions against Russia for its illegal war on Ukraine.
It is the height of irresponsibility, and it is shameful of the Conservatives.
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is out of touch, and Canadians are out of money. What is the Liberal solution? It is more tax and, in fact, a tax on a tax. The original carbon tax added 41¢ a litre on gas. This second carbon tax is going to add an additional 17¢ a litre on gasoline.
When we factor in carbon tax and GST, that is 61¢ a litre on gas. People who live in rural Alberta drive a lot. It is a fact of life; they travel to go to work, to medical appointments and to grocery stores.
My question is simply this: When will the Liberals do the right thing and axe the tax?
Mr. Speaker, it is out of touch to delay the implementation of clean technology, clean electricity and clean hydrogen while there are forest fires burning in my riding and her province. There are families being displaced in my riding today, and they cannot understand why anyone who has been elected would delay clean electricity, clean energy or clean hydrogen.
It is not only delaying; it is irresponsible, because our country is burning. It is incumbent on each and every one of us to act to make sure we save what is left.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are struggling with the costs of food and fuel. They are facing a cost of living crisis, but what is the Liberal government doing about it? It is adding a second carbon tax.
Canadians need a break, not a tax, and 61¢ a litre could mean the difference between buying food and paying the rent.
Why will the Liberal government not do the right thing, give Canadians a break and axe the tax?
Mr. Speaker, in fact, the government is doing the right thing. We are fighting climate change, and we are working to make life more affordable for Canadians. We understand that there is neither a future economy nor a future for Canadians if we do not tackle the climate emergency that we are facing.
We can actually all taste the smoke from the forest fires in this chamber right now. This is unprecedented.
While we fight climate change, we are also putting forward such things as the grocery rebate to help Canadian families with the high cost of food. We are also cutting child care fees in half, which is saving Canadian families thousands of dollars a month—
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, several years ago, a group of shady consultants gave fake admission letters to mostly Punjabi students who came here in good faith to study and be part of the Canadian family. They came here. They followed the law. They studied. Many of them completed their programs. It was the incompetent Liberal government that had accepted the letters in the first place.
Now, the government is kicking them out of the country and sending them home to poverty and bankruptcy for their families.
Why will the government not reverse its incompetence and show a little bit of common sense and compassion? Why will it not halt the deportation and allow those who came here in good faith and are contributing to our economy to apply for permanent residency?
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I will not take any lessons from the members of the official opposition on immigration cases. What I will say to the House, though, is this: We want to ensure that those who are not responsible for fraud will have an opportunity to demonstrate their situation and present evidence to support their case.
At the same time, the integrity of our immigration system remains of utmost importance. We are actively looking at these reports on a case-by-case basis, and we will make good on our commitment to helping international students.
Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, during Environment Week, I want to acknowledge Canada's progress since 2015. We are reducing emissions with our emissions reduction plan and getting to net-zero nationwide, while creating clean jobs. We are investing in net-zero emissions vehicles and eliminating harmful single-use plastics. We have accomplished a lot, but there is more to do.
Could the Minister of Environment and Climate Change tell the House more about our government's ongoing environmental efforts?
Mr. Speaker, we are, in fact, battling climate change, and we have the strongest economic growth of all the G7 countries. We have put in place measures that will create thousands of jobs in Canada, boosting Canada's economy for the coming years and for the coming decades. We are doing that while we reduce climate pollution by 50 million tonnes, the equivalent of removing 11 million vehicles from our roads.
We can fight climate change and we can have a strong economy, while supporting Canadians. Unfortunately, the Conservatives want to do none of these things.
Indigenous Affairs
Uqaqtittiji, before colonialism, Inuit, first nations and Métis had their own forms of policing. For decades, genocidal policies have been enforced by the RCMP and local law enforcement. First nations in northern Ontario undertook their own community policing. The current federal government is going against reconciliation by refusing to renegotiate new agreements. This leaves 30,000 indigenous people without local police forces.
When will the government provide funding to keep indigenous communities safe?
Mr. Speaker, this is a government that has made historic investments in first nations policing, over $860 million, which we are rolling out in communities right across the country. We know that the path to reconciliation lies in empowering first nations and Inuit communities right across the land so they can drive the solutions that will best protect their communities. That is precisely the work we are committed to doing, in trust and in respect, with first nations and Inuit communities right across the land.
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, it has been two years since the Afzaal family was targeted and brutally murdered in London. It is unthinkable that this could happen to a family in our city, but we have seen the amazing resilience that can counter white supremacy and Islamophobia. Communities are calling for the government to combat online hate and to support survivors of hate-motivated crimes.
Will the government commit to establishing a national support fund for victims of hate-motivated crimes and support the NDP's online algorithm transparency act to help the Afzaal family and countless others?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her advocacy for the Muslim community in London, Ontario. The issue of Islamophobia is one that affects Muslims around this country and, indeed, around the world. It is an issue we must all continue to work vigilantly on.
What I find very concerning is that today, a day when we are debating the budget, that very budget includes dedicated funds of over $50 million toward combatting racism and Islamophobia. Those are the types of initiatives all members of the House need to get behind.
Presence in Gallery
I wish to draw the attention of members to a presence in the gallery.
[Translation]
I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence of the Hon. Geoff Regan, the 36th Speaker of the House of Commons.
[English]
Speaker Regan is here today on the occasion of the unveiling of his official portrait.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago, the member for Calgary Skyview talked about Environment Week and Canadian success stories from around the world. The UN released a scientific report in 2023 on how countries are performing, and Canada ranks 58th—
Is there something written on the back of the member's papers? I am sorry, but that is not allowed. I just want to remind the member.
The hon. member can continue his intervention.
Mr. Speaker, the report concluded that Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries. I am sure that everyone will consent to this scientific document produced by the UN on Canada's performance respecting the environment being accepted and tabled in the House.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act
Bill C-35—Time Allocation Motion
That in relation to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and
That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and the five hours provided for the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.
[English]
I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the questions.
The hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha.
Mr. Speaker, I just got off the phone with a child care provider who was in extreme distress because she has been in this program now for 15 months and she does not see any light at the end of the tunnel. The reality is that parents are sounding alarms, and 50% of children are living in child care deserts. These agreements under Bill C-35 are provincial and territorial agreements that have already been signed; they are in the works.
We went to committee. We have tried to raise the alarm bells to ensure that every child is included and that parents do have choice. We see a rush by the Liberal-NDP government to push this through instead of making it right. They say they want to enshrine this for generations to come, so why would they time-allocate this so it is not being done properly? Is it not better to get it done right to ensure that all parents have choice? Right now, we have someone like Erin Cullen, who lives in Newfoundland and Labrador. She has no access to child care. Seventy per cent of those folks need access to child care facilities that are private. Why rush something, if they really care about all children and all parents?
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, I was here for the report stage debate and can attest that no new arguments came from the Conservatives during the six hours of debate, so I do not think we are rushing anything. Let us recall that the only thing the Conservatives were looking to amend was the short title of the bill, which actually does not propose any real amendment to the legislation. If the Conservatives do not have anything actual to propose, then I think it is fair, and Canadians would expect, that we move this important piece of legislation—
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister is not allowed to, even inaccurately, refer to the presence or absence of members. I do not think she was actually here for the whole debate, but regardless, she is not supposed to claim she was here, if I understand the rules around presence and absence.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan may want to revisit the rules. Members are allowed to refer to the absence or presence of themselves.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
I am just going to wait for this debate to subside, and then I will move on.
Members can refer to whether they are here or not, but they cannot refer to other members' being here or not.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
Mr. Speaker, I remember the 10 dismal, terrible years under the Harper regime, when there was no support at all for child care in this country.
It is time now for things to change for child care. The NDP has been a strong advocate for putting in place agreements that would actually allow parents, who are sometimes paying up to $2,000 a month, that relief. This is part of the NDP package that includes dental care, the grocery rebate and affordable housing. These are things that opposition parties should be working on. Tragically, we have seen the Conservatives block every single piece of legislation that would actually benefit people. While NDP members, the worker bees of Parliament, have been working hard to actually make sure the government does the right thing, Conservatives have blocked everything.
Would my colleague tell us why the Conservatives would block something as valuable as child care? It just does not make sense when we know the needs of parents and families right across this country.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's question is one that stumps all of us.
During the report stage debate, the Conservatives kept saying that they care about child care, yet they were doing everything they could to delay the advance of Bill C-35. We believe very strongly in making sure this legislation is in place.
As my hon. colleague was referring to, one of the very first things that former prime minister Harper did when he formed government in 2006 was rip up the child care agreements with provinces and territories. We hope that Bill C-35 would make it harder for a future Conservative government do just that. Conservatives would have to justify to Canadians why they do not actually believe in providing them affordable child care.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her intervention.
In the child care program, the government was kind enough to recognize Quebec's expertise and the fact that Quebec already has a good system. It gave Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation.
Is the government considering doing the same thing with its dental care plan?
Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that the substance of Bill C‑35 falls squarely within federal jurisdiction. It does not impose conditions on the provinces and territories. This bill is exclusively federal in scope.
We have an excellent relationship and an excellent agreement with Quebec. It is an asymmetrical agreement with the Province of Quebec recognizing its leadership on child care and early learning.
Since we are debating Bill C‑35, I will stop there.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I come from a rural area and hear from young moms and other moms all the time. We do not have child care spots available; that is just the reality in our rural areas.
Privatized child care spots are all that can be found, if people can find them in home day care. We do not have enough workers. There are not enough people going through programs in colleges to support the day cares that we do have. We cannot get after-school or before-school child care for hours for people who work shift work.
What would the member like to say to those moms in rural areas who just cannot find child care, when this bill would actually do nothing to help them find child care?
Mr. Speaker, I would say through you to the member and those moms that this is exactly why Bill C-35 exists. It is so typical of the Conservatives to say there is a problem, throw their hands up and do nothing. What Bill C-35 would do is commit the federal government to long-term funding to create additional spaces to make sure there is that access right across the country. In fact, included in the legislation is a comment specifically about rural child care. The member should talk to the provinces and territories, because they have really good access plans when it comes to increasing access to child care.
However, if it were not for this legislation and those agreements, none of those problems would be solved. We are working to do that.
Mr. Speaker, the minister really hit the nail on the head. Conservatives are complaining that they want to get this bill right and want to do all this work on it, yet the only amendment they brought forward was to change the short title. Let us think about that. They are satisfied with everything except the name of the bill, as if that has any significance to Canadians.
This is a bill and a program that has been adopted by every jurisdiction in the country, including those of all the Conservative premiers throughout the country. I wonder if the minister could comment on the success of getting a program together that has been bought into by the entire country.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kingston and the Islands is right. There is only one political party in this country that is opposed to it, and it is the federal Conservatives. Every provincial Conservative party has signed on to the early learning and child care agreement. It does raise the question as to what is wrong with the federal Conservatives that makes them not believe in affordable, accessible, high-quality, inclusive child care.
Even some of the provinces that were the last to sign on, provinces led by Conservatives—Alberta, New Brunswick and Ontario—have fully embraced the Canada-wide early learning and child care initiative and are doing an excellent job of rolling it out. It is not going to be built in one day, but they are doing a really significant job in terms of adding additional spaces, creating more affordability and ensuring high quality.
Mr. Speaker, I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate, a debate that feels like it is going to go on forever with the Conservatives' stalling tactics.
I certainly agree that we are in a child care desert. The Conservatives made note of the CCPA report time and time again. It was never about privatization of child care, however. It was about a worker shortage and the need to ensure that workers are provided with benefits, livable wages, retirement provisions and better working conditions, and the need to put forth a real workforce strategy in the child care field so that we have caregivers who can help deal with this crisis.
I am wondering if the minister can confirm whether or not her government is ready now to put forward a comprehensive workforce strategy that is funded and supported by the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her collaboration on Bill C-35. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with her on advancing this bill. We have had many conversations, and I share her deep commitment to ensuring that workers are fairly compensated and have the supports they need to thrive as child care workers.
Workforce supports are indeed part of each of the bilateral agreements and action plans. I will be meeting with my provincial and territorial counterparts this summer to come up with a more comprehensive workforce strategy.
Mr. Speaker, it is really frustrating to hear nonsense coming from the member for Kingston and the Islands, but that is nothing new.
He said that Conservatives only had one amendment; that is not true. In committee, there were a lot of Conservative amendments, a lot of very thoughtful, reasoned amendments that were brought forward to try to improve the bill. To then say that we are going to prevent any further debate on this bill because we do not like what the Liberals are bringing forward is frankly disrespectful to all parents who are struggling to find child care right now. That is so disrespectful.
I have heard from hundreds of families, parents, moms and dads who cannot even find a space. They need flexibility. They do not need Monday-to-Friday, Ottawa-knows-best child care. Frankly, the government has not been listening to them. I am asking not to have this time allocation and to listen to the families and allow some time for this flexibility.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on the birth of her second child and welcome her back to the House. It is great to see her here with her baby.
I would just like to set the record straight, though, because there is actually nothing in the legislation that would prevent flexibility. In fact, in her home province of Alberta, when it comes to auspice, there is a mix of for-profit and not-for-profit care in the growth plan. There are also some really creative ideas about after-hours care and irregular time schedules in her own home community to make sure that child care is available.
Despite what the member was saying and despite what the Conservatives are saying, there is nothing in the bill that would prevent that kind of innovative, flexible child care from advancing. Home care is included as well.
We want to make sure parents have choice across this country; they do not currently have it, because it is not available.
Mr. Speaker, I just went to the Boys and Girls Club in Parksville and met with the staff there. They shared with me that there are 45 kids on their wait-list and talked about the impact of child care and the agreement with British Columbia and Canada and how critical it is that we continue to move forward.
This is also well supported by the chambers of commerce and the business community in my riding. It is absolutely critical in helping to solve the labour market shortage. As cited by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, the biggest challenge is the workforce and to make sure there are early child care educators who are trained and will be able to be paid well and receive a living wage. That was absolutely essential. Of course, affordable housing came into the mix.
Is the minister going to come back with a comprehensive strategy on how she is going to resolve these differences? Absolutely, the situation is urgent in all the communities in my riding, and it is urgent that we move forward rapidly.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the NDP members as well as the Bloc Québécois members for their support, because we are going to be able to move forward with Bill C-35 despite the delay tactics of the Conservatives. For all of the reasons he mentioned, it is important to move this legislation through the House so that we can ensure Canadians have access to high-quality, affordable and inclusive child care.
When it comes to the workforce, British Columbia is doing some excellent work. It has instituted a $4-an-hour increase for all child care workers. It will be coming out with a wage grid soon. We are going to continue to work in partnership with British Columbia and in fact all provinces and territories to make sure the workforce is well compensated and well respected right across this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by applauding our colleague's leadership. I thank her for what she said about the connection with Quebec families who have reaped the very real benefits of affordable and accessible child care for almost 25 years now. I have certainly experienced it myself.
I would also like to mention the $6 billion allocated to the Government of Quebec to further improve the system, which is not perfect yet.
I would like her thoughts, as a young mother, on how investing in accessible and affordable child care can have a positive impact in terms of promoting gender equality, reducing poverty and ensuring the equitable, meaningful development of all children across the country.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague held my position before me and I know he is also a champion of child care and early childhood development centres.
This is an excellent question. We are seeing results already. Since November, more women have been active in Canada's workforce than ever before. Part of the reason is our early childhood and child care program. We are seeing an increase in women's economic empowerment.
I wonder why the Conservatives do not support economic empowerment, based on their track record over the past 25 years in Quebec.
We also know that early childhood is the most important stage of development in every person's life. This program, which is based on quality and inclusion, is critical to ensuring that current and future generations of children have greater opportunities than we did.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the hon. Minister of Families for her work, her non-partisan spirit, and the fact that from day to day, frankly, she inspires me, so she may be annoyed to find that I cannot vote for time allocation on Bill C-35, because we need to stop using time allocation in this place as if it is routine.
I protested it when it was done to us time and time again when the Conservatives were in power. In a majority government under former prime minister Stephen Harper, it was used abusively. I knew then that if it happens once, it keeps happening, so now it is being used abusively by the Liberals.
I know there are good reasons and serious provocation behind why the governing party wants to do this. I would say to my dear friends across the aisle that it does not help when the leader of the official opposition tells the Canadian media and the Canadian public that the Conservatives are going to use every sneaky trick they can to gum up the works.
The truth of the matter is that if this place used our rules, which would be that no one is allowed to read a written speech, or if every member in this place did not fill up all the time by forever giving speeches that are not always truly inspiring but definitely take up the time, we could make this place work better.
I appeal to all sides in this place to let good legislation like Bill C-35 move through this House properly without time allocation.
[Translation]
A gag order is not a good idea, regardless of the party in power.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, of course the affection for my hon. colleague is mutual. I also feel inspired and deeply respectful toward her as well.
I understand where she is coming from. I do not think this is something we want to do, but unfortunately the Conservatives have forced our hand in a way, because they are not letting good legislation through simply by the fact of being opposed to it.
As I said, there is not another political party across this country that is opposed to this child care legislation; it is only the federal Conservatives. Every single provincial Conservative party is for this legislation. In fact, most of them have signed bilateral agreements with us to move this measure forward.
Therefore, in many ways I share the regret of my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, but unfortunately the Conservatives have decided that they are going to gum up this place and are not going to let good legislation pass that will truly benefit Canadians. Honestly, I think that needs to reside within their conscience.
Mr. Speaker, how can Canadians trust a government that is quite happy to talk about an announcement and very unhappy or unwilling to talk about results?
We asked the government how many child care spaces in the communities have been created across Canada and how many families have access as a result of this legislation. It said that it is not tracking the data.
We do not know if the child care agreements with the provinces are leading to more spaces. In fact, in my community, there is not one space available for $10-a-day day care, yet the government said it has increased access to Canadians all across the country.
Will the Liberals commit to even just reporting on the progress they make, or are they just going to hide their heads in the sand and bury them with the failures as they always do?
Mr. Speaker, I find it very unfortunate that my hon. colleague is not basing his question on facts, because when I was at committee I was very clear that we have created 50,000 new spaces across the country.
In fact, we do have reporting in the legislation. The legislation requires the government to report on an annual basis as to the progress we have made. I can tell the hon. colleague that across this country there are now six provinces and territories that have already achieved $10 a day, and those remaining have reduced fees by 50%.
If the hon. colleague had taken the time to read the legislation, the action plans and the reports, he would have a question based in fact.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech. There is still one thing missing from Bill C-35, and I would like to hear her comments on that.
It should be pointed out that the early childhood centre model and the vision of offering education to children who are not yet of school age was implemented in Quebec. That is where the model comes from. That expertise is even recognized throughout the world.
Quebec's contribution was recognized in black and white in a previous bill. This bill, Bill C‑35, currently mentions a five-year period. What will happen after five years? Will the federal government start another dispute over Quebec's right to opt out with full compensation in recognition of its expertise? Why was this not included in black and white in this bill? For now, it is all right, but what will happen in five years' time?
Mr. Speaker, I think there are two things that need to be separated. There are the five-year agreements we signed, and there are laws, which have no expiration date.
The important thing is that this bill applies to the federal government. It does not apply to the provinces and territories, which have their own laws because that is their jurisdiction. The amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois to recognize Quebec's leadership were deemed inadmissible by the House of Commons, not by the government. They exceeded the scope of the bill.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I want to take a brief moment to thank the minister for her work establishing a new passport office in Prince George to serve northern B.C. It is something I pushed hard for and it is going to make a real difference for the 300,000 people who call that region home.
Moving to child care, the government's agreement with the Province of British Columbia is making a difference in the northwest. I know a lot of people are pleased to have access to lower cost child care. However, the big challenge we face is, as she well knows, recruitment and retention of new early childhood educators. These positions are not paid nearly enough for the role that they play in our society.
What role does she feel the federal government has in ensuring that these positions are compensated properly and that we are able to recruit good people into these important roles?
Mr. Speaker, I, too, was very pleased to see the opening of the Prince George passport office. There will be about 20 additional offices that will be providing passport services across the country over the coming months.
I do want to commend the leadership of the Government of British Columbia when it comes to workforce. It has some very innovative ideas when it comes to recruitment and retention. One of the things that they are leading the country on when it comes to recruitment is that they have created a new high school accreditation program for ECEs that is going to allow high school students to do their grade 11 and 12 combined with the college ECE program, so that once they graduate from high school, they can enter straight into the child care workforce. It is innovative ideas like these, which are happening through the funding that we have provided to the provinces and territories, that are really going to make a difference when it comes to recruitment and retention.
The federal government will continue to work in partnership with provinces and territories, to ensure that we address the challenges that we are facing within the child care sector.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, the legislation that we are going to be trying to get through the House, with or without Conservative support but I tend to think that it will probably be with, is the legislation that will genuinely impact so many Canadians. This is going to change not just the manner in which parents are able to care for their children, but it is going to change the way that our economy works. It is going to change the labour force participation.
I am wondering if the minister could comment specifically on the impact that this will have in so many more people getting into the labour market and what that will mean for our economy, as our economy continues to grow as a result.
Mr. Speaker, I am genuinely excited about this. This is a really exciting nation-building project that we are embarking on. All 13 provinces and territories have signed on. Are there challenges? Certainly.
Is this legislation working to fix them and to create a vision of access to early learning and child care across the country? Absolutely.
It is looking to grow our economy. We know that for every dollar invested in early learning and child care, we see $1.80 to $2.40 returned to the economy. We estimate that this will grow our GDP by up to 1.2%. That is significant. We see, with the example of Quebec over the last 25 years, what it means for female workforce participation. Quebec has the highest rate of women with children under the age of four working in the OECD.
We are looking forward to that across Canada. What does that mean for female economic autonomy? It means a huge amount. It means that women will have control over their finances. It means that as they age, I anticipate that we will also likely see a reduction in senior women's poverty.
These are huge opportunities for our country. I am glad that the NDP and the Bloc are supportive of this, that they are excited about it, and that the provinces and territories are excited about it. I would just hope that the Conservative Party of Canada would join me in that excitement and move this forward for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister may not have an answer to this question right off the top of her head, but I would ask that she come back to the House with an answer or send it to my office within one week.
How many new spots have been opened up in Northumberland County because of this program?
Mr. Speaker, I do not have the specific number for the member's county, but I could sent it to him today if he would like, with regard to what Ontario's plans are for opening new spaces for the county and municipality by municipality. This program has only been in place for just under two years, but let us remember that Ontario only signed just over a year ago. It was the last jurisdiction to get on board, but it has a really thoughtful expansion plan and it is working on rolling that out.
No one thinks that Rome was built in a day. It took time to do that and that is what we are doing. However, let us not take the Conservative approach of throwing up our hands, sitting down and doing nothing. Let us actually work together to build this, to build the system and to ensure that Canadians have access to child care that it is affordable, that it is high quality and is inclusive of our diverse children's needs.
Mr. Speaker, my daughter Julia has an eight-month-old daughter, Mirabel, my granddaughter. She put her daughter on the list for child care before she was born, and yet she still has no prospect of getting that child care. I was very proud to see Julia and Mirabel featured on the front page of the Vancouver Sun the other day in an article about how difficult it was to get child care.
Could the minister comment on the hopeful words she could give to my daughter about the prospects of getting child care and on what this bill would do for them and thousands of others across the country?
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague asked a very good question of the Conservatives during the report stage on what the amendment was that they had proposed, and they were unable to answer. I congratulate the member for that.
In response to the member's question, the agreement that we have signed with British Columbia commits British Columbia to creating 40,000 additional child care spaces. What I would say about this legislation in particular and why it is so important is that it would commit the federal government to funding, to child care and involvement in child care indefinitely, for the long term. Without this legislation, we could see, as we saw in the past in 2006, a Conservative government coming in, ripping up those agreements and leaving Canadian families in the dust. That is what they did almost 20 years ago.
The legislation says to the member's daughter and his granddaughter that the federal government believes in their access to child care. It believes that people have a right to affordable child care and that we are committing ourselves, as a federal government, as Canadians, to building this system so that they too can have access to that child care. They can pursue their career and their dreams and we will be there for them.
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 351)
YEAS
Members
AldagAlghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Battiste
Beech
Bendayan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Cannings
Casey
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Garrison
Gerretsen
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
O'Connell
O'Regan
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Singh
Sousa
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thompson
Trudeau
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi
Total: -- 173
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Berthold
Bérubé
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chabot
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
Desbiens
Desilets
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lemire
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Martel
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Michaud
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
O'Toole
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Perkins
Perron
Plamondon
Poilievre
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thériault
Therrien
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudel
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 147
PAIRED
Nil
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for you.
In an Order Paper question, Question No. 1270, I asked the Minister of Families and Social Development how many child care spaces were provided by the government's commitments. In response to that question, the minister said there was no answer. However, the minister today, in response to the same question, said she has the data. I am curious and want to give her an opportunity to clarify—
[Translation]
Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Speaker, my regards to you and to all our valiant colleagues who are here with us.
This is a debate at report stage on the budget, specifically Bill C‑47. It is the month of June. The Stanley Cup finals are going on. It is hot out, we still do not have a budget and we have a minority government. As we have seen all this week and today, there is a blockage in Parliament. Everything is delayed, everything is moving slowly. These blockages clearly have an impact on government policies, Quebeckers and Canadians.
In a minority government, we would expect the government to use methods that foster a consensus and the advancement of the work of Parliament. We would expect the government to propose a budget that we could agree on, one that could achieve a consensus, especially since there is great potential for blockage here on the part of the official opposition.
The Conservatives have many faults, including being against women's right to control their own bodies, being against environmental policies and being pro-oil, but they do have one good quality, and that is that they are predictable. We know that they will block everything.
We expected the government to have the foresight to propose a budget that we could work on. Instead, the government did exactly what it had promised it would never do. It is something the Harper government did time after time, namely present an omnibus bill, a colossal bill that is basically impossible to rework and that is almost designed to be delayed.
It almost seems like the government has no respect for the House and is looking for trouble. This bill amends 59 acts, in addition to the Income Tax Regulations. Anything and everything is in there. There is even a royal provision in the budget to recognize Charles III as sovereign. After all that, the government members are surprised that it is being blocked. They are surprised to see the Conservatives propose 900 amendments. They will say that everyone else is being unreasonable, when they are the ones who tabled an omnibus bill. They will ultimately invoke closure. The NDP will get into bed with the Liberals and support closure as usual. After that, they will accuse the other parties of picking fights.
As a responsible opposition party, all we ask is to debate and be able to do our work on each element of the budget bill.
For example, we wanted to be responsible and work intelligently on the royal provision. There is an appointment in the bill. Charles III is to be appointed head of state in a sovereign country. We thought we would do what we do for all appointments of all commissioners and officers of Parliament. We thought we would call His Majesty and have him come to committee. We wanted to give him a chance and see if he is competent to be head of state. There is no one more sporting than us. We are square dealers.
We therefore asked the clerk of the Standing Committee on Finance to contact Rideau Hall and ask them invite His Majesty. This is, after all, part of his kingdom. We were told that they do not have his phone number. We were surprised to see that the Governor General did not serve much purpose. Honestly, I was surprised. I did not expect that. Then we went back to the clerk to see if he could contact Buckingham Palace and ask them to have His Majesty come testify. An email was sent to Buckingham Palace. The response we received from Buckingham Palace was that His Majesty is a bit old-fashioned and only opens snail mail, so the invitation would have to be mailed to him. I do not know if mail addressed to His Majesty can be sent postage free. That should be checked. Nevertheless, he was supposed to be invited by mail.
How should we interpret that? First, we have a head of state who cannot open emails. Do we really need to invite him to committee to know that he cannot deliver results? Would we hire an ethics commissioner or a privacy commissioner who could not open emails? Maybe we should have sent him a homing pigeon. Government do not work that way.
We have to wonder. Does a refusal to come pay a short visit to parliamentarians not show contempt for Canada, its institutions and its Parliament? I see that as contempt.
I cannot believe that, in order to send an invitation to His Majesty, we have to send him a letter on papyrus and wait for the letter and his response to travel across the Atlantic Ocean. I thought it seemed obvious. Even His Majesty is embarrassed about the budget and ashamed to be associated with it. I think members can understand why. The reason is that the things that are most important to Quebeckers and Canadians have been left out of the budget. Even the King is embarrassed.
Take, for example, employment insurance. The government was supposed to have learned from the crisis. During the COVID-19 crisis, the government went from one temporary measure to another. That is because we have an EI system where 60% of people who lose their jobs are not eligible. It is not right that six out of 10 people are not eligible. What is more, women and young people are particularly affected because many of them hold non-standard jobs. They have a hard time qualifying. It also has more of an impact on those who are vulnerable because of the new realities of work, or what is referred to as the sharing economy, which is a way of artificially turning a salaried employee into a non-salaried employee so that they do not have access to all the benefits that a social safety net could provide.
The Liberals have been promising to reform EI since 2015. They promised not once, not twice, but three times. It was supposed to happen in August. Then we saw the actuarial forecasts in the budget. We realized that not only was a reform off the table, but they were going to pick $25 billion from the pockets of SMEs and workers through a payroll tax to pay off the EI fund deficit that built up during COVID‑19, even though all the other pandemic measures implemented were funded by the entire population.
That is why His Majesty is embarrassed to come. He no longer wants to have anything to do with the Liberals. It could be that His Majesty is embarrassed over the environmental policies. We are giving away $20 billion to $30 billion in dirty oil subsidies, allegedly for carbon capture, even though the problem is immediate.
The government tells us that the environment is important. On May 31, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change boasted to the New Economy Canada conference that there was a plan for transitioning to the green economy.
That same day, the Minister of Labour told an audience of business people, “Don't tell me a green energy future doesn't include oil and gas.”
What colour is oil? It is not the colour of the chairs here in the House of Commons. It is definitely not green. The environment is being completely neglected.
Here we have the government creating its much-touted green fund, the $16‑billion Canada growth fund. This fund will be managed by PSP Investments, a company that does not report to Parliament and will not be accountable. The only mandate it has ever had is financial performance. Through no fault of its own, this company has absolutely no expertise in this area. At the moment, it sees carbon capture as the green development model. That technology is not yet up and running, but we are being promised that it will exist in 30 years' time. However, the problem is here now. There is even talk of using small modular nuclear reactors to extract more oil by using less oil to export more. That is what PSP Investments is all about.
In the budget, there is nothing for seniors who dealt with the crisis and were hit hard by it. Even before the crisis, their purchasing power had declined.
There is nothing for our regions either, nor for discount regional flights. I am thinking about Abitibi, the Gaspé and the north shore. We know that for regional development, for economic development, we need regional flights. It is very important. There is absolutely nothing in the budget. It is always promises, promises.
The budget includes changes to the equalization system that deny Quebec of $400 million in short order. Let us talk about equalization. We are still in this mode where the Liberals are not meeting their commitments. That being said, they are doing some things. It is not all bad, but they are not getting results where it counts.
They will tell us that we should support this because the best is yet to come, but we know all about Liberal promises. We knew about them in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. We still know about those Liberal promises, but we no longer believe them. That is why we are going to do what King Charles III would do if we were in our shoes: We are going to vote against the budget.
Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, my colleague is an economist and has taught economics.
As recently as February of this year, the Minister of Finance said that higher deficits would add fuel to the fire of inflation. That statement from the finance minister is the exact opposite of what she proposed in the last budget.
Does my colleague think that makes sense? Does he believe that the government has failed in its duty to manage the country properly by adding fuel to the fire of inflation, with such high interest rates and skyrocketing inflation?
Mr. Speaker, what is happening is that the government has developed a habit of overspending given the flexibility that it has.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown that, to maintain its debt-to-GDP ratio, the government has roughly $40 billion in fiscal flexibility. However, the government has developed a bad habit of using its fiscal advantage to take over areas of provincial jurisdiction. We saw this in the case of child care and the infamous dental plan. The government has encroached on many areas of jurisdiction.
I believe my colleague will agree with me in part. I think the government could be more fiscally responsible if it took better care of its own areas of jurisdiction and let the provinces do their work as they should.
I think there is some confusion in Ottawa at the moment. All the Liberals want to do is stick their noses into just about everything, in order to win votes. It is highly unproductive.
I am sure my Conservative colleague will agree with my take on the situation.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the member for Mirabel, on his excellent speech. He gave us a very clear picture of the situation.
I agree with him completely on the fact that Charles III is not the only one embarrassed to support the Liberal budget, but also on the fact that contempt is being shown for democracy.
Here is my question for my colleague. I would like to know what he thinks about the fact that, since the NDP and the Liberal Party formed an alliance, 26 time allocation motions have been used to speed up debates. Commonly called a gag order, this practice is anti-democratic.
In the House, the NDP, this new party that calls itself democratic, is engaging in anti-democratic procedures. It is taking speaking time away from parliamentarians.
There is a limit to the boundaries of contempt for our institutions. There is a limit to the boundaries of contempt for democracy. There is a limit to the boundaries of contempt for the right to speak. In a democracy, we have the right to discuss bills and the budget, as we are now.
Mr. Speaker, I am not a New Democrat, thank God. I do not agree with the approach the New Democrats took when they decided to support the government no matter what.
I think they took their own risks, and at some point they will have to figure out when it stops being compromise and starts being a denial of who they are and what they believe in.
I think my colleague said it well. I can think of two examples, which I will briefly summarize.
The first is time allocation, gagging Parliament. It is very rare for opposition parties to support such a measure at all, let alone so often.
The second is the special rapporteur, David Johnston. Because of their agreement, they are conflicted. They go from one position on Monday to another on Tuesday and a third on Wednesday. It is obvious. As a result, they cannot do their job as an opposition party. It is becoming more and more obvious.
I am very glad I am not in their shoes.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Mirabel, for his comments, notwithstanding some of the little partisan digs he managed to fit in there.
Our goal is to make life better for Canadians. I am sure his goal is to make life better for Quebeckers in his riding. Does the member not see anything in this budget implementation act that would improve the lives of his constituents?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, what kind of a world is this when we state the facts and get accused of being partisan?
What would make life better for Quebeckers is if the government respected the Quebec National Assembly and respected the unanimous motions from the Quebec National Assembly.
The 125 elected members in Quebec City are standing up for policies in Quebec's own jurisdictions. It is not partisan when every party stands up. They are calling for the right to opt out of the dental care plan with full financial compensation. They are calling for health transfers.
The NDP supported agreements under which the provinces got only one out of six dollars they had asked for, and yet it boasts about wanting to take care of people.
Tell me who is partisan here.
Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Democratic Institutions; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Climate Change; the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, Housing.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to share my thoughts on budget 2023, which is at report stage.
This government, under this Prime Minister, who has turned out to be the biggest spender in history, has delivered a reckless, irresponsible and free-spending budget. It has upset the fiscal balance that Stephen Harper's Conservative government had managed to restore. Let us remember that in 2015, the Prime Minister, who was driving a backhoe, promised three small deficits before returning to a balanced budget in 2019. What happened? For eight years, this government has posted deficit after deficit, the biggest deficits ever seen in Canada.
In her fall economic statement in November, the Minister of Finance gave us a glimmer of hope. She said a small budget surplus would be recorded in 2027-28. I remind members that it is 2023. Just a few months later, in the budget we are now discussing, where is the return to a balanced budget? Poof. It has evaporated, it has flown away. It has disappeared into thin air. It has gone up in smoke.
I will give my colleagues some staggering figures that illustrate just how irresponsible this budget is and how spendthrift this government is. Since 2015, the national debt has risen from $650 billion to $1.3 trillion. It boggles the mind. Sadly, the Liberals have managed to double the debt in just eight years. If this Prime Minister were to be awarded a prize, it would be for the prime minister who has increased the debt by more than all the other Canadian prime ministers combined in 155 years.
We know that the Liberals will point out that there was a pandemic. We know that. However, our expectation was that this government would return to more sensible spending after the pandemic. It is incapable of that. The minister told us that hers was a prudent budget. On the contrary, this budget is written in very dark red ink, and we see no end to the deficits.
In 2008-09, the Harper government was forced to invest $60 billion to kickstart the economy after the 2008 crisis. We then managed to recover very quickly. Canada was the first of the G20 countries to recover from the economic downturn, which some compared to the 1930 crisis.
The minister told us that her budget was prudent; however, it is anything but. I am certain the government members will say we are too partisan. That is what they always say. However, I have a few quotes here from independent economic experts and commentators that confirm the opposite.
Gérald Fillion, from Radio-Canada, said the following:
So, where is the prudence and discipline that the Minister of Finance was talking about before publishing her budget? Even back in November, we knew that economic growth was going to be weak in 2023 and that interest rates had risen rapidly. Why add so much to deficits, debt and, consequently, public debt charges?
Public debt charges have doubled. They went from $24 billion to $48 billion. Imagine what we could do with $24 billion. My colleague mentioned health transfers earlier. This is money that was requested by all the Canadian provinces, but they were given virtually nothing.
Derek Holt, an economist with the Bank of Nova Scotia, said this:
Big spending, big deficits, big debt, high taxes, high inflation and bond market challenges are not the path to prosperity. [The Minister is] wrong to describe the budget as prudent, with overall program spending set to balloon to 51% above pre-pandemic levels by 2028.
Michel Girard, a leading economist with the Journal de Montréal, wrote an article with the headline “Ottawa is taking $102 billion more out of your pocket”. I will quote from the article:
$46.1 billion more in personal income tax
$35.4 billion more in corporate income tax
$14 billion more in GST
$2.8 billion more in other excise taxes and duties
With such a deluge of money into the federal coffers, one might have expected the Trudeau government to finally announce a return to balanced budgets.
The fact is, Canadian families are currently being heavily taxed by the government. This is to say nothing of the carbon tax and the second carbon tax that is right around the corner.
Michel Girard continues with the following:
Well, no. According to finance minister Chrystia Freeland's latest budget, the federal government will remain in the hole for the next five fiscal years.
This completely contradicts what the Minister of Finance had said a few months earlier. It is completely backwards.
Have the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance read or heard these words? I do not believe they have. They continue to spend lavishly and to propose inflationary policies.
This is very unfortunate because the biggest losers in all this are Canadians who work hard and are seeing the fruits of their labour slip away more and more each day.
I have a company with 30 employees and we had to make a major salary adjustment in the past few months because of the rising inflation and interest rates. I have employees whose mortgage payments have gone up by $700 a month. Wages have not kept pace with inflation.
Inflation is at his highest level in 40 years, and the impact on food prices is dramatic. Here are a few examples: The price of butter is more than $8; a loaf of bread costs $5.50, compared to $1.50 four years ago; a pound of bacon costs $10.
A family of four, meaning two parents and two children, will spend $1,065 more on groceries this year alone. That is a lot. It is way too much. It also does not help when we add to that the price of gas, which is hovering around $1.80. Obviously, there is transportation. The Liberals are always telling us that the carbon tax does not affect Quebec, which is completely false. The food that is sent to us from across the country travels between the provinces. Obviously, there is trade happening. All of the items that need to be transported are subject to all of these taxes, which are inevitably inflationary.
Some parents have to skip meals so they can feed their children. The use of food banks has skyrocketed. In Canada, 1.5 million people are using food banks every month. That is a source of daily stress for families, and yet nothing stops this government's out-of-control spending, which is driving up the cost of everything.
That is not even to mention the cost of housing. Since this Prime Minister took office, the cost of housing has doubled. Just last year, the price of houses increased by 21% in the Quebec City area. That is unbelievable. Successive interest rate hikes have doubled the average mortgage payment, which is up to almost $3,000 a month. It is the same thing for rental units. It is not unusual to see ads for one-bedroom apartments that are renting for $2,000 a month.
As a result, young families are abandoning their dream of owning a home. I have been an MP for eight and a half years and, for the first time, young people are coming up to me and saying exactly what we have been saying for months. They are asking me how they can one day become homeowners. No one had ever talked to me about that before, but now that is their reality.
The list of negative effects and wrongs caused by this government's policies is too long to fit into a 10-minute speech. I am not even talking about the other problems caused by this government, such as violence, which is constantly on the rise, or the inadequate services to citizens.
Just think about last year's passport crisis. I have never seen anything like it in my life. The number of federal employees has increased by nearly 70,000 over the last eight years and we have never had such bad service. This is truly poor organization from this government.
I am not going to touch on the other problems. I am not going to talk about foreign interference, about everything that is going on at the moment or about our colleagues who have been spied on, and even threatened in some cases, by Beijing.
Canadians deserve a lot more and a lot better. They deserve a government that puts them first, that thinks about their paycheques, their homes, their families and, most importantly, their future. They deserve a government that recognizes the hard work they put in every day and that is not always trying to squeeze more out of their paycheques. They need a government that will bring back some common sense. They need a Conservative government.
I really look forward to the day when we are back in government. We will simply stop spending, and we will still have plenty of money to deliver all the programs people need.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question that perhaps the member can answer.
Why do the Liberals and the NDP insist on imposing a carbon tax when it clearly is not working?
Emissions continue to rise, so why are they imposing this?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question.
The carbon tax was effectively put in place by the government to get people to change their behaviour. The people who pay this tax were to receive the equivalent amount in the form of a rebate. Obviously, that is not what is happening, because the math does not work.
Furthermore, the government has had environmental targets in place to reduce greenhouse gases for seven and a half years now, and none of those targets have been met, even with the carbon tax.
Now, they want to add carbon tax 2.0, and they want to add the GST on top of that. We are talking about 61¢ a litre. That is going to send the cost of every food item and product in Canada sky-high.